Senate
19 September 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1231

PETITIONS

Baltic States

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 30 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: whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United Stales of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 76 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: whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Baltic States

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 60 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: whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of

Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Baltic States

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 120 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:

Whilst the Australian Government is granting freedom and independence to Papua and New Guinea, the once free Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are occupied by the Soviet Union and their citizens are continuously and brutally deprived of personal, civil and religious freedoms. We humbly beg to draw the attention of the Senate to this fact and ask that the matter be raised in the United Nations by the Australian Government. The annexation and incorporation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union has not been recognised by any Western democracy, including Australia. We beg the Senate to continue such non-recognition and to disallow any steps by Australian Government which would amount to recognition of aggression.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Nationalised Transport System

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 16 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Federal National Parliament of Australia by Pensioners and the Public who do care to be presented to the House of Representatives (Lower House) and the House of the Senate (Upper House), to the Honourable Speaker of each House, we ask as members of the Public that:

A Nationalized Government and Private transport system be established. that Pensioners transport be made free within the Federation where the Government has constitutional powers, to make all Government and Private transport free within the Federation to Pensioners and all other underpriviledged members of the community.

Although the pension has been increased by $1.50 the high cost of living has effectively made this increase worthless, consequently the above actions are considered to require urgent National Government Action.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Economy: Proposals by the Premier of Queensland

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I present the following petition from 36 citizens of Queensland:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth:

That whereas dangerously accelerating inflation is placing unbearable strain and hardship upon the people of Australia, with consequent serious escalation of industrial strikes, chaos and hostility,

And whereas neither government economists nor the Federal Government can offer any certain early solution, but continue to propose policies known to have failed in the past- including the claim for centralised control of all wages and prices which has also failed overseas and which the Australian public has rejected decisively by national referendum,

And whereas the Senate is not only an independent House of Review elected democratically by the people with its own mandate to protect their heritage and constitutional rights, but is the States’ House by which all Australians in their own sovereign states formed long before Federation can bring together ideas and plans and resources for their mutual benefit and advancement,

So accordingly the recent carefully-reasoned proposals of the Premier of Queensland seeking the freezing of taxation, the elimination of sales tax and the reimplementation of consumer subsidies, warrant the most urgent and thorough examination of the Senate.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take all essential steps without delay to-

a ) Demonstrate to the Australian public that everything possible is genuinely being done to halt the grave damage being inflicted by inflation upon our economy, by immediately and openly debating the aforesaid proposals of the Premier of Queensland, and

Call for the widest possible publicity and discussion of these same proposals, especially in view of the surprising scarcity of reports about these in most of the mass media, having regard for the fact that the Premier of Queensland did certainly table such proposals at the official Premiers’ Conference lately, also that the practice of price or consumer subsidies worked most successfully and harmoniously between 1943 and 1948, and finally that such broad publicity is in complete accord with the present Federal Government’s stated claim of ‘Open Government’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1232

QUESTION

POWER INDUSTRY: THIRTY-FIVE HOUR WEEK

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I ask: Is the Minister for Labor and Immigration committed to a policy of endeavouring to alleviate unemployment, to restrain inflation and to restrain wage increases which would lead to higher costs? Is it a fact that currently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission there is a union claim for the institution of a 35-hour week in the power industry? Is it a fact that the Minister for Labor and Immigration has intervened in support of that claim before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? If the answer to all those questions is yes, why is the Minister intervening?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will not answer yes or no, as Senator Greenwood wants me to do. I will give some information that I have. The position, as the honourable senator knows because it has been stated previously in this chamber and in the other place by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, is that the Government and the Minister are committed to a policy of wage indexation. That proposal is presently before a study group which was set up as a result of the conference held by Mr Justice Moore. The Government hopes that there will be some progressive improvement and that the proposal will be adopted in order to avoid further inflation.

Turning to that part of the question which referred to the 35-hour week, it is a studied program of the Australian Labor Party that in respect of the power industry a proposal to introduce a 35-hour week would be supported where it can be demonstrated by the unions that no excessive overtime would arise from the adoption of such a reduction in working hours. Basically, that summarises the support of the Labor Party for that claim which has been presented to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It would seem to me that arising from that pro forma it is a matter for the Commission and the parties to argue whether in substance the claim by the unions that a shorter working week might be adopted should be tested. Basically, that is the test to be applied.

I might say that in relation to my own administration of the Post Office, there is currently a claim to extend to other employees the 363/4-hour working week which was granted to postmen. Again the claim will be tested to ascertain whether the shorter working week which has been applied to one class of employees might be extended to other classes of employees on the basis that no loss of productivity will arise and that no excessive overtime claims will be made. So that is the test. It is a matter for the tribunals concerned to assess whether the claim can be substantiated.

page 1232

QUESTION

CYPRUS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs advise the Senate of the latest situation in Cyprus? Will he give details as to what steps the Australian Government has taken to contribute to the restoration of peace in Cyprus and to the alleviation of the hardships suffered by the people of Cyprus as a result of this tragic conflict?

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

-The question is in 2 parts. It refers to the political situation and to the aid situation. At the moment it is a bit difficult to make an assessment of the situation, but the military cease-fire certainly appears to be holding. The Greek Cypriot leader, Mr Clerides, and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Denktash, have been having talks. The most hopeful sign is a report that they have agreed to release prisoners under the age of 18 years. This is always a hopeful sign. It is always one of the first steps to be taken. Of course, negotiations are continuing at the United Nations as well as in various capital cities throughout the world.

In regard to the question of aid, as Senator Mulvihill well knows there has been a lot of interest in this matter. Initially we have given $50,000 to an appeal launched by the International Red Cross. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is opening an appeal. We do not know all the details of it, but we are very interested in it. Of course, the peacekeeping force which has been operating in Cyprus for 10 years is continuing and we make a donation of $100,000 a year to that body. Also, the offer to Mr Kurt Waldheim to supply troops to the peace-keeping force still stands. Of course, if that comes about it will be a fairly costly operation. Because a lot of goods have been gathered in Australia we have had representations as to how to get those goods to Cyprus and what aid we can give. It is a difficult operation because of the tremendous cost involved. But I have asked the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, to look at the possibility of Qantas Airways Ltd lifting the goods where it has space available. I had hoped that by now I would have received a reply to that request. I should have a reply to it very shortly. When I receive it, I will let the honourable senator know.

page 1233

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Is it a fact, as reported in the ‘Canberra Times’ on Tuesday, 17 September, that about 400 workers at the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation in Melbourne will lose their jobs in the next 2 years? Is it also a fact that Australia was conspicious by its absence from this year’s international air show at Farnborough and as a result has lost an opportunity to gain a $15m order from a Pacific country wanting an aircraft with the capabilities of the Australian designed Nomad? Is the Government not interested in maintaining our defence factories in production now that less money is being spent on defence hardware?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-It is true that it is anticipated that there will be a rundown in employment at the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation works in Melbourne over the next 18 months. This will be due to the fact that there will be an expiring order list over that period. It is anticipated that the number of employees will fall by possibly a total of 400 or 500, taking into account the normal wastage which would occur. It is true that there has been declining activity at that establishment, especially in the airframe manufacturing sector. But it is anticipated that under the rationalisation program that is taking place generally within the aircraft manufacturing industry there will be a greater emphasis on the production of engines at that establishment. The Government Aircraft Factories hope to take up some of that employment, but to a large degree this will be dependent on whether the type of employee who will become redundant at the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation will be suitable for work at the Government Aircraft Factories.

As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, it is true that no aircraft of the Nomad type was on display at Farnborough this year. This was mainly due to the fact that the prototype aircraft was displayed at Farnborough 2 years ago and no further production model was available to send to Farnborough this year. There seemed to be little point in sending the same prototype aircraft as had already been displayed 2 years earlier. However, HawkerSiddeley Dynamics, the agents for the Corporation in the United Kingdom, did in fact display equipment manufactured by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation at Farnborough. I think it is fair to say that the products of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation were displayed adequately at Farnborough this year.

In respect of the alleged loss of sales to a particular country, I point out that the Government authorised the manufacture of 70 Nomad aircraft. There have been 37 sales made, with 7 other options on the aircraft. Several of those sales- in fact 12 of them- have been made to the Philippines, the country to which I think the honourable senator was referring in his question. The fact that the aircraft has competitors is to be expected in the general aviation field, but there has been no loss of sales to that country. Certainly we are competing with other manufacturers from other countries. But the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation by no means has lost further orders. We are still in that market. The agents are active to ensure that if there are further sales that can be made they will be made. This is a very difficult area.

The last part of the honourable senator’s question concerned the Government’s interest in defence expenditure. The fact remains that this Government still spends more of the gross national product on defence than do the great majority of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I think that is a fairly good indication of this Government’s genuine concern for the defence capability of this country.

page 1234

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: FUEL ENERGY AND POWER RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the AttorneyGeneral familiar with the provisions of the Western Australian Government’s proposed Fuel Energy and Power Resources Amendment Bill? Should the Court Government pass this Bill and at some future date invoke its fascist provisions could any action be taken by the Australian Government to protect the civil liberties of Western Australian citizens and the existence of parliamentary democracy in the State?

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

– I know that great concern has been expressed about the provisions of the legislation proposed in Western Australia. It may well be that it is within the constitutional competence of the Australian Parliament to take action in respect of some of the matters dealt with in that legislation. One hopes that legislation of the character referred to by the honourable senator will not spread throughout Australia. We have had enough of that in Queensland.

page 1234

QUESTION

FARM INCOME

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the

Minister for Agriculture whether he told the Australian Agricultural Council last month that farm income for the coming year was expected to be at historically high levels, appreciably higher than levels attained before the recent buoyant years. I ask the Minister how that statement can be reconciled with the prediction of a substantial decline in farm income which was contained in Statement No. 2 which accompanied the Budget speech on Tuesday night? Are we asked to believe that farm income will be historically high despite a substantial decline or is there a wide discrepancy between the estimates of the Minister’s Department and those of the Treasury?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The estimates which have been drawn up and which I indicated to the Australian Agricultural Council are based on calculations made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It is true that in some areas of rural industry we can expect a decline in income. Of our 4 major industries of wheat, meat, wool and sugar, certainly there will be a decline in the income from meat. Incomes from both wheat and sugar will show an increase. Income from wool will probably remain stable as a result of the Government’s decision to insert a floor price into the wool market. There is no justification for any concern about the overall income from agriculture this year. On the basis of information provided to me it will be as I stated in my speech to the Agricultural Council.

page 1234

QUESTION

ILLEGAL MILITARY TRAINING

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Attorney-General seen recent reports which allege that some right wing groups in Australia plan to train private military forces? Is there a legal prohibition on private military training in Australia? If so, is the Australian Government able to take appropriate action to ensure that the proposed illegal military training is effectively prohibited?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes, I have seen a number of reports in newspapers and magazines. I have also had a telegram from the distinguished Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Certain legal provisions can be invoked to deal with the kind of problem which has arisen. Section 27 of the Crimes Act provides for penalties where there is training, drilling or practise of military exercises in contravention of the directions of a proclamation by the GovernorGeneral. The Government is able to take action. Even before the publication of various reports the Government had this question under active investigation.

page 1234

QUESTION

TELEVISION TRANSMISSIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. It is a fact that the bearer facilities available to television stations between Sydney and Brisbane are totally unreliable and frequently interrupt the transmission of news and news comment? With the current emphasis on news and current affairs programs, when will this position be rectified?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have received an occasional complaint that from time to time there are difficulties encountered with the bearer facilities. However, the matter of rectification is one for my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral. Officers of my Department are having discussions with officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department about the matter.

page 1235

QUESTION

PAYMENT TO WHEAT GROWERS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen Press reports stating that Australian wheat farmers are collectively owed more than $718m or an average of $14,400 each? What are the reasons for this large debt? How long will growers have to wait for payment?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Yes, I have seen the report referred to by the honourable senator. Under the arrangements which are entered into between the Australian Wheat Board and the Government, wheat growers receive a first advance payment. So far this year the wheat growing industry has been paid a total amount of approximately $470m, which represents -

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– How much a bushel?

Senator WRIEDT:

– If Senator DrakeBrockman will just be patient, I will come to that. This amount represents an average payment of approximately $8,500 to wheat growers in Australia. That figure is made up basically of the first advance payment for the 1973-74 season, being a net amount of $1.02 per bushel on the first advance payment. The gross amount was $1.20 per bushel which represented an increased payment made by this Government when it came to office. This was the first increase in first advance payments made to wheat growers in 15 years.

It is true that there are still outstanding payments remaining. This is partly due to long term credit arrangements which were entered into by the Australian Wheat Board under the previous Government. I am not criticising them, but I am simply making that point as an explanation as to why some of these payments are still outstanding. In April of this year the Chairman of the Wheat Board, Mr Cass, expressed his hope that the second payment on the 1973-74 crop could be made in August of this year. There were industrial holdups in the shipping of our wheat and as a result of that the wheat could not be sold. Therefore, the cash could not be obtained. The Wheat Board approached the Government for authority to expedite payments from drawings on the Reserve Bank of Australia. We have agreed that under the new stabilisation legislation which will be coming forward shortly the

Wheat Board will have authority to borrow commercially in order to expedite these payments. We hope that this will overcome the problem. But I believe it should be said that if, as the Wheat Board hopes, the second payment can be made by October of this year, it will be the first time, if my information is correct, that a second payment has been made to the wheat industry so early.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It should have been made a long time ago.

Senator WRIEDT:

-If the honourable senator is able to say that now, I hope that he was saying the same thing when his Party was in government and he was a Minister. I hope that he will also be able to tell the Wheat Board where it is wrong. I am quite sure that the Wheat Board is doing all that it can to expedite those payments. The likelihood is that a second payment can be made in October.

page 1235

QUESTION

RED TELEPHONES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Following his statement that the Government is negotiating to buy the coin telephones known as red phones, can the Postmaster-General say whether negotiations are now complete and, if so, what price was paid? Will the Government convert these red phones so that emergency calls can be made without the use of coins, inability to do so having in the past caused so many problems?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator will appreciate that because the negotiations are proceeding- on, I am told, a satisfactory basis involving quite harmonious discussions- I could not reveal at this stage the cost of buying the assets of the 2 companies. The honourable senator will recall that in 1963 when the LiberalCountry Party coalition Government decided that it would make this arrangement with the 2 private companies, it was done on the basis that it was a sensible arrangement because it would conserve the resources of the Post Office. But it has been conclusively proved in the meantimethe Post Office has insisted upon this being considered by the Government and the Government has agreed- that it is properly the function of the Post Office and so the negotiations have now commenced. There are about 20,000 telephones involved. I understand that one company is almost ready to complete the arrangements and that the other company is favourably considering them.

In reply to the last part of the question about the triple-0 services, Senator Young asked this question on a number of occasions before I became Postmaster-General. It is certainly one of the objectives of the Post Office, having acquired the telephones, to attempt as quickly as possible to make those facilities available through the socalled red phones. Senator Durack asked me a number of questions about the matter in writing and I mention his name in connection with it. But perhaps I also ought to mention that the other advantage in taking over the red phones is that presently, as everybody knows, it costs about $lm to maintain our telephones in public places because they are often damaged by vandalism. The red phones are somewhat protected because they are in private places. I think that the move has been well received generally and I hope to be able to provide specific answers to Senator Young’s questions at a later stage.

page 1236

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There has been a report that Rhodesia is recruiting mercenaries in Australia for the Rhodesian Army. As we are committed to the United Nations resolution to give neither comfort nor support to the illegal Smith regime, will he investigate the truth of these reports?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-There was a Press report on this matter towards the end of last month and because of it we are taking action. We are investigating the allegations of the recruitment of mercenaries in Australia by members of the Southern Rhodesian army. The AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department, the Commonwealth Police and the Department of Defence are involved in the investigations. If the allegations are substantiated they will constitute a serious violation of United Nations sanctions. If such activities were carried out in Australia this was done, of course, without the knowledge or consent of the Australian Government. The United Nations Sanctions Committee has been informed that the Australian Government is closely investigating the allegations. In the event of the allegations being proved the Australian Government will consider the possibility of prosecutions.

page 1236

QUESTION

PACIFIC AREA TOURIST CONFERENCE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact, as alleged by the Director of Tourism in Tasmania, that the prospect of the large Pacific Area Tourist Association Conference being held in Tasmania in the near future, with an anticipated consequential increase of 25 per cent in Tasmania’s tourist trade, is jeopardised because the Government is refusing to grant visas to representatives of the tourist industry in Taiwan to attend the conference? If this is so, and in view of the Minister’s claim that he accepts the realities of the situation as justifying the Government’s recognition of the annexation of the Baltic States by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and as Taiwan has existed as a reality for more than 25 years, how can the Government justify this further attack on the interests of what must now be known as the beleaguered State of Tasmania?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– This is a very old question and I will deal with it specifically in a moment. The reality of the situation is that the Government of the island of Taiwan is not the Government of China. As the honourable senator will recall, the previous Australian government always maintained that the 15 million people of Taiwan were the governing body for the total number of nearly 800 million Chinese. This Government reversed that situation. It is quite impossible to recognise both Chinas. Even if any country wanted to do that, neither Taiwan nor the People’s Republic of China would accept it. The reality of the situation is that the Government of Taiwan is not the Government of China. In the early days I think I answered such questions every day for a few weeks. The arrangements are that people from Taiwan can come and go quite freely. But we will not allow officials claiming to represent the Government of Taiwan as the Government of China to take part in these negotiations. Therefore, we cannot permit the entry into Australia of persons from Taiwan representing the so-called state or Government of the Republic of China, or Taiwan. That is the situation.

Senator Rae:

– It is an incredibly shallow attitude.

Senator WILLESEE:

– If the honourable senator is finished I will answer the question. The Government has no objection in principle to the attendance at the Pacific Area Travel Association Conference of private persons representing private travel interests in Taiwan. It believes that they would provide the means for effective participation of the tourist industry in Taiwan. So Taiwan can be represented if it likes to send some private people. The Government would like the PATA Conference to be held in Australia but it does not consider that PATA requirements can override its policy of avoiding official recognition of the authorities in Taiwan.

page 1236

QUESTION

HOUSING OF ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I preface my question by reminding the Minister that 7 homes are being built for Aboriginal families at Laura in North Queensland to a totally unsuitable design for the tropics and are built on a site away from that chosen by the Aborigines. To make the case worse, the houses are built on sand and all homes will probably sink to floor level in the first wet season. As this constitutes a serious misuse of Australian Government funds will the Minister cause an immediate inquiry to be instituted to prevent the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs from misusing Australian Government funds in this way in the future?

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

– I apologise. I was not listening to the first part of the question. As it suggests that there has been some misuse of funds I think I ought to be exact on it and I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice.

page 1237

QUESTION

MR A J. GRASSBY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. To what position has the former Australian Labor Party member for Riverina in another place been appointed? What is the annual salary attached to the position? To what travelling and expense allowances is he entitled? Where is his office situated? What staff is attached to him? Briefly, what are the duties he is supposed to perform?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The former member for Riverina is now Special Consultant to the Australian Government on Community Relations. His salary is $25,000. He receives an allowance of $1,200 and a travelling allowance of $31 a day. These amounts are appropriate to the position which he holds. The office is in the Administrative Building in Canberra. Mr Grassby ‘s staff presently consists of three- an assistant, a stenographer-secretary and some other office assistant. His duties have already been outlined by Mr Whitlam on 7 July 1974. For the convenience of the Senate I will refer to them again. Mr Whitlam said that Mr Grassby would be appointed commissioner under the racial discrimination legislation when passed. In the meantime, Mr Grassby will act as adviser to the Australian Government on matters of community relations affecting migrants and other ethnic groups in Australia. He also informed the public that, as Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby had established a community relations committee which had gathered a great deal of evidence indicating that discrimination continued to exist in important areas of community administration and activity. The findings of the inquiry would be a useful basis for his work.

page 1237

QUESTION

REPATRIATION HOSPITALS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation: Now that persons other than eligible ex-servicemen may be admitted to repatriation hospitals, will facilities be extended to cater for accident and emergency treatment cases in these hospitals?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-As honourable senators would be aware, there has been a change recently in the administration of the repatriation hospitals insofar as some efforts are being made to enable people who are not recipients of repatriation benefits in the normal manner to make use of these hospitals. In particular in New South Wales, after some negotiations with the Health Commission of that State, an accident and emergency treatment centre has been established at the repatriation general hospital in Concord to handle casualty cases from an area which is yet to be defined in the western suburbs of Sydney. I think most people would agree that there may be occasions when it is necessary to have a nearby hospital available for the treatment of such emergencies. It is appropriate that a hospital such as the Concord hospital, with its first class facilities, should be available to people who are injured as a result of some accident which has occurred within the area. I think Senator Mulvihill asked a question along these lines during the previous sessional period. An additional facility is required at the Concord hospital and its construction has already started. It is hoped that the unit will be operating early in 1975.

As an example of similar activities that are being undertaken in other States by the Department of Repatriation and Compensation, proposals are now in hand to examine the desirability of establishing a similar unit at the repatriation general hospital at Greenslopes in Queensland. An agreement has been reached with the Premier of Queensland to establish a working party to inquire into the desirability and feasibility of establishing that unit.

page 1237

QUESTION

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in his dual position as Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. My question relates to the revelation in the June quarter national accounts that the annual inflation rate in home dwelling construction has been 30 per cent and, in public building construction, a disastrous 40 per cent. It relates also to the Budget assumption of a wage increase of 22.5 per cent next year and to the income tax harvest of 46 per cent.

I ask: Is it not a fact that in real terms the nominal sums in the Budget for urban renewal, schools and hospital construction and home buildings must be discounted on the basis of those revelations by more than 50 per cent to compare with the purchasing power and real construction potential of last year and by at least 70 per cent when contrasted with 1972? Is the Minister aware, for example, that the total Budget sum of $2 8m earmarked for hospital construction throughout Australia would not now be equivalent to the capital cost of onequarter of one new metropolitan public hospital? Finally, will the Minister provide the Senate with the comparative costs of a typical school, hospital and home dwelling for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974 and the projected costs for 1975, so that the real nature of the Budget may be understood?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– It is obvious that this question was asked for propaganda purposes rather than for information purposes. The fact is that since 1972 more hospitals have been built, more schools have been built and more houses have been built. To seek a comparison of costs in previous years and this year shows a complete lack of understanding of the building industry. Firstly, in relation to housing, what does a house consist of today? At one time a house consisted of 4 walls, a roof and a floor- on some occasions a dirt floor. Today, with built-in furniture, a house is partly furnished. The builders justify the big inceases in costs- we cannot deny that wage increases also cause an increase- on the basis of the additional facilities now involved in home construction. On no account can there be a comparison between newly constructed hospitals and those constructed previously because every new hospital has costly additional features that have been devised in the field of hospital architecture. There are special architects engaged in increasing the facilities and benefits. I do not think the comparison would be of any value.

page 1238

QUESTION

FILM ‘THE MAN FROM HONG KONG

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for the Media seen a report that a new feature film is to be made in Australia with a Chinese actor playing the lead role? Will this film, entitled ‘The Man From Hong Kong’, be predominantly Australian in content, or will it be a form of international co-production such as we have seen in the past? Will the Australian Government participate in the production of this film?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did see in one of this morning’s newspapers a report that a film entitled ‘The Man From Hong Kong’, which I understand is principally to be made in Sydney, and Central Australia generally, will be made at a cost of some $450,000. 1 think I read that a short sequence of the film will be shot in Hong Kong. The Australian Film Development Corporation has said that in its opinion it should be regarded as a predominantly Australian film and therefore has invested 25 per cent of the total cost of the film venture, along with a company called The Movie Co., a new Australian company which also has an investment of 25 per cent, and a company called Golden Harvest (Hong Kong) which apparently is putting up 50 per cent of the funds. Apart from the one Chinese leading man, I read that most if not all of the cast will be Australian. The script will be written by an Australian and the film will be produced and directed in Australia. I am assured that the international financial participation that is involved is on a 50-50 Australian-overseas basis. I can tell the honourable senator that Australia, under the initiatives taken by this Government, is becoming a very large feature film production country by general world standards. More films are now being produced in Australia than are being produced in the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that another film distribution company, namely the British Empire Films Company, has ventured into the field of financing a major feature film production in this country.

page 1238

QUESTION

TELEVISION AND BROADCAST LICENCE FEE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. A number of inquiries have been coming to me since the confirmation last Tuesday night that the Government will abolish broadcast and television licence fees. These inquiries have come from people who paid their licence fees in the days leading up to that announcement. Can the Postmaster-General say whether his Department intends refunding these fees? If so, what course of action should people take to ensure that they can claim these reimbursements?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-There will be no refunds of licence fees paid for any period commencing before 17 September 1974. But some people are prone, as with other commitments, to pay ahead. If their licence commenced after that date the refunds will be made promptly. The Department has records of those people and the refunds will be paid as speedily as possible. There is another matter which has also received notice and that is refunds to people who have purchased stamps. Those amounts will be refunded.

Senator Jessop:

– What should they do?

Senator BISHOP:

– To make sure that they are more speedily treated they might report to the Post Office authorities quickly, but I have asked the Department to get an inventory of those people as quickly as possible. I hope there will be no untoward delays.

page 1239

QUESTION

ABORIGINES IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. What steps have been taken to involve Aborigines in the administration of justice especially in the Northern Territory?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Aborigines are involved in the administration of justice, of course, in the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service which is administered by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh. But in my own area the following steps have been taken: Last year a Mr Brown was appointed as a special magistrate in the Australian Capital Territory and he acts in that capacity mainly in the Jervis Bay area. Yesterday I proposed to the Governor-General in Council the appointment of Mr Silas Ngulati Roberts as a special magistrate for the Northern Territory and the appointment was made. He is the first Aborigine to be appointed to that post. The Government is firmly committed to the involvement of Aborigines in the administration of justice. A scheme is being evolved in the Northern Territory for the training of police cadets of whom it is expected that Aborigines will be a prominent section, and also of police liaison assistants to act as interpreters and in other roles in the administration of justice.

page 1239

QUESTION

BALTIC MIGRANTS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Mininster for Foreign Affairs. Has there been a change in the rights of Australian citizens of Baltic origin in regard either to the carrying of their national flags in Australia or showing Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia as their country of birth when applying for Australian passports or visas to visit other countries?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I will obtain the information and let the honourable senator know.

page 1239

QUESTION

INDONESIAN FISHING VESSELS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has no doubt seen the many reports of the presence of Indonesian fishing vessels on and near the north-west coast of Australia. Several of these reports have suggested that drugs are being imported by the crews of these vessels. Can the Minister advise whether these suggestions are correct? What action is being taken to ensure that drugs are not being imported in this manner?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– In recent months officers of the Department of Customs and Excise have, with the assistance of the defence forces, carried out extensive land, sea and air patrols in the northern areas. During those patrols they have boarded and searched several Indonesian fishing vessels, but no evidence of narcotics or other contraband has been found.

Earlier this month, following a report in the West Australian Press that a deserted airstrip on the northwest coast of Australia was being used as a base for drug smuggling, a party of officers carried out a 3-day search of the area and coast. The officers had the assistance of Aboriginal guides from a nearby mission. Again no evidence was found that the area was being used by smugglers.

page 1239

QUESTION

RURAL TAXATION CONCESSIONS

Senator MAUNSELL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister will agree that many farmers and farm organisations are irate about the non-reintroduction in the Budget of taxation allowances for the cost of conserving water, soil and fodder. I ask the Minister whether he assured the Australian Farmers Federation that the concessions would be returned. If so, when is it proposed to implement these measures?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Consistent with so many of the deliberate distortions that are being disseminated at the present time in rural areas about Government policy, it is also now being said that I made a commitment that there would be in this Budget the restoration of taxation allowances for water, soil and fodder conservation. That is a complete falsification. I have always maintained that I would take the matter back to the Government for reconsideration. I have never said that the Government would reintroduce the concessions. I have noticed that I think Mr Sinclair was quoted in this morning’s Press as making the same accusation. Either Mr Sinclair is careless with the facts and does not do his homework properly, or he deliberately distorts statements which I make. I have little time for people who do that. I wish that I could express my feelings in stronger terms.

The 3 matters were considered by the Government. As the honourable senator knows, at the same time the Government agreed to establish a soil conservation authority which will be of far greater significance to agriculture in Australia in the years ahead, and the question of soil conservation will be referred to that incoming authority. The matter of fodder conservation has been deferred until the next Budget. The question of water conservation has been referred back to the authors of the Green Paper, in which, as the honourable senator will recall, reference was made to the question of water conservation, for the making of a further report to Cabinet.

page 1240

QUESTION

ABC PUBLIC AFFAIRS PROGRAMS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for the Media agree that Opposition senators have constantly criticised the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s public affairs programs as being one-sided. Has the Minister given assurances that it is the policy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to present balanced programs and that if one viewpoint is given on a program an opportunity is always offered for an opposing view to be given? Can the Minister say whether the same principle applies to private television and radio stations? Did the Minister see the program ‘Federal File’ on Sunday, 15 September, which clearly showed a decided antiGovernment bias and breached the principle of balanced program presentation? In the circumstances, will the Minister give consideration to insisting, when the annual review of television licences is under consideration by him, that it be a condition for the renewal of licences that all programs shown on private television stations be required to comply with the standards applied to the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator raised this matter with me the day before yesterday and I set out to obtain a transcript of the remarks made on the program Federal File’ last week. Indeed, that transcript hit my desk immediately prior to my coming into the chamber for question time, and I have not been able to study it. I will make it available to the honourable senator for his information. I have also sought from the producer of the program details of the number and the categories of people- parliamentarians, representatives of trade unions and industrial organisations- who have appeared on the program over the past few months. Certainly it is an objective of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which is an independent statutory Commission, to present balanced programs.

Senator Greenwood:

– But it never does, does it?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator always reckons the programs are not balanced if they ever contain anything that is against the Liberal Party. That has been his perennial cry, even when he was in government and represented the then PostmasterGeneral. The producer of the Federal File program, a Mr Stone, has advised me that the format of the program has been designed to offer a serious forum for significant political and industrial figures to inform the public of their policies and views. This attitude is adopted, according to Mr Stone, rather than having a debate type of program of the style of ‘A Current Affair’ or This Day Tonight’. I personally do not particularly like the format of the program, but I concede others might.

So far as the last part of the question is concerned, I have been seeking advice about conditions relating to licences. I think the tenor of the advice tendered to me at this stage by the Attorney-General’s Department is that under the existing Broadcasting and Television Act programming matters are the responsibility of the Australian broadcasting Control Board because that is set out as one of the statutory responsibilities of the Board under the Act.

page 1240

QUESTION

CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does he believe that the Government has adequately explained or that the public at the present time has the slightest awareness of the impact of the new capital gains tax introduced in the Budget? Does the Government acknowledge or understand that this tax will have an inhibiting effect on initiative both by individuals and by companies in the community? Will the Minister explain fairly to the public that this new tax will act as a new and vicious death duty? Will he have an explanatory statement produced so as to alert all Australian citizens to the incidence of the new tax?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I will refer the question to the Treasurer for a reply.

page 1240

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, relates to unemployment in the areas chosen by the Government for initial assistance. In Tasmania the 2 areas chosen are Launceston and Devonport. As the majority of the people concerned are from the textile industry and in consequence are female, what specific types of alternative employment are planned for the people in those areas?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I am reminded that, in addition to the 2 places to which Senator Bessell has referred, Hobart and Burnie have been put on the list of areas to receive assistance. The present position is, as the honourable senator is aware, that structural payments are being made to people who are being relocated. Currently an examination is being undertaken by a Cabinet committee, in collaboration with two of our Caucus committees, to ascertain precisely what action should be taken in situations such as that to which Senator Bessell has referred; that is, whether in addition to the schemes now in operation and the one proposed by the Minister for Labor and Immigration some more direct assistance might be given to people in industries which are affected. I am not able to give the honourable senator any details yet, but I hope that some such schemes will soon be formulated. If I am able to provide more detail after consulting my colleagues, I will give the honourable senator tba, information. But certainly when those schemes are more precise and positive I hope they will be announced as soon as possible.

page 1241

QUESTION

FAMINE IN INDIA

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of news reports this morning indicating that again parts of the Indian subcontinent face famine in the near future? Can he advise us of any assistance Australia is giving to alleviate this situation or to prevent it arising?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

- Senator Grimes has put his finger on probably the most continually worrying area in the world as far as aid, flood relief and that type of thing are concerned. Again India is getting its turn. In this year’s Budget we have allocated $40m as a fund from which to draw over the period. Of course it will not be limited to that amount as we do not know what is going to happen in the next 12 months. I do not think anybody in this chamber would regret it if we had to go above that amount. Already under our established food aid program 20,000 tonnes of wheat, valued at about $2. 5m, is going in aid. India will be very high on the list for aid from the $40m fund. I shall give honourable senators some idea of what the floods have done only in the last few weeks. To Bangladesh we sent a chartered aircraft to deliver 15 tonnes of skim milk powder, 1,000 rolls of plastic sheeting for temporary shelters and medicine worth $135,000. It was estimated at one stage that Bangladesh was 80 per cent under water.

We have already air freighted to India 12 tonnes of skim milk powder plus vitamin tablets valued at about $25,000. We have sent to Burma anti-cholera vaccine and antibiotics valued at $25,000. They were sent through the Australian Red Cross. To the Philippines we have sent a cash grant of $10,000. I comment that this aid has been supplied in collaboration with the governments concerned. Reading through that list the question strikes me: ‘Why would we be sending antibiotics to one place and not to another?’ The answer is that that is what those countries want. In fact, Bangladesh is a large producer of antibotics and similar goods. We give a country what it wants if we can possibly obtain it at the time.

page 1241

QUESTION

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the statement made this week by Mr John Pietersen, the National President of the Housing Industry Association, that a dangerously low level of housing construction exists resulting from the severely restricted financial policies of the Australian Government? Does the Minister agree with Mr Pietersen ‘s further criticism that the recent release of funds for housing will in no way sufficiently restore the position or arrest the virtual collapse of the private sector of the industry? What steps does this Government now propose to take to restore the home building rate to the real level of community need?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I refer the honourable senator to an answer given to a similar question by the Minister for Housing in another place this morning. The Minister indicated that last year’s building rate in housing construction was somewhere near a record. This was because last year the agencies built all that was possible with the manpower and materials available. It was because of the soaring costs and the shortage of materials that some restriction was placed upon building construction in order to obtain some rationalisation in future building. The position has now arisen where there is some easing. More manpower facilities are available and building materials are becoming more freely available at the present time. With the decline in multi-storey construction it is hoped to increase the building rate. The Minister and Cabinet have considered the question of assistance. Where the need is greatest to prevent unemployment from time to time money will be made available for housing construction. While we do not anticipate a great decline this year the need for housing has increased every year since Europeans came to Australia. Honourable senators will see the statement that some 922 houses are needed for Aborigines in New South Wales. The Minister has the position well in hand and will do what is possible to meet the housing needs of these people.

page 1242

QUESTION

OPTIONAL PREFERENCE VOTING

Senator SHEIL:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Minister confirm or deny that the Government is considering bringing in the system of optional preference voting? Would not the introduction of such a system further erode the credibility of the Prime Minister in view of his repeated statements this year that no amendments to voting procedure would be made during the term of his Government in this Parliament? I point out that the question is of importance as optional preference voting could be the first step in establishing first past the post elections, voluntary voting and the decay or our electoral systems.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I understand that some announcement has been made already about optional preference voting. There have been reports in the newspapers. I think I read something about the Opposition parties discussing it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Bill has been introduced in the other place.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am informed that the Bill is already in the other House. The honourable senator has no warrant to say, because one thing is done, that something else of an entirely different character will be done. He has no right to say that because we introduce optional preference voting- it is a preferential system- in some way that represents a step towards the abandonment of a preferential system of voting. I think that it would be better for the honourable senator to wait and see what happens and to try to assist the Government to get a system of voting which will be better than the system we all had to endure during the last election. I think that the honourable senator will have to agree that it is a very unsatisfactory system and that there is a general demand, not only in the Parliament but also from the public, for a reformation of the voting system. We cannot afford to go through all that nonsense again and have 73 people standing for election to the Senate in New South Wales alone, the conspicuous feature of this situation being that the overwhelming vote was for the Australian Labor Party.

page 1242

BEARER FACILITIES FOR TELEVISION STATIONS

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDEarlier this morning during question time Senator Guilfoyle asked me a question about the occasional breakdown of the stand-by bearer between Sydney and Brisbane. I have now obtained information additional to that which I gave Senator Guilfoyle in my answer. The Secretary of my Department has advised me that he has spoken to the Director of Posts and Telegraphs who has informed my Department that the problems involved with the Sydney-Brisbane bearer are being investigated. It is, of course, designed to be only a stand-by bearer, so the occurrence of interruptions to service must be understood to be a risk involved in its use. That is to say, it can be required to be used for other services if breakdowns in other communication links occur. However, as I said earlier, this is largely a question for my colleague, the Postmaster-General.

page 1242

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– Pursuant to section 35 (2) of the Prices Justification Act 1973-74 I present for the information of honourable senators the first annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal 1973-74. Because of the limited number of copies available at this time I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the use of honourable senators.

page 1242

LAW OF THE SEA

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the SeaSecond Session.

page 1242

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 28 (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1973 I present for the information of honourable senators the twenty-sixth annual report and financial statements of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with the report of the Auditor-General as to those statements.

page 1242

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honorable senators, I present the Department of Education report for 1973.

page 1243

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), for the information of honourable senators I present a report dated August 1974 by the Schools Commission entitled: ‘Supplementary Funds for Programs Administered by the Schools Commission’.

page 1243

NATIONAL YOUTH COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), I present for the information of honourable senators a report by the National Youth Council of Australia entitled: ‘The Recreational Priorities of Australian Young People’.

page 1243

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Western Australia · ALP

For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table of the Senate the report of the DirectorGeneral of Health on the activities of the Australian Department of Health for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1243

SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Western Australia · ALP

Pursuant to the provisions of the Social Services Act 1947-74, 1 present the report of the DirectorGeneral of Social Security on the administration of the Social Services Act and on other activities of the Department of Social Security for the financial year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 1243

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH COMMISSION

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Western Australia · ALP

For the information of honourable senators I present a report from the Hospitals and Health Commission entitled: ‘Continuing Medical Education’, dated August 1974.

page 1243

PRIMARY INDUSTRY REPORTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the following reports and papers:

  1. . Summary of Resolutions and Recommendations of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Australian Forestry Council held on 28 June 1974.
  2. Interim Statement of the Activities of the Australian Egg Board for the year ended 30 June 1 974.
  3. Interim Report of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 974.
  4. Interim Annual Report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 974.
  5. Interim Annual Report of the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 974.
  6. Pursuant to section 36 of the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963-1970, the Australian Canned Fruits Board Annual Report and Account 1973.
  7. Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962-1973, the Eleventh Annual Report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.
  8. Pursuant to section 28 (1) of the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924-1973, the Fiftieth Annual Report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1243

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970-1973 I present for the information of honourable senators the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Fourth Annual Report 1973-1974.

page 1243

THE NATIONAL ESTATE

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I present for the information of honourable senators the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate.

page 1243

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Interim Annual Report of the Director of Defence Service Homes for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1243

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS: REPORT ON ELECTRIC CARS

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled Electric Cars’.

page 1243

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is notice of motion No. 5, Business of the Senate, standing in the name of Senator Devitt relating to the disallowance of part of the Australian Capital Territory Motor Traffic Ordinance, formal or informal?

Senator Devitt:

– Not formal.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is notice of motion No. 6, Business of the Senate, standing in the name of Senator Devitt relating to the Australian Capital Territory City Area Leases Ordinance, formal or informal?

Senator Devitt:

– Not formal. I ask leave to make a statement and to move a motion relating to Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos. 2 to 6 standing in my name.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-The Regulations and Ordinances Committee has completed its inquiries into the matters which are the subject of notices of motion Nos 2 to 5, and the Committee has asked me to acquaint the Senate with the results of its deliberations in each case. Notice of motion No. 2 relates to an amendment of the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations. The 48th Report of the Committee recommended the disallowance of this amendment on the ground that it is not in accordance with the Public Service Act, and is not authorised by the Act, in that it provides for a payment to be made to a person other than an officer under the Act. The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) has indicated that the validity of the regulation is doubtful, and he has indicated that he will initiate an amendment of the Act so as to place the regulation beyond doubt. The Committee accepts this assurance.

Notice of motion No. 3 relates to the Australian Capital Territory Pyramid Selling Ordinance 1973. This Ordinance contained a provision to the effect that where a company is convicted of an offence against the Ordinance, each director of that company is deemed to be guilty of an offence unless he proves that he did not know of the offence or took all reasonable steps to prevent it. The Committee has objected to such provisions in the past, and has caused them to be amended so as to make the onus of proof placed upon the defendant less burdensome. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) has agreed to amend this Ordinance in the same way. The Committee has accepted this undertaking.

Notice of motion No. 4 relates to the Australian Capital Territory Seaweed Protection Ordinance 1974. This Ordinance provides that it is an offence to be in possession of seaweed in the Jervis Bay Territory, and a very heavy penalty is attached to that offence. The Committee accepted the contention of the Minister for the Capital Territory that the Ordinance is necessary to prevent the large-scale commercial harvesting of a special species of seaweed in the waters of the Territory. The Committee was concerned, however, that the Ordinance could apply to any person who casually picked up seaweed and thereby committed the offence of being in possession of seaweed. The Minister has given an undertaking that he will amend the ordinance so that it will apply only to the particular species of seaweed which it is desired to protect from commercial exploitation, and so as to make it clear that it is intended to apply only to large-scale harvesting for commercial purposes. The Committee accepted that undertaking.

Notice of motion No. 5 relates to the Australian Capital Territory Motor Traffic Ordinance 1974. This places restrictions upon the use of certain streets by heavy vehicles in’ the interests of safety and to prevent disturbance of residents, but provides that Government vehicles are exempt from those restrictions. While accepting that certain Government vehicles may need the exemption to provide particular services, it seemed improper to the Committee that a general exemption should be given to all Government vehicles. The Minister has given an assurance that all departments will issue instructions to ensure that there is no misuse of the exemption. The Committee accepted this assurance. In view of the undertakings given to the Committee in relation to these regulations and ordinances, I withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 2, 3, 4, and 5 standing in my name. Pursuant to the leave granted by the Senate, I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise purely formally because I think that on an occasion like this the matter which Senator Devitt has raised should not pass without some acknowledgment by the Senate of the work of the Committee of which he is Chairman. I have listened intently to the various explanations which Senator Devitt gave. It is quite clear that the work of the Committee is well recognised by the Ministers for whom the various suggestions have been made by the Committee. I think we all acknowledge- this has been part of the bipartisan activity of the Senate for a period of some 40 years- that this Committee has well maintained an oversight of the subordinate legislation of this Parliament.

I think it is fair to say that we in Opposition had our apprehensions as to what the work of the Committee might be after the change of Government took place. I think we draw great comfort from the fact that the work of this Committee in earlier days is being continued and would appear to be continued with the same vigilance as in the past. We compliment Senator Devitt and his Committee on the work which it has been doing. The work of the Committee is not to be measured and never has been measured by the number of occasions on which a resolution for the disallowance of a particular ordinance or regulation is carried by the Senate when a motion is put before it. The work of the Committee has really been assessed in terms of the respect which is accorded to it by Ministers and their departments and in terms of the authority which that Committee can maintain in ensuring that its recommendations are listened to and are put into effect. What Senator Devitt has said this morning indicates that, in respect of the 4 matters in respect of which notices of motion were given, assurances have been received from each of the Ministers that the work of the Committee will be recognised and that changes will be made. I think in this respect Senator Devitt has cause for great satisfaction. One can only regret that this aspect of the Senate’s work is not given wider publicity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1245

ELECTION CANDIDATES (PUBLIC SERVICE AND DEFENCE FORCE) BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to Members of the Public Service and the Defence Force who become Candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory and similar Bodies for other Territories, and for related purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

Honourable senators will be aware that elections are to be held during October 1974 for the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory. Nominations for this election close this month. This follows the recent passage of amendments to the Northern Territory (Administration) Act. The Northern Territory (Administration) Act provides that a person is not qualified to be a candidate for election as a member of the Legislative Assembly if, at the date of nomination, he is employed in the Australian Public Service. If no amendment is made to existing legislation, approximately 11,000 public servants in the

Northern Territory could be denied the incentive for or opportunity of standing for election. At present there is no specific provision enabling a public servant who resigns to contest an election in the Northern Territory to be re-appointed or re-employed in the Public Service if he fails to be elected. Members of the defence force are in the same position.

The purpose of the Bill is to enable officers or employees of the Australian Public Service and members of the defence force, who resign to contest elections for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, to be re-appointed or reemployed if they fail to gain election. Part II of the Bill extends the existing provisions of Section 47 C, which relates to permanent officers, and section 82 B, which relates to temporary employees, of the Public Service Act. A person who retired from the Public Service to contest an election for the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory may, if he fails to be elected, be reappointed or re-employed at his previous level. Provision is also made to enable the sections to be applied by regulation to elections for legislative or advisory bodies of other Territories. This will be used as necessary in the future. The amendments made to the Superannuation Act by Part III of the Bill will extend to these candidates the same superannuation rights and privileges as presently apply to Australian Government employees who resign to contest Federal or State elections.

Parts IV and V of the Bill relate to members of the defence force who resign to contest the elections. The amendments apply the provisions of the Defence (Parliamentary Candidates) Act and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act to those elections thus giving members of the defence force similar rights to public servants. In view of the nature and urgency of this Bill, and the fact that it will amend several Acts, it is hoped that honourable senators will not delay its passage to discuss other matters associated with the relevant Acts. I refer in particular to the removal of the oaths and affirmations requirements from the Public Service Act during 1973. I can assure honourable senators that opportunity will be given to them to debate that matter when another Bill to amend the Public Service Act is introduced later in this session. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1246

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to: .

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Service and Execution of Process Act 1 90 1 - 1 973.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1973 to express distances referred to in the Act in terms of kilometres rather than miles. The change arises of course out of the metric conversion program. Under section 5 of the Act every writ of summons to which an appearance is required to be entered by the party to whom it is addressed must contain a notice requiring that party to show on his appearance an address for service of documents within 5 miles of the office of the court out of which the summons is issued. Section 9 of the Act makes a similar requirement in respect of appearances entered by or on behalf of a defendant to a writ of summons served under the Act.

In accordance with the requirements of the metric conversion program it is necessary to remove these references to miles and insert appropriate distances expressed in kilometres. It has been decided to provide in sections 5 and 9 of the Act for distances of 10 kilometres in each case, this being a conveniently rounded figure. The amendments made by the Bill are, by clause 4, to apply to any writ of summons issued after the commencement of the Act and to any appearance entered after that time, including an appearance to a writ of summons issued before that commencement. The Act would of course commence on the 28th day after it receives the royal assent. As 10 kilometres is a slightly greater distance than 5 miles the change has the effect of allowing parties to summonses served and appearances entered under the Act a greater radius within which an address for service must be shown. I have given my colleagues the AttorneysGeneral of the States and the legal profession generally notice of the proposed amendment so that parties affected by the change may be aware of what is intended. The amendments set out in the Schedule to the Bill are of a purely formal nature, for the purpose of applying current drafting practices to the provisions of the principal Act. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1246

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

This will mean that at 3 p.m. the Senate will proceed to discuss General Business in the following order: Firstly, the notice of motion by Senator Bonner relating to the rights of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; secondly, the notice of motion by Senator Primmer for the Senate to take note of the Green Paper on rural policy in Australia; and, thirdly, the notice of motion by Senator Rae for the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. It is intended that the Senate will rise at 5 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1246

PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND PETROLEUM LEGISLATION

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received messages Nos 66 and 67 from the House of Representatives transmitting the Papua New Guinea Bill 1974 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 1 974 for concurrence by the Senate.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages the passage through the Senate of the Papua New Guinea Bill 1974 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of Bills together in Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills.

page 1246

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1974

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Standing orders suspended.

Bills (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND (New

South Wales-Minister for the Media) ( 12.10)- I move:

Mr President the purpose of these Bills is to give effect to a request by the Government of Papua New Guinea that the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly by given authority to legislate with respect to mining for petroleum and other minerals in the territorial sea and the contiental shelf within the adjacent areas of Papua New Guinea as denned in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. With the advent of self government in Papua New Guinea on 1 December 1973, authority over all functions of government passed to the control of Papua New Guinea with the exception of a small number of functions which were reserved to Australia- the most important of these being defence and foreign relations. Authority over the function of off-shore rnining passed to Papua New Guinea and Papua New Guinea had the right, consistently with self government, to legislate in regard to off-shore mining. As an interim measure, until the necessary legislation could be enacted, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is the designated authority in respect of the adjacent areas of Papua New Guinea, under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967-1973, delegated his authority to the Papua New Guinea Minister for Mines and Energy and certain Papua New Guinea Government officials.

The Australian Government agreed to permit Papua New Guinea to enact its own legislation subject to 2 conditions These are that- (I) it will not, prior to independence, introduce legislation purporting to regulate off-shore mining in areas beyond the outer limits of the continental shelf within the meaning of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf nor will it act inconsistently with any international convention relating to the Law of the Sea to which Australia is a party; (II) adequate safeguards as to the environment should be applied during the exploration stage, and if oil or gas should be discovered within the adjacent areas, it would consult with the Australian Government and seek the advice of an independent authority to ensure that commercial exploitation would not commence until the environment was adequately safeguarded. The Papua New Guinea Chief Minister has agreed to these 2 conditions. He has also indicated that the Papua New Guinea Government shares Australia ‘s concern to protect the environment.

Mr President, taking these Bills in turn, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill provides for the repeal from a date to be proclaimed of the provisions of the principal Act that extend to Papua New Guinea. This date will be the date of commencement of Papua New Guinea’s own off-shore legislation. Clause 4 amends section 7 of the principal Act by ceasing its extension to Papua New Guinea and clause 5 omits reference to the Australian Minister as the designated authority in respect of the adjacent areas of Papua New Guinea. Clause 6 repeals the section of the principal Act which deals with the payment of fees, royalties, etc., to Papua New Guinea and provides that any moneys received by Australia before the date of commencement of this Act are to be paid to Papua New Guinea. Clause 8 removes the description of the adjacent areas of Papua New Guinea from the Second Schedule to the principal Act.

The Papua New Guinea Bill puts beyond doubt the authority of the House of Assembly to legislate with regard to off-shore mining. Clause 3 of this Bill inserts a new section in the principal Act to clarify the authority of the House of Assembly to legislate in the off-shore area, as defined in the new section, and provides that such authority shall not be construed as limiting by implication any other power of the House of Assembly to make laws under the principal Act.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the fact that Papua New Guinea’s authority to legislate with regard to off-shore mining is confined to the territorial sea and the continental shelf within the adjacent areas of Papua New Guinea and that Papua New Guinea has agreed to conform to Australia’s international obligations in regard to the Law of the Sea Conventions. Although the function of Papua New Guinea’s foreign relations is reserved to Australia, the policy of the Australian Government has been to involve fully Papua New Guinea and to exercise that function only after the fullest consultation with and advice from the Papua New Guinea Government. Consistent with this policy Australia has encouraged Papua New Guinea to take its place in the international community and one example of Papua New Guinea’s increasing involvement in this community was its participation in the recent Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas.

Mr President, the Bills I am introducing are a further step in the devolution of authority to Papua New Guinea so that when Independence comes there will not be one aspect of government with which Papua New Guinea will not be familiar and experienced. I commend the Bills to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1248

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Mr President, the Treasurer (Mr Crean) referred in his Budget Speech to the Government’s decision to abolish broadcast listeners and television viewers’ licences. This Bill contains the necessary amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1973. This is an important decision which will place Australia with Canada as the only 2 major countries whose governments provide a national service without charging radio and television set owners an annual licence fee. It will free close to 3.S million Australians, including 500,000 pensioners, of any future hability for licence fees which range up to $26.50 per annum.

The Government believes that the national broadcasting and television service should not be regarded as resembling a business undertaking in which receipts are related to expenditure. The national service provides an information, educational, cultural and entertainment service to the community. The Government believes that all people should have equal access to such services and it is, therefore, proper for the costs of these services to be a charge on the community as a whole through taxation. Licence fees have been a means of requiring radio and television set owners to make a contribution towards expenditure on the national broadcasting and television service. The contribution has been substantial. When licence fees were increased in 1968 and 1971 by the Liberal-Country Party Government, the result was that about 75 per cent of expenditure was recovered through fees. This practice has resulted in annual fees of $26.50 for a combined broadcasting and television licence; $19 for a television licence; and $8 or $4.25 for a broadcasting licence, depending on the zone. If this practice had been followed today, a combined licence fee of at least $40 would be appropriate, an increase of about 50 per cent, with a fee of about $50 for colour television sets.

Not only have the licence fees been substantial, but they have represented a poll tax applied uniformly throughout the community. Its burden is, therefore, relatively heavier on lower income earners than on the more affluent. This regressive aspect is accentuated by the requirement of only one licence for all receivers in any one dwellingthe affluent are more likely to be multiple set owners. Paying for the service from taxation collections which reflect the capacity to pay principle is more equitable. The licence fee has also become a relatively expensive tax to collect. The cost of administering the scheme in 1973-74 was $3.4m, representing almost 5 per cent of the total licence revenue, compared with a cost equal to about 1 per cent for income tax. Payment for the national service through the taxation system rather than by a special tax is, therefore, much more efficient.

A considerable proportion of the expenses of administering the scheme was incurred in policing the licence provisions of the Act. Despite the active work of some 80 licence inspectors, evasion has been a substantial problem. It has been estimated that revenue of about $llm annually is lost through evasion, and of course evasions increase as fees rise. Last year, 23,000 people were prosecuted for not having licences. I wish to express appreciation of the staff of the Postmaster-General’s Department, past and present, who have been responsible for establisina operating and policing the licensing system. Often the unpopularity of licences has been taken out on them personally by licensees and non-licensees, but they have gone about their work with commendable efficiency and good grace. The existing staff, numbering 247, are being advised that there will be no retrenchments and that they will be placed in other areas as vacancies arise and after any necessary retraining in departmental time and at departmental expense.

There will be no refunds on current licences. However, in the case of licensees who have renewed, in advance, licences expiring after 17 September, a refund will be made as soon as practicable after this legislation is adopted. Any payments received subsequently for licences expiring after 1 7 September will also be returned to the payee. The abolition of the licensing system will cost the Government an estimated $50m in 1974-75 and $67m in a full year. This takes account of the saving in administrative costs. Refunds on unexpired portions of current licences would have cost the Government a further $30m in 1974-75 and made abolition too expensive to be contemplated. All licensees have escaped future payments and that should be a cause for considerable satisfaction. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1249

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain Parliamentary approval for a contribution by Australia of $A18.15m, or the equivalent of US$2 7m, to an Asian Development Fund recently established within the Asian Development Bank. As most honourable senators will be aware, the Asian Development Bank- or the ADB as it is colloquially called- is a regional development finance institution which was established in 1966, with its headquarters in Manila, for the purpose of lending funds, promoting investment and providing technical assistance to developing member countries with a view to generally fostering economic growth and co-operation in the Asian and Pacific regions.

Projects financed so far by the ADB cover all the major sectors of economic development. Thus, loans have been made to assist the development of infra-structure facilities in the electric power, transport and communications sectors as well as for agriculture, water supply and education projects. During 1973 the ADB financed 39 projects in 16 member countries with 54 loans totalling more than US$420m. Total lending by the ADB since it commenced operations about 8 years ago passed the US$1 billion mark in 1973. The lending activities of the ADB are divided into 2 major categories- ‘ordinary operations’ comprising loans made at near commercial rates of interest, and ‘special operations’ comprising loans made on concessional or ‘soft’ terms to the Bank’s poorer developing member countries. The Asian Development Fund is designed to serve as the primary source of finance for future concessional lending operations by the ADB. In the past, such concessional loans were financed almost entirely from a socalled multi-purpose special fund which was set up a few years ago and has utilised resources set aside for this purpose from the paid-in capital of the ADB as well as voluntary contributions which individual donor countries have made to the ADB on an ad hoc basis for this purpose.

The previous situation was not satisfactory because the ADB was unable to plan its future scale of operations with any degree of certainty that funds would continue to be available. In fact, contributions had dwindled to the extent that, in the absence of early steps to replenish special fund resources, concessional lending by the ADB seemed likely to grind to a halt.The current proposals involve the mobilisation of an initial amount of US$525m to be provided by contributions from developed member countries of the ADB. Specific amounts have been proposed for each developed member country. Australia’s share being US$2 7m, or roughly 5 per cent. These amounts are to be paid in the national currency of each member country up to the equivalent of the amounts in United States dollars specified in the attached table, which I ask leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard.

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-In view of the uncertainties surrounding the future structure of exchange rates in the international monetary system, it was decided that the number of national currency units to be contributed by each participating country should be fixed in terms of the exchange rates applying in November 1973. Individual contributions will be accepted by the ADB in 2 stages, although members may agree to make their contributions concurrently, if they wish. The first stage is designed to mobilise two-thirds of the above total, or $US350m, in contributions that would be generally untied- although provision has been made for the ADB to accept tied contributions in certain circumstances. Honourable senators will be interested to know that Australia does not intend to avail itself of this option. The second stage is designed to mobilise the balance of $US175m on a wholly untied basis.

In recognition of the need to achieve a broad degree of multilateral support for the fund, including the participation of all the major potential contributors, provision has been made for each of the 2 stages to become effective only when specified proportions of the respective targets for contributions have been reached. Stage one recently became effective and the Asian Development Fund is deemed to have been formally established. It is proposed that under the first stage Australia would commit $US18m to the ADB before 3 1 December 1974 and pay this amount over by 30 June 1975. Our contribution of $US9m under the second stage would be committed to the ADB on or before 30 June 1975 and be paid over by 31 December 1975. Australia has the option of paying the above contributions either in cash or by lodging nonnegotiable, non-interest-bearing promissory notes which will be encashed on demand as and when the funds are actually required by the ADB. In accordance with the practice Australia has adopted in the past with respect to similar contributions to both the ADB and the International Development Association, we propose to follow the second course. This will limit the impact of our contribution on the Budget for 1974-75 and also in the year thereafter. Implementation of the ADB’s proposals means that, in future, the funds required by the Bank for its concessional lending operations will be mobilised on an organised, multilateral basis and should be regularly replenished with uniform terms and conditions for all contributors.

Honourable senators will know that Australia has always been a strong and active supporter of the Asian Development Bank because of our concern to help raise the Jiving standards in nearby developing countries in the Asian and Pacific regions. Our subscription to the Bank’s capital stock- which currently amounts to $US256.4m, although only $US82m is actually payable- is the third largest at the present time. We have also contributed $US 13.7m to other ADB special funds in the past. I am confident that the new Asian Development Fund will constitute an efficient and effective way of channelling aid on concessional terms to developing countries in our part of the world. Since I firmly believe it to be in Australia ‘s national interests to continue to support the ADB by contributing $A18.15m, or the equivalent of $US27m, to this Fund over the next 18 months or so, I would commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The Asian Development Bank and the Asian Development Fund are institutions which have been established in the area in which we live and trade as a result of the initiative taken in 1966 by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. They have been characterised, since their inception, by warm and firm Australian support on a bipartisan basis, and that support continues. So, at this early stage in the parliamentary session one can pay some regard to the proposition put by the Minister in his opening words about passing this measure without delay. We propose to do that.

I make some comment on clause 3 of the Bill, which sets the rate based upon tUe rate of exchange between the Australian foliar and the United States dollar in November 1973. That, of course, is a matter for the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to determine in his wisdom. The Minister mentioned the uncertainty of the position. Knowing the wisdom of the Australian Treasury, I would think it would have made some arrangements within its own house for adjustment processes should any of these values change or be altered through time. That is really a matter for administrative process. It is noted by anybody who has studied this that our commitment is in the form of promissory notes to be drawn upon by the Fund as and when required. That seems to be a sensible way to proceed. We note with much pleasure that the current Government is supporting the Bank and the Fund. We think this is a good thing. We support the measure. I understand that Senator Davidson has a special interest in this matter. Accordingly, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1250

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- I have received a message acquainting the Senate that the House of Representatives has agreed to the Senate’s modifications to the resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives for the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System.

page 1251

ATOMIC ENERGY (PRESCRIBED SUBSTANCES) REGULATIONS

Motion to Disallow Regulations

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

That the Atomic Energy (Prescribed Substances) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1974 No. 39, and made under the Atomic Energy Act 1 953- 1 973 be disallowed.

The effect of these regulations is to prohibit the working of any prescribed substance or to prohibit the acquisition, production, treatment, possession, use or disposal of any such prescribed substance except in accordance with a licence issued by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). The prescribed substances under the regulations are broadly those from which uranium oxide may be extracted. In the course of this debate I will refer simply to the necessity to obtain a licence from the Minister before anybody anywhere in Australia, whether it be in a Territory or in a State, can work a mine or even do any exploratory work for uranium or acquire, produce, possess or dispose of ore bearing uranium. The Statutory Rules were promulgated on 29 March this year. They were tabled in the Senate shortly afterwards. The delay in bringing this matter on was occasioned by the dissolution of the Parliament. We are now approaching the expiration of the time in which the regulations may be disallowed and I believe this matter should be disposed of today or in the next day or so.

The power under which the Minister seeks to operate under these Statutory Rules is contained in the Atomic Energy Act 1953. It has been amended on a number of occasions since that year. The Act goes back to the immediate postwar years when Australia first passed an Act in similar terms in 1946 under the then Chifley Labor Government. The object of the Act and the wide powers given under it were, of course, at that time dictated very much by the strategic character of uranium as to its use in the production of atomic weapons and the great concern which was held at that time in respect of that subject. The Act itself was coloured by views as to the great strategic importance of uranium. So this matter goes back to 1946. In effect, the Act gives to the Commonwealth the property in uranium anywhere in Australia. This broadly means the same as in relation to control over all minerals in Australia, whereby the Crown is the owner of the minerals by and large, although there are some exceptions. This Act simply gives to the Crown, in right of the Commonwealth, the ownership of uranium.

The power that the Minister seeks to arrogate to himself under these regulations has never been sought before. He pointed out in the explanatory note which accompanied the regulations that there have been significant discoveries of uranium in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, in recent years and because of its economic and strategic importance the Government is concerned that the development of the uranium resources in Australia should be undertaken on a coherent and rational basis and with due regard to developments in the world market for uranium. As I said, the way in which the Minister purports to carry out that policy is simply to pass these regulations which say virtually that no one can touch uranium or do anything with it without a licence from the Minister for Minerals and Energy. For many years uranium mining has not been free of legal rules and restraints. Companies have explored for uranium and developed uranium mines. We are familiar with names such as Rum Jungle and Mary Kathleen. They are well known uranium mines that have existed in Australia. Rum Jungle has now been exhausted. But all the companies that have explored for, found and developed uranium mines have done so under well recognised, well known and well established mining laws under either the Mining Ordinance of the Northern Territory or State mining laws. We are not questioning in any way the proposition that there ought to be control over the right to mine and the way in which one mines uranium, or indeed any other mineral. Moreover, the Commonwealth Government has adequate powers in regard to the national interest as far as mining, including the mining of uranium, is concerned under its export control powers generally and under regulations that have been made under those powers. Those powers are quite adequate and they relate specifically to uranium in the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act to which I have referred. Of course that Act deals with many other matters and certainly includes provision to grant the Minister power to obtain or issue licences. It is interesting to note the reasons given by the Government for the introduction of this Act when it was first presented as a Bill in 1953. It was introduced by the Liberal Minister for Supply at the time, Mr Beale. He stated that the uranium deposits in Australia should be vigorously and promptly exploited for defence and industrial purposes. The Atomic Energy Commission had been set up to supervise generally the prospecting for and mining of uranium, and so forth. However, Mr Beale emphasised very clearly that the purpose of the Government in passing this legislation was to provide broad control only. His purpose was to encourage private enterprise to explore the mineral resources of the Northern Territory and, one might also add, the uranium mineral resources throughout Australia. Indeed, that had been done.

As a result of exploration for uranium over the years under titles which had been obtained under State and Northern Territory mining laws great reserves of uranium have been found. In fact, they have been found to such an extent that they represent probably 20 to 25 per cent of the world’s known uranium resources. Putting a figure on it, it is about 250,000 short tons but one should give or take some tens of thousands of tons. Great exploration work has been undertaken by private explorers and companies who have carried out this enterprise with initiative. It is pretty clear that there is vast potential in Australia for uranium reserves. In fact, with encouragement by the Government there could be a much greater increase in Australia’s known reserves and there would be if we had a government which encouraged and which did not inhibit- as seems to be the negative policy of the present Minister and the Government- the exploration for and development of uranium energy resources.

As I have said, the objective of the statutory rules to which we are objecting and the disallowance of which we are seeking is rather obscure. The reason given by the Government as to why it wants these powers is to plan a coherent and rational policy for the development of Australia’s uranium resources. But since the Labor Party has been in government and even now after 2 years in government the Minister has not indicated his policy or the Government’s policy in regard to any of these matters. We in Opposition are not seeking to take away proper government control and supervision of mining for uranium. I have emphasised that adequate laws already exist in the Northern Territory and in the States under which people and companies seeking to explore for and to develop uranium must obtain exploration licences and licences to develop mines. They can do so only in accordance with the laws governing mining development generally in the State or Territory. In addition, there are these overall powers which the Commonwealth Government has to ensure that it is able to carry out what are conceived to be national policies. So really one might well ask oneself why the Minister for Minerals and Energy is seeking to get a very wide power under these regulations. Under the regulations, despite the title one may have acquired under the State or Territory laws, now he will not be able to work a uranium mine or effectively carry out exploration with a licence. If one drills a hole and gets some substance containing uranium one will be in possession of it. If, in the Government’s eyes, one happens to be unlucky enough to obtain a successful drill hole and to be in possession of some uranium one will not be able to dispose of it without the licence of the Minister.

These regulations give vast power to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. He is able to come in and take over complete control not only of the development and working of the uranium mine but also the exploration for uranium. If the powers were held to be legally valid- we are not concerned with that here- they would override completely all existing rights and titles which have been acquired by persons or companies under State or Territory laws. That is the broad effect of the regulations. One may speculate as to why it is necessary and why the Minister believes he wants to have this power. It hardly seems to be necessary to provide a control on uranium because clearly the Government already has that control, as I have indicated. However, it may be of interest to note that the regulation was promulgated on 29 March of this year. That was at a time when the Government’s attempts to establish its Petroleum and Minerals Authority were clearly doomed to failure in the Senate. As we have frequently debated the powers the Government has obtained under that Act the Senate will remember them. It may be that at that time the Government thought that the Senate would not pass that legislation and that is why it was necessary to ressurect this old power which is contained in an Act which was first passed in 1946. At least that would give the Government some sort of powers in relation to uranium which, apparently, the Government would not have over minerals generally throughout Australia.

However, probably a more likely explanation is one which I consider even more sinister and serious. It is this: The Senate will remember that just prior to this time it became clear that Queensland Mines Ltd held a relatively small but very rich deposit of uranium in the Northern Territory on an Aboriginal reserve, in an area likely to be designated as a national park. Queensland Mines was prevented by the

Government from obtaining the right to mine because of the Government ‘s policy in relation to the protection of the rights of Aborigines. I do not want to get into any debate about that here. In fact, as we in the Opposition have already said in a policy which was recently issued by Mr Snedden, we fully accept the recommendations of the Woodward Committee in relation to Aboriginal rights and interests as far as mining is concerned. I am speaking now only in relation to what Mr Justice Woodward recommended in relation to mining.

The difficulty which the Government faced and still faces in relation to this policy regarding Queensland Mines is that long before the policy was established and long before the Woodward Committee was set up Queensland Mines obtained titles to explore for uranium which it found at Nabarlek. It had entered into contracts with overseas purchasers in relation to its uranium. The company was in a most embarrassing position. Of course, the Government was also in a rather embarrassing position as a result of the fact that at that stage the company could not mine the uranium and could not fulfil its contracts. So the Government conceived the idea that the way out of this problem for the Government I suppose it was not such a good way out for the company- was to give Queensland Mines Ltd access to other deposits of uranium which were the subject of exploration by other companies under other titles and rights to explore. As a result of their exploration initiative and great expenditure of money, those companies had found other deposits of uranium.

The company that was to be the bunny in this exercise was Peko-Wallsend EZ which had found large deposits of uranium at a place known as Ranger in the Northern Territory. The Government decided that the way out of the dilemma in which it was placed was to give Queensland Mines access to the deposits at Ranger. These deposits were discovered by the Peko-Wallsend company and one would expect that that company enjoyed the right to mine them. Mr Whitlam actually wrote to Queensland Mines and indicated that this would be a way out. He stated that the Commonwealth felt that it would authorise the access to uranium desposits owned by the Commonwealth. In that respect, it was relying on the general ownership power contained in the Atomic Energy Act to which I have referred. He mentioned specifically that he had in mind that Queensland Mines would be given access to the Ranger deposits. That letter to the chairman of Queensland Mines was written by the Prime Minister on 27 March. This regulation was promulgated on 29 March. So I think that probably the genesis of the regulation was to overcome this dilemma in which the Government found itself.

The Government is now trying to dress up its action. I suppose we could dignify its action by describing it as some sort of Robin Hood exercise, but I would think it was more of a bush ranger exercise. It is now trying to dress up its action in these grandiose terms by stating that the purpose of this regulation is to have a coherent and rational plan for Australia’s national resources, in this instance its reserves of uranium. What could be more likely to inhibit any search for uranium? What would be more likely to inhibit any sort of mining exploration or any attempt to find new sources of fuel and energy which we so desperately need for this nation? What is more likely to inhibit this search than taking away from the finder the fruits of his enterprise, initiative and his large capital expenditure?

The Peko-Wallsend company has spent over $4m on exploration in this Ranger area. It has found a very large deposit- approximately 100,000 short tons of uranium ore. Perhaps it is not of the highest grade, but it is a very economic deposit of uranium ore. I was up there recently and it is very clear that there is a great uranium deposit in that area. This includes not just the deposit that has been proven at Jabiru by PekoWallsend. There are other large deposits nearby which have been found by Pancontinental Mining Ltd, and I noticed only today it has doubled the size of its estimated reserves from 24,000 short tons to something like 50,000 short tons. There are other significant deposits of uranium in and about this area. It is quite clear that a great uranium province has been discovered there.

But this uranium has been discovered only because of the incentive which had been given to exploration by the Liberal-Country Party coalition government over the years it was in office, together with the assurance that if a company did take the risks and spent millions of dollars on this enterprise, such a company would then receive a title to mine and develop the fruits of its exploration and initiative. What could be more inimical to this being achieved in Australia than the type of activity and attitude of this Government which I have just indicated? In addition to that, we have the fact that Mr Connor, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, and the Government generally do not indicate to the mining world or even to the Parliament or the nation what the Government’s mining policy is or what its fuel and energy policy is. We have been waiting for nearly 2 years now to have such a policy unfolded. The Government is still silent. I hope that when the Minister replies today he will indicate, though I doubt that he will be able to do so, that this Government has a policy in relation to the exploration for minerals and attempts to increase our known energy reserves and in particular, of course, our reserves of uranium with which we are concerned in this debate.

This is a matter of desperate urgency in relation to energy resources generally. We see here an attitude by the Government that a company cannot be allowed to mine in a certain location but it can go and mine on another property upon which another company has spent $4m in exploration work. We see the attitude that the explorer for minerals, the man who has spent the money and who has shown the initiative, does not have an assurance that he will have a title to the property. That same attitude of mind is revealed also in relation to the exploration for oil and gas because it is the same attitude that the Government has taken in regard to the Woodside-Burmah area. But that is by the way. The fact of the matter is that this attitude of mind is one which is quite inimical to the development of exploration for fuel and energy. Furthermore, as I have said, no clear policy of any kind has been established in this regard.

I have indicated broadly what our reasons are for moving this motion for disallowance of these regulations. As I have said, the regulations appear to be designed to establish the Federal Minister for Minerals and Energy as the one and only authority in Australia to control the whole area of uranium mining from the exploration right through to the development of the deposits. We in the Opposition have a very great interest in the establishment of a policy in this area as we have in the establishment of a policy in regard to fuel and energy resources generally. We believe that although there is a need for national supervision and national guidelines for such a policy, we also believe, that the way in which to encourage the exploration for such energy resources is to give incentives, encouragement and assurances to private industry, the private explorer and private investment to be active in this area. I believe that that is one of the major differences between the Opposition and the Government in this regard.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator DURACK:

– Before the suspension of - the sitting I had turned to the question of the Opposition ‘s policy in regard to uranium mining. I spoke generally about our policy in that regard and indicated that the Government singularly lacks any policy on the subject except simply a negative blanket on all export and virtually all development of the resource. The Government seems to be groping at the moment for some sort of policy for the redevelopment of the Mary Kathleen uranium mine, but that is a very small mine and represents a special problem. What we would expect to see is some broad positive policy from the Government in regard to the need to expand our exploration for uranium and the upgrading and increasing of what are already very significant reserves of it. But it is such an important energy resource that we as a nation ought to be encouraging the development of it.

We also believe that part and parcel of such an interest in the development of and exploration for uranium would be to permit some reasonable export of uranium oxide or the ore in its yellow cake form. We believe that if exports were permitted, and that would have to be under strict quality control, it would greatly encourage and enhance exploration and the investment in exploration. We know that this has been a significant factor with other mineral resources. We have only to think of what happened in the case of iron ore. In the 1950s it was believed that Australia had very limited reserves of iron ore, but when the embargo on its export was lifted it was rapidly proved that we had vast, almost limitless, resources. As I said, there are indications already that Australia has tremendous potential in this regard. We believe that permitting limited export, under strict conditions as to where it would go and what use could be made of it, and subject to other Australian national interests such as maintenance of the already existing levels of Australian ownership and control of the companies that have found it, would have a very salutary effect on exploration for this important resource.

In conclusion I would like to summarise our argument. We believe that these regulations firstly are quite unnecessary. The Minister has the power to maintain Australia’s national interests through his control powers in respect to export and other matters. These extra powers are apparently sought by the Minister for somewhat dubious purposes and they will have the effect of overriding all existing rights that have been acquired under State laws and under the Northern Territory mining laws. We believe that for those reasons these regulations should be disallowed by the Senate.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I support the disallowance motion moved by Senator Durack but not for the same reasons. There is no doubt that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) has failed to produce a policy which will guide the industry, a policy which he ought to produce at this particular time. Soon after Senator Durack gave notice of his motion of disallowance I contacted the Minister and he and his Department were good enough to send me what I think is an extremely good case for the Minister’s asking for this power. To make sure that the Act is extended in the fashion he desires, he has given comparisons with other countries that are leaders in the free enterprise system in the world and which have similar, if not greater, powers in relation to the possession, use and regulation of uranium resources in their national interests. The documents which I have, and which no doubt are available in the Parliamentary Library, indicate that the United States of America and Canada have very strict controls residing in their national governments for the sort of management of uranium resources that the Australian Minister is seeking here. In fact from my initial reading of the documents, those countries would have greater powers than the Minister is seeking. I do not believe that the United States of America is limited by the reference to defence as is this provision outside territories under Commonwealth control.

I feel that it is quite proper for the Minister to ask for these powers and I can see no reason, if he had a policy which he wanted to implement, why he should not have these powers. Certainly I am suspicious, especially following their introduction by the Government, of the motives behind a number of Government moves, but in seeking to regulate the production and usage of our uranium resources the Minister would be doing no more than Senator Durack has asked, and that is that there should be limited exports under strict conditions which are subject to the national interest of Australia. One would assume that the Minister is trying to do in Australia what other countries have done before with this important and finite resource and that, in the words of Senator Durack, he would be regarding it as our national resource. If we dug it all up and sold it, it would not be our national resource but that of someone else and we would have a monetary payment in exchange for it. So there has to be some vision of Australia’s future fuel and power needs, and uranium, on the assessment which we have now of Australia’s fuel reserves of all forms, will probably play a very heavy part at around the turn of the century or thereafter in the supply of Australia’s power needs.

One can only assume that the legislation gives the Minister the right to ask for this power and he has properly done so in the ordinary fashion. He has supported his request by comparison with other countries which have a far greater determination to stick to the free enterprise system than does the Minister for Minerals and Energy in the Australian Government. But the Minister has not produced any definite plan for the development of minerals in general in Australia and of the uranium industry in particular. In this way he is somewhat matched by the Opposition. I notice that Senator Durack did not read much of the uranium policy put out by his leader because there is nothing much in it. I have read the 5 points which he made and I thank him for providing me with them. It was courteous of him to do so. But, dealing factually with the document, he has listed 5 points. They are: Realistic export price level and royalties, satisfactory environmental assessment and protection procedures including the protection of national parks, satisfactory negotiations with Aboriginal groups and so on, the maintenance of a dominant position for Australian ownership and control, and international control requirements.

Nowhere in any argument from either side so far can I see any real statement of Australia’s future needs for uranium as an energy source. I think we are burying our heads in the sand if we assume that we can do without nuclear power in a country which is poorly endowed, in terms of our long term needs, with fossil fuels. So where is the policy which will provide the long term management of Australia’s fuel resources and provide for the power that will come from Australia’s own uranium deposits? It does not reside with the Opposition. It certainly is only a hint from the Government of Australia.

We have had a number of particular mentions of it by the Minister himself who in 1973 indicated that he would give some indication of Government policy. He neglected to do so. He has been in office approaching 2 years. He is asking for the extension of his powers by this regulation and he still refuses to produce a plan. We in this House, and certainly the mining industry itself, stand waiting to react to the Government’s policy which has not been revealed. Those parts of the industry with which I have been in contact have not been objecting to Government policy because they do not know what it is. Is it not a reasonable request to make of a government that is supposed to have developed policies over the years and to have sharpened and honed them in

Opposition? Is it not reasonable to ask it in almost 2 years of government to produce its intentions? I think it is so reasonable that this regulation should be defeated and should remain defeated until the Government can produce its plans until those who have taken the initiative and found Australia’s uranium resources know what is in store for them and know what proportion of their finds are economic to them.

The Government of Australia is noted for its anti-mining bias which was revealed particularly in the Budget documents. The immediate response to that has been the retreat of shares in the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd below $5. If the Government wants a practical public assessment made by practical people in the market place there it is. There is a complete lack of knowledge of Government intentions in relation to mining and suspicions are built on that lack of knowldege of policy. As editions of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of the last few days since the Budget will show, the view in the Australian mining industry is one of extreme pessimism. We have one more instance of how this pessimism is built. This particular Opposition policy announcement which I have mentioned at least offers support for the free enterprise system of mining development but it too does not in any way solve the situation. It offers no leadership at all in relation to the national need. It deals only with the mining industry. Certainly the 2 major aspects must be considered. So what is the Australian national attitude to be to the development and exploitation of our oranium reserves?

Canada has taken action in this particular regard. Yesterday I was furnished with a copy of the most recent uranium policy in Canada, so I am informed. I would like to read to the Senate the brief details of the Canadian uranium policy. They are as follows:

A formula will be established ‘to enable each nuclear power reactor, operating, committed for construction or planned for operation 10 years into the future to operate on an average annual capacity factor of 80 per cent for 30 years from the start of the period ‘.

Each mining company will have a reserve margin for domestic supply allocated to it by a Uranium Resource Appraisal Group within the Energy Department. This margin would be based on the ‘ratio of each company’s uranium resources to the total Canadian recoverable resources from all such companies estimated by the Uranium Appraisal Group’.

The Croup will audit Canadian resources. Unlimited export will be permitted for such reserves in excess of the reserves calculated pursuant to the above formula.

Export contract approvals are to be limited to a maximum of 10 years from the date of contract signing, with contingent approval possible for an additional S years.

All terms of export contracts, including prices, will be subject to Government review and approval.

The policy was unveiled now because it is expected that there will be ‘some additional announcements on export contracts soon’. The Federal Energy Minister in Canada said: ‘We wanted to get this in the open because we have reason to believe there are some big deals cooking now*. What a different attitude that is from the attitude taken by the Australian Government. The Canadian Government wanted to get its policy into the open because there are some big deals cooking now. There are some big deals cooking about Australia ‘s uranium resources and this Government does just the opposite to getting its policy into the open at this particular time.

I wonder whether a certain amount of bait has been held out to the Senate, to the Parliament and to the mining companies in general to obtain general approval of this ordinance, because the Minister has been making public statements about the setting up in Australia of a uranium enrichment plant. South Australia has figured very largely in discussion about the siting of that plant. I believe that that is a very real possibility in the future because South Australia took a distinct lead in the early days of uranium and its development in this country. I would like to give the Senate a few facts about the beginnings of the uranium industry in Australia. South Australia’s interest in uranium dates from World War II when Sir Marcus Oliphant, the present Governor of South Australia, advised the United Kingdom Government to spend funds on uranium exploration in South Australia, where the only deposits of uranium then known in Australia were located. Through the Commonwealth Government arrangements were made with the South Australia Mines Department to carry out this investigation, with the assistance of Commonwealth defence forces and other State and mining Commonwealth departments.

The work failed to contribute materially to the war effort but the South Australian Government was encouraged to continue the search at government expense. The results led to the establishment of the Radium Hill mining project in 1954, producing uranium oxide yellow cake from the United States-United Kingdom combined development agency over a period of 7 years. The project was financed by the United Kingdom and the United States Governments. The efforts of the South Australian Government encouraged the search for uranium in other parts of Australia. The concurrent active participation in the search for uranium by the Commonwealth Government resulted in the establishment of the

Rum Jungle operation in the Northern Territory about the same time as Radium Hill, and later the mines of Mary Kathleen in Queensland and on the South Alligator River in the Northern Territory, all of which had contracts to supply the United Kingdom or the United States government agencies. All these early uranium contracts terminated about 1964 as a result of stockpile sufficiency and lower cost supplies being available chiefly from Canada in respect of the United States and United Kingdom markets.

Notable in this era was the South Australian Government’s establishment of the research laboratories, now called the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories, which became the recognised authority for the investigation and design of uranium extraction processes which were incorporated in all the early uranium mining plants. The history of mining in Australia has shown clearly how the profits from mining have led directly or indirectly to the establishment of many of Australia’s basic manufacturing industries. Broken Hill ‘s silver, lead and zinc led to the great iron and steel industry of this country. More recently the Weipa bauxite has led to the development of the aluminium industry. They are just 2 examples of the growth outside the particular initiating factor that occurs from the mining industry. Therefore, we in Australia and particularly in South Australia have an early history of initiation and honorable development of uranium discovery and its development to the marketable stage. If it is possible environmentally and for other physical reasons to have a uranium enrichment plant in Australia, South Australia would certainly like to share in its development.

It is no good having these nebulous talks on the future planning of a specific- at this early stage still futuristic- plant as a type of lead-in to a general transfer of power to the Federal Minister without his revealing what he will do with that particular power. The result of the refusal to pass this ordinance may be a completely negative response from the Government. One would assume that the Government might say that there will not be a uranium industry. I can see a certain amount of pig-headedness in the Government’s response, especially in the Budget- if I can digress to prove a point- because this Senate was blamed for an additional impost in postal and telephone charges because it had delayed the imposition of those charges for several months. If the Government has taken that vindictive attitude in relation to postal and telephone charges it could take a similar attitude to the denial of this ordinance. That is something, of course, which honourable senators will have to take into account when they vote on this matter. I still believe that the overriding factor is the lack of knowledge given to this House and to the country by a man who is known generally as the Strangler’. I might say that when I went to see the Minister about this matter I found him most courteous. I found him a very genial man to talk to -

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– And knowledgeable.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-He could be. On a personal level I could not fault the response of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). He was good enough to see me to try to take me as far as his lack of policy would let him. He and his Department certainly responded with as much information as he desired to give. I make no criticism on that particular point. I do criticise the Minister’s lack of policy development but I do not relate that to the personal response I got from him. I wish to make that point clear. It seems to me that, therefore, we are involved in a negative sort of argument. I hope that the Senate will support Senator Durack and will disallow this ordinance. As I have said, that is a negative sort of argument. It is a reaction to the complete and earlier negativism of the Minister himself who will not provide the national Parliament or the mining industry with the information they require. I draw the attention of the Senate- perhaps Senator Durack has already done so- to the heading ‘ Reasons for Atomic Energy (Prescribed Substances) Regulations’. Under that heading, the Minister starts on a very sombre note when he says:

Consistent with its Party platform, on the basis of which it was elected to office in 1972 and reconfirmed in that office last May, the Labor Government lays great emphasis on the need to approach the development of Australia’s uranium industry in an orderly and coherent manner.

What did he mean when he referred to the basis of his Party’s platform? How far are we to view its development in relation to the uranium industry? The lack of information from the Minister means that we must assume that he will apply his Party’s policies to the fullest extent. We must therefore view the effect of those policies to the fullest extent on the industry which we are discussing.

It seems clear that the industry itself must respond. There are precedents around the world which the Minister has to support his action in asking for the ordinance. There are other precedents around the world illustrating to the industry that something is expected of it in relation to Australia’s future needs for uranium. It seems to me that if the Government will not give a lead the industry must attempt to do so. It must scan what other countries have done in their national interest in relation to uranium development and must suggest methods whereby the industries in Australia can be involved in a viable, economic mining enterprise and still work within the national interest. They are not given that lead by the Liberal Party of Australia whose document is as nebulous and as lacking in real information as the Minister’s approach. I have suggested to one member of the industry, who has been good enough to see me, that at this stage a good deal of responsibility devolves on the industry itself. I would hope the industry could collectively develop policies which it could suggest to the Opposition and to the Government and hopefully develop an economic enterprise which will preserve Australia’s reserves through into the day when we must inevitably rely heavily on atomic energy.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise briefly to support the disallowance of these regulations. I do so because I believe they should be disallowed from the points of view both of principle and fact. It seems to me that it is totally unnecessary in the case of the uranium industry- as in the case of many other mineral and petroleum industries- that in order to have proper measures of control, with which none of us would disagree, it should be suggested somewhat sinisterly that controls and ownership are synonymous. I do not believe that in order properly to control the uranium availability and the uranium industry in this country it is necessary to literally own it. Mining rights are totally impotent if they are not accompanied by a licence. This is the situation we find today when many companies, particularly in the uranium area, are unable to operate from a research and developmental point of view and unable to continue drilling in this extremely important exploit area, purely because they have no licence through regulations which are part of the Atomic Energy Act and which are related to security situations. I believe that at this time the demand for uranium has probably never been higher. The opportunities for this industry in Australia are tremendous but the attitude of our Government unfortunately is totally stifling an industry which has so much to offer to our economy. There is, within that industry, total frustration. There is a lack of employment, development, and contribution which could and should be significant to the Australian economy.

Today the demand for uranium is such that we have a sellers market. Back in the 1950s it was a sellers market in uranium and the world price was high. It then started to decline and declined significantly until very recent times when we came into a sellers market again with the opportunities to export and to create oveseas credit. This has become a very real situation indeed. At this time the policies of this Government seem to me to be retarding this nation’s capacity to enjoy the sort of export results that should be produced by this industry. It is a relatively temporary situation. I believe it is important that we confine our thoughts to this aspect. Because of the exploration that is required, because of the investigations in the field of atomic energy, because of the technical developments and because of the development of breeder reactors, it is fairly well and fairly certainly recognised that the market for uranium will exist for a relatively short period. I am informed that it is generally considered that the demand for this most important product is likely to decline within a period of 15 or 20 years, and to decline very significantly in a period longer than that.

Indeed, there is more reason for our using our capacity to develop our uranium resources at this time. With a high price for the product, we could find ourselves in a situation where many uranium deposits suddenly became economic areas of exploitation, deposits which at many other times certainly would not be economic to exploit. Australia has the great advantage of having known resources which not only give it a domestic supply of some real satisfaction but, also quite clearly, give it a capacity to export. How important it is, Mr Acting Deputy President, that we should be exporting those things which we are capable of exporting at this time because Australia’s export markets and overseas credit situation are declining at an alarming rate. We should be going forward in this area. We should, with proper control and with proper methods, be developing a market which can augment the export earnings of this country. The uncertainty which has developed in the mining industry, particularly in the uranium industry, because of this indecisive situation is unfortunately quite widespread in the Australian community today.

There seems to be some sort of concern on the part of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) that Australia should do nothing about this uranium situation prior to the establishment of an enrichment plant in Australia. Hopefully, such a plant could be a proposition for the future; but to withhold action and development at this time purely on that ground is quite ridiculous. An enrichment plant not only would involve immense amounts of the taxpayers’ money to develop; there is the added problem that there is an insufficient domestic market to make such an exploit a real economic possibility. If we established an enrichment plant in this country at this time we would be dependent on having a vast overseas market for the enriched product. The fact is that in Japan and the United States of America, the chief markets for the uranium of which we have such great supplies, there is an extremely cool attitude towards Australia exporting the enriched product. The simple reason for this is that, just as we like to keep our industries going in this country because of social and economic considerations, so do they; and they have very large markets. They have the good fortune, according to some points of view, of having vast home markets in which they are involved with this highly expensive enterprise. It is fairly natural to presume that their attitude to the establishment of enrichment plants in Australia would not be likely to contribute significantly to our capacity to sell our product in that form. On the other hand, for the product in its cruder form we have a superb market right now at extremely high prices.

I suggest that there is a measure of irony in the fact that these regulations and the attitude of the Government, or at least of Mr Connor, are causing Australian owned enterprises to be placed in severe jeopardy. That does not seem to fit in with the reputed attitude of this Government. It certainly does not fit in with the attitude of the Opposition Parties. These regulations are based on the wartime powers of the Atomic Energy Act. They are concerned with security considerations, and properly so.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you say that these regulations are going to stop production?

Senator SCOTT:

– Production is not happening. It has stopped. There is no production. All I am suggesting is that the security considerations of that Act could perhaps be better directed at this time- on social, economic and defence grounds- to the extremely dangerous fuel situation in which this country finds itself. I do not believe that they are contributing anything but disaster to an industry which has great capacity for employment, for the investment of funds and for increasing the export earnings of this country.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But you said that it needed controlled development. How do you get controlled development if someone does not take control?

Senator SCOTT:

-I believe that it does need controlled development. I said in the first place that there is a significant difference between control and ownership. To my mind there is an immense degree of control available in the powers already held. There are controls over exports and there is control in various other forms of legislation. There is ample power of control in this country without denying companies the right to research and develop areas which can be developed as part of this important uranium industry.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are saying that the Government could stop production without these regulations.

Senator SCOTT:

-I am saying that the Government has stopped production with these regulations. I believe that the comments of Senator Hall are worth looking at. He referred to four of our policy points which relate to the uranium mining industry. I believe that he complained that the policy was too general. I am quite certain that that is the only complaint that could be directed against our policy. I am- also certain that at this stage and in this context it is impossible to give any statistics in connection with these policy points.

The first point is that there should be realistic export price levels and royalties. Surely the use of the word ‘realistic’ is sufficient indication in regard to price levels and royalties. The second point is that there should be satisfactory environmental assessment and protection. I emphasise the word ‘satisfactory’. The third point is that there should be satisfactory negotiations with Aboriginal groups and so on. Once again I emphasise the word ‘satisfactory’. The fourth point is that there should be the maintenance of the dominant position of Australian ownership and control. Surely the word ‘dominant’ is pretty clear. It need not be spelt out as being 51 per cent, 57 per cent or some other figure. I believe that these policy points represent realistic control. I believe that these regulations contribute nothing but harm to the development of a great and important Australian industry. I firmly support the motion for disallowance.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I support the motion for the disallowance of the regulations under the Atomic Energy Act 1953-1973. I do so for the reasons put forward by Senator Durack. I believe that without these regulations the Commonwealth Government has already ample powers to ensure the national interest in the exploration, conservation and orderly development of uranium. In addition the States and the Territories have supplementary powers, and they can work in cooperation. The attempt to implement the regulations has pointed up, as do virtually all actions of the Commonwealth Government, that it is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. As doctrinaire socialists Government senators see power and control as an end in itself and not as a means to an end. The regulations and all the actions that the Government has taken so far have done nothing at all to spell out to the people of Australia either in action or in words what is the energy policy of the Commonwealth Government. I invite the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to tell us where we can find speelled out the energy policy of this Government on uranium, oil, coal or any other mineral. Much has been said about the Australian national interest. The reason I rise to my feet is to say that it would be utterly wrong today, in the modern day world, to regard the Australian national interest as being the narrow domestic interest of Australia for the conservation or development of a resource for its own energy purposes. The whole world faces a unique and critical energy crisis.

Senator Steele Hall:

-If you use that basis you would sell our oil.

Senator CARRICK:

-I invite Senator Steele Hall perhaps to bide his time and to abate his blood pressure. I have not suggested such a thing, and the interjection shows his lack of application to this matter. Australia cannot live in a vacuum. At this moment in the world the energy crisis will create the most disastrous economic crisis that the world has faced and may invite world war. If Senator Steele Hall cannot see that Australia should get over its narrow national interest and look towards doing something on a world level to abate the economic crisis and perhaps prevent war, I suggest he go back to his drawing board. This is the source of the argument. I invite the Senate and Senator Steele Hall to look at these figures. They have been produced and not contradicted in recent weeks. The sum total of the trading reserve funds of the whole world this year is $170 billion. The amount to be taken by Middle East nations for oil is $120 billion and growing. What is happening is that with the quadrupling of the price of oil from the Middle East virtually all the available trade reserves of the world are being drawn off into one corner, to the peril of the stability of the world. Perhaps someone would like to deny that proposition. Does anyone deny that the investment policies of Middle East nations at this moment are threatening the economic stability of the world? In a world which is oil hungry and in which resources diplomacy is being used, not only is the economy of the world being debased but there is a very real threat of war. Any government should apply itself to 2 things- not only what it needs for its domestic use but also what it should do to alleviate this critical energy crisis on the world scene. I would be interested to know whether Senator Steele Hall denies that proposition. Senator Scott has quite rightly pointed out -

Debate interrupted.

General Business taking Precedence of Government Business

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That consideration of General Business be postponed until after the conclusion of the debate on the motion for disallowance of the Atomic Energy (Prescribed Substances) Regulations or at 4 p.m., whichever is the earlier.

page 1260

ATOMIC ENERGY (PRESCRIBED SUBSTANCES) REGULATIONS

Motion to Disallow Regulations

Debate resumed.

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales)Senator Scott has rightly drawn the attention of the Senate to the fact that the use of uranium in orthodox reactors or other reactors may well have a limited duration of perhaps 2 decades, and that therefore when looking at the uses of coal and uranium in terms of Australia one should look at the whole of the likely uses of energy in the next 3 decades both here and in the world. Australia is blessed with some 400 years of known reserves of black steaming coal capable of generating electric power at the pit head. So there is not a national hunger for what is otherwise an acutely short resource throughout the world. If the rest of the world could produce the tonnages of black steaming coal that Australia has as cheaply as Australia can, it would not be seeking to build nuclear reactors. But Australia has the reserves, and of course we should use them wisely. Of course we should conserve them and of course we should have an export policy which will alleviate the problems of Europe and Japan. If those problems are not mitigated, they will destroy the capacity of those nations to trade with Australia and will produce in this country a depressed economy. Our self interest taken in its crudest terms lies today in parallel with the self interest of our trading partners. I put it further than that. I think we are our brothers’ keeper in the energy crisis around the world. We should have and we have not got an energy policy stated by the Government.

We have another situation in relation to uranium. These regulations seek to add controls. It is believed by the best scientific knowledge we can get that nuclear fusion as distinct from nuclear fission may be a commercial proposition within 20, 25 or 30 years. It is believed that this process is bedevilled with technical complexities but that it would eventuate in approximately that period of time. When it eventuates, as I understand Senator Scott was virtually forecasting, the need for uranium ceases in that capacity. There may be other uses for uranium of course, but nuclear fusion depends upon heavy water. It depends upon the hydrogen atoms from heavy water. Heavy water is available in the seas of this world to the extent, I understand, of 10,000 years on present predictions of future use. In that time one would expect that solar energy would at least have broken through and that the taking of the direct hydrogen element from the sun and converting it to power energy in this country and elsewhere would have occurred. But where is the thought process on this? Where is the paper on the question of breeder reactors? Where is the Government’s statement of policy on nuclear fusion? Where is the Government’s statement of policy on coal for steaming power or for coking use?

Mention has been made of uranium enrichment. During the time that the present uranium reactors are in use there will be a demand in the world for enriched fuel for the obvious reason that enriched uranium uses and gives birth to far more energy than the cruder form. But where is the Government’s paper on the question of enriched uranium? Here we are talking about a uranium policy. Is it our policy to search for uranium? What is that policy? Is it our policy to export uranium? What is that policy? Is it our policy to enrich the uranium before we export it? If so, what is the policy?

In the Press there have been headlines about the possibility of establishing a uranium enrichment plant in Australia. Where is the paper from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission or anywhere else on this matter? Does the Government have any conceivable idea of the complexities, the difficulties and the pollution problems associated with such a plant? Let me just describe to honourable senators one complexity. If the centrifuge process is used for enriched uranium, we must talk in terms of a plant that has no fewer than 500,000 individual centrifuges. There are 500,000 electric motors, 500 whirling centrifuges in a plant which is highly complex and the cost of which would be beyond the capability of Australia at the present time of finance. Where has the Government brought forward a paper on this question?

Let us consider the economics of the enrichment plant proposal. At the present time America has a sufficient output of enriched uranium to take the world into the 1980s. In the meantime Japan is building an enrichment plant. We made some overtures to Japan. There was no sweetheart agreement, because Mr Connor came forward with no details at all. An enrichment plant is being built in Europe. The general feeling is that by the time America extends her enrichment facilities, by the time Japan completes its plant and by the time Europe builds its plant there will be in the world a glut of capacity to refine uranium, and that if we had such a plant in Australia its capital cost and our own high cost of operations would result in the production of enriched uranium at a price which would price us out of the world market. I do not say that that is so and I do not assert it; I am merely arguing on the basis of the best technical advice that I can find on this subject. But the important point is that, except for casual talk, nobody has come forward with any details about this matter.

We have as our main trading partners Japan, Europe and America. Europe and Japan are today at a point of enormous economic crisis with the quadrupling of the price of oil from the Middle East and the foreshadowing of further price rises. If those price rises occur there may be a severe debasement of living standards in those countries. Japan must, of course, seek alternative energy sources. Japan gets 90 per cent of its oil from the Middle East across the Indian Ocean and through the Straits of Malacca. Japan, therefore, is facing the situation that her economy is threatened by an energy crisis. She will be buildingas she is- nuclear reactors at as fast a pace as she can. She will be seeking to use electric power as an alternative to fossil fuel. The same thing is happening in Europe. What, if any, are the crash programs coming forward from this Government to help Europe, Japan and other countries out of the difficulties with which they are confronted?

We talk as though we have a foreign policy. Is it realised that this kind of ostrich act, this kind of negative reaction is likely to drive Japan into a trading and foreign affairs relationship away from the Western world and towards either Russia or China or both of those countries? We talk about our national interests. Where are our national interests if our greatest trading partner is forced by an energy crisis to turn elsewhere? It is myopic in the extreme to suggest that we ought not to be looking to the interests of other countries in terms of energy, that that is not our national self-interest. I rose merely to refer to the fact that we have a unique currency crisis in the world today. Some of the best brains in the monetary world cannot see any immediate solution to the problem because of the domination of the whole money market by a small group of nations that have a common purpose. That in itself is one problem. But the problem of nations facing soaring costs and therefore declining living standards and a declining ability to trade with each other and with us is a vitally important matter to us because we are one of the great trading nations. If we take it on a per capita basis, America, despite its size, it one of the relatively small trading nations, but it can waterproof itself in this matter. But Australia is in a crisis if trade falls.

I rose basically to ask the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to draw our attention, when he replies to this debate, to sources from which we can get a picture of the facts concerning the energy crisis on the world scene, the impact of that crisis on Australia, and the energy policies of the Government in regard to exploration, conservation, refinement, development and export. Specifically we want to know the facts concerning the energy policies of the Government in regard to uranium, and even more specifically we want to know the facts concerning the feasibility study on uranium enrichment. If none of those answers can be given, we, as a nation, have abdicated the control and supervision of our own resources, and we, as a nation, have abdicated not only our narrow selfinterest but also our responsibility on the world scene.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I enter this debate primarily to make a plea regarding the justification of the regulations to control the mining industry in view of its known policy of environmental rape. I say that without any apology because when we talk about uranium we know only too well that what happened at Rum Jungle resulted in the excessive pollution of the Finniss River in the Northern Territory. As late as last year or early this year, I met the Ranger mining people in the Northern Territory. I went to the area with Mr Lamb, a member of the House of Representatives, because I was concerned about uncontrolled uranium production and what it can do to the Alligator River system. Just as Senator Hall said that he was pleasantly surprised with the reception that he received from the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), I say in all sincerity that I was equally surprised to find that I, a heretic in the eyes of the mining industry, broke bread with the Ranger mine manager, and I think that the talks were productive.

Reference has been made to ironclad controls where we would virtually limit the production of the Ranger mine by the introduction of very strong anti-pollution measures. The conversation that I had with the Ranger mine manager was opened by his saying: ‘Senator, we are not trying to defend what has happened in the past’. When we talk about the Finniss River fiasco and when some people talk about what wonderful citizens the people connected with the mining companies are, we must remember that we have a permanent monument to the mining industry’s attitude in the pollution which the Lake George mine caused in the Molonglo River. I know that we cannot always be looking backwards, but we can learn lessons from what has happened in the past. The policy of the Minister for Minerals and Energy is that if we have ironclad controls over the Ranger mine there is no justification for any of the other uranium mining ventures going into the Top End National Park in the Northern Territory.

While I am talking about mining, I think we should go into the question of black coal. We know that whatever mistakes we have made in Australia, they were more than compounded in the nineteenth century in Kentucky and in other States in the United States by what they call strip mining; we call it open cut mining. Any feeling of fear or inhibition that I have had was vindicated this morning when a prominent parliamentarian and Minister in Queensland, in the person of Sir Gordon Chalk, virtually echoed the criticism that we have made of Comalco Ltd and the other mining companies. I know that they are very effective lobbyists; but I also know that you have to hold the reins, give them a bit of a jab, put the bit into the corner of the mouth and let them know that you are the boss. Then they will come to you and do business. That is the only language they understand.

There is a much more important side to this matter. Senator Carrick probably reads ‘Common Cause’ and other mining industry journals. One of the most vicious things that occurred in the mining industry occurred in the stupid situation of uncontrolled competition in black coal, where New South Wales and Queensland colliery interests were playing one State off against the other. If nothing else is achieved by Mr Connor, at least he has insisted that there be a bit of sanity. It is good, occasionally, to read of what the Japanese are doing. They are very astute businessmen. I am not hostile towards them. Their prime job is to look after the interests of their own country. But I think the firmness that Mr Connor has exercised behind the scenes at least in the short term has meant that we have been getting a far better price for our coal.

When one looks at the prices that we can get for uranium on the open market, it is hard to follow what has been put by Opposition speakers. Senator Carrick referred to our international obligations. To an extent that is a good idea. I suppose that internationalists do have an obligation in this field, but I would call these countries semifatcat countries. When we look at other countries which have a monopoly on a particular mineral we see that they play the game pretty hard. So far as any feelings of softness that I may have towards mining companies- I do not say I do have them- are concerned, when I read what Sir Gordon Chalk said this morning I thought that there must be justification for this blood and iron policy. I simply say that the regulations that we are seeking to retain are a very necessary safeguard because, when it is all said and done, the crux of the matter to which Senator Carrick referred- I agree with his comment on this- is the international energy crisis. The plain fact of the matter is that over the years Australia has been pretty reasonable. When we talk about the implications of lost opportunities, I imagine we could say that a succession of mainly non-Labor State governments have given away our rutile at bargain basement prices. If we can do much better with other minerals, well and good.

I think we all agree that uranium, because of the excessive dangers of the waste and even the secondary waste, must be controlled. I do not make the accusation that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission somehow created the serious radioactive waste pollution in the Finniss River, but there was some secondary waste pollution. Senator Davidson, who is now sitting in the chair, was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Without overstating the position, we know the dangers. If there is a theme that I want to hammer home it is this: When we talk about river pollution in this country, from whatever source, we should remember that Australia is not like North America. All our rivers have to be protected and prized. I have said this before and I will say it again: I know that prominent people in the Australian Country Party in the Northern Territory commended the Water Pollution Committee for its vigilance.

I do not not want to transgress unduly. I simply say that if Mr Connor has maintained a rather cautious policy he has done so because of the overall argument that if a commodity gets scarcer we can get a better deal in the mineral market place. I think we are all looking for the millennium. I say this quite candidly: If we have unused sources of uranium and solar energy comes into being with less destruction of the environment, then I think it is sound policy to develop the latter. In respect of powers or regulations which Mr Connor is seeking and about which Opposition senators are apprehensive, they should bear in mind that in international bargaining places, whether it be in Asia, Britain or any other country, as far as arranging terms is concerned he has done pretty well. Many private enterprise firms have done all right out of it, too. In winding up I simply say that I am certain that Senator Milliner and I never thought we would see the day when Sir Gordon Chalk would become a socialist. I would say that at the moment there is a unity ticket between Gordon Chalk and,. Rex Connor, and that is good enough for me.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The debate in which we are engaged concerns a motion to disallow certain regulations; but it has ranged over a much wider area, seemingly embracing not only the Government’s policies in respect of uranium but also, as one honourable senator said, our total approach to the world energy crisis. I would not have thought that was a subject for debate during the course of discussion on this motion. Nevertheless I shall answer one or two of the points that were made in that respect. Senator Durack is to wind up this debate. Therefore I simply wish to state the position of the Government in respect of these regulations. I shall concentrate my remarks on the reasons why the Government has sought these powers.

But before doing so I point out that during the course of the debate there were several references to the Government’s approach to minerals and energy. The Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) has made many statements which clearly set out the case for the Government in respect of its policy on minerals and energy generally. I draw the attention of the Senate to the statement which was made by the Minister on 7 August this year when he introduced in the House of Representatives the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. He summarised the functions of the Authority by saying the functions would be: . . to explore for, and to develop, Australia’s petroleum and mineral resources, and to assist in implementing the Government’s policies of promoting Australian ownership and control of our natural resources and resource industries.

The Minister also referred to specific provisions in the Bill which provided for assistance to be given by the Authority to those Australian mining ventures which, having discovered a mineral resource of definite potential, are unable to finance the further exploration and development necessary to complete the economic viability of their discoveries. The first and most important consideration of this Government in respect of our resources is to make sure that they remain under Australian ownership and control as far as that is practicable. We do not intend to allow a repetition or a continuation of what we have seen over the years, whereby those resources have passed into the hands of people who do not live or have their primary interest in this country. I believe that that is a policy which is supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. As has been spelled out, it is not, in the case of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, a nationalisation of our resources. It is an instrument which the Australian Government can use for the benefit of the Australian people.

I refer now to the comments that were made by Senator Carrick in respect to matters of world trade. This, of course, is well beyond the ambit of this debate. I do not think the matters he raised were anything new. The world has been aware for at least 12 months now of the enormous change in the trading benefits which have been accruing to countries in the Middle East- the petroleum exporting countries. I think those same OPEC- Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries- countries are taking a responsible attitude. They realise the change in the financial resources which are accruing to them. About a week ago they met again to consider the question of increases in the price of oil. The proposed increases were deferred, if my memory serves me correctly. But this is not a matter which will be easily solved. We should not assume that because of this great shift which is taking place there will be necessarily some great cataclysmic disaster in the next year or two. We have a responsibility as a government and, it is quite true, as a country to see whether we can help those countries wherever possible with their energy problems. Ever since this Government has been in office the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, has stated on numerous occasions that Australia wants to be a reliable source of supply to those countries which require our mineral resources at prices which are fair and reasonable. That has been the whole basis of his approach to the export of our minerals. Who would deny the need for the Australian Government to keep complete control in the years ahead of our vital resources, especially uranium?

I turn to uranium enrichment about which something was also said. Again I refer to the comments of Senator Carrick. He asked for information about the Government’s policy in respect of such matters as uranium enrichment. Enrichment is a highly technical area. I would have thought that he would be conversant with the references to enrichment which are contained in the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I shall have to read from the 1972-73 report because the subsequent report is not yet available. The honourable senator will find on page 49 and subsequent pages what the Commission is doing in relation to uranium enrichment. I shall read the introductory paragraph to that section because, in view of what has been said, I think it ought to be placed in the Hansard record. The report states:

Uranium enrichment studies have been carried out by the Commission, in association with others, over the past year. These studies have been made against a background of intense international negotiations for the commitment of the first units of new enrichment capacity in the Western world and growing fears that a shortage of capacity will occur, at least in the early 1980s. Power generating utilities overseas are already committed to building nuclear power plants for which fuel could become scarce, and some countries are concerned at the implications of a shortage of fuel at a time of increased reliance on nuclear power for base-load generation.

So it is quite misleading to suggest that this Government is not fully conscious of the need for proper research and study into uranium enrichment at this stage. Obviously, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is keeping fully abreast of developments in this area overseas. I think the Government’s concern and preparedness to keep abreast of developments should also be mentioned. Negotiations took place in Japan last year. At the ministerial talks initial discussions were held with the Japanese concerning the possibility of enrichment facilities in this country. In only May of last year the Commission became a member of the Association for Centrifuge Enrichment. So much for the general questions which have been raised during the course of this debate. I want to deal now specifically with the disallowance motion which has been moved. This Government lays great emphasis on the need to approach the development of Australia’s uranium industry in an orderly and coherent manner. Such an approach demands a degree of governmental guidance which was lacking prior to December 1972, particularly in the light of the last minute approvals by the former Government of the export of uranium at unsatisfactory prices.

The greater part of the Australia-wide reserves is contained in the uranium deposits of the Northern Territory. The Government decided that development of these Northern Territory deposits should not proceed on a haphazard and unregulated basis but in the way legislated for and contemplated by the national Parliament. The Government was reinforced in this decision by its determination to ensure that deliveries of uranium were made as required under the export contracts, principally with Japan, which were approved by the previous Government. To this end holders of approved contracts for the export of uranium from deposits in the Northern Territory were, earlier this year, offered access to designated deposits owned by the Commonwealth pursuant to section 35 of the Atomic Energy Act. Contrary to what Senator Durack said during the course of his remarks, section 35 refers only to the territories of the Commonwealth. Senator Durack referred to Queensland Mines Ltd which is one of the companies which holds export contracts approved by the previous government. That company was offered access to the Ranger deposit because it told the Government that further delay in approval to mine the Nabarlek deposit would produce a frustration of those contracts.

In 1953 the then Menzies Government introduced a Bill for an Act for the stated purpose of bringing together in one piece of legislation all matters associated with the provision of atomic energy. In doing so that Government, through its responsible Minister in each chamber, expressed the belief that it had produced a fair and powerful piece of legislative machinery to shape the future of Australia in this important field of uranium and atomic energy. That legislation which has been subjected to only minor amendment in the intervening years was supported by the present Government when it was in Opposition. That legislation now stands on the statute book as the Atomic Energy Act. During the course of his remarks Senator Durack also appeared to be arguing that it was in some way improper for this Government to have recourse to certain aspects of this legislation because of provisions which exist in territorial legislation. The logic of this argument is obscure particularly when it is recognised that the territorial legislation was in existence under the Menzies Government. Back in 1953 that Government decided that it was nevertheless fitting, right and proper to legislate in the national Parliament in terms of that Act. Among other things Part III of the Act lays down provisions for the control of substances of atomic energy significance. In essence this part of the Atomic Energy Act reenacted the provisions of the Atomic Energy (Control of Materials) Act 1946 which was amended by the Menzies Government in 1952. In 1953 that Act declared uranium and other prescribed substances situated in any territory of the Commonwealth as being the property of the Commonwealth. In other words, the Menzies Government embraced the necessity for a clear enunciation of the Crown’s title to uranium in the territories.

Section 38 of the Act, which appears in Part III, then makes provision for the control of prescribed substances by way of licence issued by the Minister pursuant to regulations made under that Act. A broadly similar licencing provision is to be found in the 1946 Act. Thus it is manifest that the Menzies Government accepted, adopted and preserved the concept of controlling the exploitation of prescribed substances by way of a licensing mechanism as was conceived in legislation introduced by the Chifley Government. Against that background it is incorrect to claim that the making of the Atomic Energy Regulations- they are the regulations we are debating- is in any way improper. The regulations are expressly consistent with the wording of the Act and obviously do not exceed what the Parliament had in mind. Thus they are not to be objected to on that score. They preserve the distinction to be found in the Act between the defence power, which is relevant to the power elsewhere than in the territory, and the territorial power.

It should be noted that it is the existence of that very distinction in the Act which refutes any suggestion that the control provisions, including those relating to the making of regulations, are there solely for defence purposes. If that is not so, the Menzies Government surely would have drafted its 1953 Act in a different way. As a corollary, it should be noted also that, again consistent with the Act, the application of licences in the States can arise only in circumstances where it is necessary for the purpose of the defence of this country. The position then is that no valid ground exists for the seeking of the disallowance of this regulation because it is an essential part of the legislative framework for the development of these uranium reserves. The current reserves are conservatively estimated at about 130,000 short tons.

Senator Durack:

-230,000 tons.

Senator WRIEDT:

– They are conservatively estimated at 130,000 short tons. If we bear these facts in mind, we have to accept that all the matters referred to by the Opposition are incorrect. Or course, I was surprised and disappointed that

Senator Hall should seek the vision that he referred to in his remarks. I would have hoped that that vision would have been apparent to him by the very actions which have been taken by this Goverment. I regret that he sees the intentions of the Government as being detrimental to the interests of this country.

Senator Steele Hall:

– I do not see them. That is the problem. I suspect they may be detrimental, but I do not see them.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I regret that the honourable senator has that suspicion in his mind. I agree with his comments about the lack of leadership that has been shown by the Opposition in this area of mineral resources, atomic energy and uranium deposits. There was a lack of leadership when honourable senators opposite were in Government. Recognising that fact and the fact that we are giving this leadership, I would have hoped that the honourable senator would support the Government in obtaining the necessary powers and ensuring that, in fact, we can exercise the needed control over the export and the development of uranium in this country.

I think that there was no justification for what appeared to me to be an attack on Senator Hall by Senator Carrick. That may have been a matter of misinterpretation. But I think the indication by Senator Hall that he will support the disallowance motion is most unfortunate. I would have thought that, of all the mineral and energy resources of this country, no substance would have been of greater importance than our uranium deposits. This Government has never attempted to exercise overt power or an unreasonable power in developing those resources and maintaining control over them in the interests of the Australian people. Irrespective of what happens to this motion, we will not be deterred. We will not be diverted from our objective of ensuring that the resources of this country remain in the hands of the Australian people and are used for the benefit of the Australian people.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– In reply- We have heard convoluted thinking from this Government on many subjects but I think that the argument I heard a moment ago from the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) beats them all. He is chiding the Opposition in defence of his own accusations. We have levelled accusations at him for the lack of leadership of this Government, but he chides the Opposition and says that we have not shown leadership. I can assure him that we are perfectly prepared. We stand ready with a policy and we stand ready to show leadership which is so badly needed, not only on this subject but also on the whole of Government in this country. As I suspected, the Minister’s defence of the Government in this matter does not reveal any policy whatsoever. He has been able to say only that the Government’s policy in this whole mining issue is to set up a Petroleum and Minerals Authority, and that it has done. But in this debate we have been discussing specifically a lack of policy in relation to uranium mining. When I talk about that, I am talking about a total lack of policy, not only along the lines on which Senator Hall spoke, about the enrichment of uranium and so on, but a total lack of policy in relation to the whole ambit of uranium mining from the exploration stage through to its development and ultimate enrichment. There is just no policy whatsoever.

The companies that have over the years of the Liberal Country Party Government gone out and found reserves- very handsome reserves- of uranium are now facing not only the possiblity that they cannot exploit these reserves in any shape or form but also a very real possibility of the Government taking over some or all of thendeposits. Whilst dealing with deposits, there is another good example of how unrealistic and how ignorant the Government is in regard to these matters. The Minister says that the known reserves of uranium are 1 30,000 short tons. The known reserves are far more like 230,000 short tons. I think that if the Government reflected on the situation it would see that it is way off beam if that is all it thinks our uranium reserves amount to. That does not mean to say that the Opposition is satisfied with the position. We want to see encouragement given to greatly expand these reserves. I indicated in my speech here today on the motion for the disallowance of the regulations how we think that may be done.

I come back to the motion and the Government’s defence of the regulations. I am really more alarmed than ever. If the Government says that the only policy it has- and it is its only policy- is the establishment of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and if one couples that with the licensing power given to the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) under these regulations, and with the attitudes of mind and the statements which have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as well as the Minister for Minerals and Energy in relation to this rationalisation of the deposits in the Northern Territory, it makes me, as it is making the companies concerned, even more worried as to what are the real intentions and the real purposes of these regulations and these powers. If there is the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and if total power over utilisation of resources rests with the Minister and the total ownership rests with the Commonwealth Government, how easy it is simply to hand over the deposits of some companies to this Petroleum and Minerals Authority and allow that Authority to become the sole proprietor of uranium mines in this country. So far, the Government shrinks from saying that, but this may well be the true policy of the Government. If it is, I only hope that the Government has the moral courage to come out and make it perfectly clear so that everybody will know where the Government stands.

I have already indicated my reasons for moving for the disallowance of this motion. Those are additional reasons why we in the Opposition believe that the regulations should be disallowed. Therefore we have moved this motion today that these regulations should not be allowed.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O “Byrne)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1267

ABORIGINES

Motion for Compensation

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-In accordance with the notice I gave on 1 1 July this year, I move:

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to order. I ask whether it is proper that we should be discussing this question. I claim that it is sub judice and if it is it would be against all precedent of this Senate for us to be discussing this matter when it is before a court of law. It may not be within your knowledge, Mr President, but to establish that it is a matter before the court I refer to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court action No. 1 103 of 1974. The Commonwealth has been served with a writ on behalf of one Paul Thomas Coe, a law student at Sydney University and the plaintiff, naming Queensland Mines Limited and the Commonwealth of Australia as defendants in an action to be heard before Mr Justice Fox. The action has been adjourned until 26 September and deals with the same matter as the motion before the Senate.

I might be pardoned for mentioning some of the references in the statement of claim. The plaintiff is a member and descendant of the Aboriginal people and alleges that prior to the invasion of the continent of Australia by persons from the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland, the Aboriginal people enjoyed exclusive possession of the continent. Further, by reason of the facts set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of claim, he alleges that all Aborigines had a relationship with the whole continent of Australia. Of course, it will be noticed that this motion before the Senate seeks a declaration that that is so and if it were proceeded with we would be prejudging the matter that is now before the court by a declaration of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, my Department has received a letter from Messrs Baker and McKenzie, solicitors and attorneys, asking for some assistance and advising that they are acting for Mr Paul Coe and that the matter will come before the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court on 26 September 1974. From the Press reports of the preliminary hearing of this matter we find that Mr Paul Thomas Coe is also seeking an order restraining the Commonwealth from granting Queensland Mines Limited any mining lease or exploration licence which would allow the company to carry out mining in the Northern Territory area of Narbalek. The writ, which was brought before Mr Justice Fox yesterday afternoon, seeks orders to prevent persons from conducting mining activities without first consulting the plaintiff, Mr Coe. Mr Kelly, who represented Mr Coe in these proceedings, said that there was a claim by the whole of the Australian community to the whole of the Australian continent. He said that all Aborigines were entitled to all benefits obtained from the land and to take part in any decisions which might be made about the land. This is one of the claims of the plaintiff in this action. He said that any decision would have to be made on the basis of support for the great majority of the Aboriginal communities.

His Honour Mr Justice Fox said that he was considering the action as an urgent ex parte application and he was prepared to keep an open mind on what he called an unusual application of a novel concept. The application is a declaration that the whole of Australia was owned by Aboriginals. When a matter is before a court we must take great care that we protect not only the interest of the applicant to the action but also the interests of all other parties appearing before the court. Today I had a telephone conversation with Mr Newman of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service of New South Wales. He is the solicitor who is briefing counsel. He has made certain representations to me and has made known to me the case to be made out. Today I rang Mr Newman to see whether he thought that the debate, the discussion or any decision on the notice of motion could in any way affect the court hearing. His reply was that he was of the opinion that it would depend upon how much His Honour Mr Justice Fox could be influenced by the decision that was made here today. It may be that it would not influence His Honour’s judgment on this particular question, but when there is a possibility of it I think it would be improper and against the procedure we have followed on this question to proceed with the discussion today. It could prejudice the hearing and it could prejudice some of the people who are involved in this action.

I understand that there is agreement that after Senator Bonner moves the notice of motion the debate will be adjourned. However, time will not permit a complete decision on this question so I do not know what is the value in bringing it on today when we could be infringing the normal procedures of discussing a matter at a time when it is sub judice.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Can Senator Cavanagh answer a question? When did the application go to the court for a hearing?

Senator Cavanagh:

– The statement of claim was delivered on 16 September 1974. The writ was issued on 6 September 1974.

Senator Rae:

– In responding to Senator Cavanagh ‘s point of order, Mr President, I would suggest to you and to the Senate that there is no validity at all in the point taken. Whilst there is an importance and a necessity for this chamber to ensure that it does not infringe the rights of individuals to a fair trial within our legal system there is a balancing factor which must be borne in mind, and that is the balancing factor of the public interest. It is not possible for one arm of the government system within Australia to prevent all public discussion of matter of importance within other arms or within the public generally. From the point of view of balancing let me refer first of all to what is said in Mr Odgers’ book, in the fourth edition of ‘Australian Senate Practice’, at page 199 and then let me go on to cite some examples from court decisions as to attitudes which have been taken by the courts both in Australia and in other countries. First of all Mr Odgers says:

Sub judice matters- Matters still under adjudication in a court of law cannot be brought forward in debate. That is to say, the Senate will not permit a debate which, in the normal way, would be regarded, if it occured outside Parliament, as a contempt of those court procedings. But the rule is not always confined to those limits.

Assuming that that is a fair statement of the position so far as the Parliament is concerned, let us see how it relates here to whether the discussion of this matter would be regarded, if it occurred outside Parliament, as a contempt of the Court proceedings to which Senator Cavanagh has referred. Let me by way of introduction to this consideration remind you, Mr President, that the Senate is not proposing at the moment to legislate in any way which would affect the rights of the parties involved in the litigation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, it is an expression of opinion.

Senator Rae:

– It is expressing an opinion only.

Senator Withers:

– If it were carried.

Senator Rae:

– If it were carried. It is still an expression of opinion one way or the other, but it becomes a matter of looking to what is the public interest in relation to the balance that I spoke to. I start by referring to a decision, which is very well known in Australia, of Sir Frederick Jordan, the Chief Justice in New South Wales, in ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd Re Truth and Sportsman Ltd, (1937) He said:

It is of extreme public interest that no conduct should be permitted which is likely to prevent a litigant in a court of justice from having his case tried free from all matter of prejudice. But the administration of justice, important though it undoubtedly is, is not the only matter in which the public is vitally interested; and if in the course of the ventilation of a question of public concern matter is published which might prejudice a party in the conduct of a law suit, it does not follow that a contempt has been committed. The case may be one in which as between competing matters of public interest the possibility of prejudice to a litigant may be required to yield to other and superior considerations. The discussion of public affairs and the denunciation of public abuses, actual or supposed, cannot be required to be suspended merely because the discussion or the denunciation may, as an incidental but not intended by-product, cause some likelihood of prejudice to a person who happens at the time to be a litigant.

It is well settled that a person cannot be prevented by process of contempt from continuing to discuss publicly a matter which may fairly be regarded as one of public interest, by reason merely of the fact that the matter in question has become the subject of litigation, or that a person whose conduct is being publicly criticised has become a party to litigation either as plaintiff or defendant, and whether in relation to the matter which is under discussion or with respect to some other matter.

That portion of the judgment of Sir Frederick Jordan has been referred to in decisions of the High Court, and in particular in James v. Robinson (1963), with approval, and is, I believe, the law applying in Australia. The matter then is to see how applicable it is to this particular discussion and whether the discussion which is sought by Senator Bonner of the position relating to the rights to any form of compensation which members of the Aboriginal people of Australia may have is a matter of public interest. Undeniably- I am sure that Senator Cavanagh would agree- it is a matter of great public interest.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, but superior to the public interest is the interest of Paul Coe.

Senator Rae:

– Then it is a matter only of the balance, of whether one outweighs the other. One has to look then to the question of prejudice. Will the debate on this matter in this chamber in which individual members of the chamber may express their own views in relation to the rights or otherwise of the Aboriginal people of Australia to compensation in any way affect the rights of those who are involved in the trial? My suggestion to the Senate would be that it would be impossible to believe that in any way the expression of an opinion here would preclude a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory from giving judgment free from any fear that one or other judgment which he may give will be adversely commented upon in the Parliament. In history, judges simply have not aberrated in that way. In fact, they have been very keen to show in various cases that have come before them that they recognise the right of the public and of the Parliament to make comments on pending legal proceedings or judgments. It is simply a matter of whether those comments will have an effect which, particularly with a jury, would adversely affect the person’s right to a fair trial or whether they might prevent witnesses from coming forward at a hearing. I find it very hard to believe that any witness likely to give evidence in the case to which Senator Cavanagh has referred would be put off or would be frightened to give evidence simply because the matter has been debated in this chamber. It is a matter about which, over the years, there has been public debate but perhaps not sufficient public debate. We certainly commend Senator Bonner for taking this step of making this matter the subject of a more immediate public debate in this chamber.

It would be incredible to suggest that any witness might be put off or frightened in any way by the debate which might take place in this chamber. It is incredible to believe that any judge would be affected in bis judgment by the debate which would take place in this chamber. I will quote briefly from a decision made in 1965.

Senator Georges:

– It would be interesting to know how you would interpret a matter that is to come up later today.

Senator Rae:

– The honourable senator can raise any matter in this chamber that he wishes. The case to which I was referring was from a judgment in 1965 in the United Kingdom in which it was stated:

What the Lord Justice was there saying, in my judgment, is that, if you had such a discussion in a paper of the rights of some pending litigation as is calculated to prejudice the proper trial of the action, that is a serious contempt which will be met with the necessary punishment. I do not think it is right to take that statement out of its context and say that anything which happens to amount to or be the equivalent to a discussion of the rights of some party’s case in an action is thereby a contempt. The test must always be, in my judgment, whether or not in the circumstances of the particular case what has happened is something that is likely to prejudice the fair trial of the action, and the risk that it will prejudice the fair trial of the action must be a real risk.

Referring to the likelihood or otherwise of judges being affected, it was stated in the quite famous Quinton Hogg case in 1968 in the United Kingdom:

Though the court has jurisdiction to consider an allegation of contempt of itself, the jurisdiction will never be used to protect the court against criticism of itself or its decisions in exercise of the right to freedom of speech.

In continuing, a comment was made that I think is appropriate here. It was:

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not.

Reference is then made to the right of Mr Quinton Hogg to criticise the proceedings. I believe that so far as the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory is concerned it would adopt a similar attitude. No debate in this Parliament is likely adversely to affect a judge in the carrying out of his duty. It would be different if it were to be a jury. This matter will be heard by Mr Justice Fox. It is not likely, by being discussed today, in any way to affect a fair trial either by frightening witnesses, putting off the plaintiff or the defendant or affecting the judge. In my submission, Mr President, it is clearly a matter which should proceed and is in no way sub judice.

Senator Murphy:

– I will endeavour to assist you, Mr President. This is obviously a difficult question. It is quite obvious that a question arises because of the proposition of Senator Bonner and the existence of the case to which reference has been made. Senator Rae could see this question looming so large that he came into the chamber armed with various legal authorities on the matter. Senator Cavanagh has rightly raised the matter for your consideration, Mr President, so that the Senate may be aware of the issue and may be able to determine a course of action. If you, Mr President, examine the matter before you you may realise- I suggest this also for Senator Cavanagh ‘s consideration- that there may be somewhat different issues involved.

I will go even further than Senator Rae did. If one analyses the court case it seems to me that the plaintiff is really relying upon the existing legal rights. He is saying there is a legal right and that he is entitled in the administration of the law to a specific order from the court. That is one issue. It seems to me that what is raised here by Senator Bonner, when it is analysed, is a different issue. If honourable senators read Senator Bonner’s motion carefully they will find, it seems to me, that he is saying that the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as the Aborigines and Torres Strait islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to 1788 and the First Fleet landing at Botany Bay. That is not a contention of existing legal right but something that no one would question at all.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It puts the legal right in doubt.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes- but urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people. That is capable, I suppose, of being viewed in 2 different ways: As giving an existing legal right or saying that we should admit they have a prior ownership and a previous right. Senator Bonner in his motion has said that we should introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torrest Strait islanders for dispossession of their land. It may well be that this matter, depending upon how Senator Bonner puts his case to the Senate, may not involve any question of the same issue arising. One might say there is a certain ambiguity. If Senator Bonner is saying that because of the previous rights that the indigenous people had we should legislate to compensate them but he is not alleging an existing legal right -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I would have thought he was denying it.

Senator Murphy:

– If he is, all the more so. It seems to me that there would be no question of the same issue even arising. If that is the way Senator Bonner is going to put it, may I suggest with respect, Mr President, to assist you, that the same issue would not be arising here at all? In the one case the plaintiff is saying: ‘I am wishing to assert existing legal rights and to obtain a certain order’. In the other case, Senator Bonner is saying: ‘Look, there were rights before the First Fleet landed and because the people were dispossessed of their land legislation should be introduced to compensate them’. They are 2 different issues if it is put in that way. One need not go into the question of the balance of convenience in relation to this matter. May I suggest with respect, Mr President, that the wise course in this case may be to let Senator Bonner be heard and to let the matter proceed. In any event, there will be an opportunity when Senator Bonner has spoken to adjourn the debate with a view to resuming it when the other matter has been determined. The best assistance I can give is to say that, on the way the motion is worded, the matter which arises for consideration by the Senate is not the same as that which has been presented to the court. Strictly, a question of sub judice does not arise.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise only to present myself in the role of a friend in your court, Mr President. I have to go back over some history which will be of importance and interest to the Senate. Over the years there grew up a habit here in the Senate concerning matters that were of some embarrassment from time to time: Ministers representing other Ministers- certainly representing the Crown, the Crown being present in the Parliament in the person of the Ministers- representing to the Presiding Officer of the day that matters were sub judice and therefore should not be ventilated in the Parliament. Some years ago this reached the stage where debate in the Parliament tended to be stifled by this accretion to the sub judice rule. It became a matter of some concern to me. I studied the sub judice rulings in other legislatures. I came to the conclusion that the preceding rulings that had been given in the Senate from time to time in fact were stifling the capacity of the Senate to carry out its business. Therefore I expanded the sub judice definitions. I said that the rule should be on the basis that if there is an obvious and manifest prejudice to the rights of a citizen before the courts the presiding officer at that stage should say: ‘I think the matter is sub judice. The plaintiff may be prejudiced and therefore it would be inadvisable for the Senate to discuss it further. ‘

But that situation does not arise in this context. On Senator Murphy’s suggestion, or rather on the implication in his suggestion, a decision on whether the plaintiff is being prejudiced can be taken only on subsequent statements made by Senator Bonner. Those statements may or may not cause you, Mr President, to invoke the sub judice rule on the application of a senator. I think that Senator Cavanagh, who always has been a staunch upholder of the rights of the Senate, is ill advised to attempt to invoke the sub judice rule before the honourable senator whose motion has been on the notice paper since July is able to make a statement in the context of his motion. Such a course would stifle him in his duties as a senator.

The courts have ruled constantly on these matters. I remember quoting to the Senate one such ruling of this order and nature: The court does not hear the arguments that take place within the walls of Parliament. It is not our function here in the Senate to protect, as it were, the courts and the judges. The courts, and the judges presiding over them, are quite capable of protecting themselves. What we have to avoid at all costs is invoking this sub judice rule to prevent senators from standing in their places and discussing matters of public interest. Therefore I conclude as I began: The test must be whether or not the plaintiff before the courts is prejudiced by discussion which takes place in the Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– In giving a decision on the point made by Senator Cavanagh I am influenced by reference to a submission made to the First Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers held at Ottawa. At that conference the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir William Aston, presented a paper on the subject of sub judice. He made some significant points of which I think I should remind the Senate in order to guide the Senate in this matter. It is a fundamental right of the House to legislate on any matter. It is a fundamental right and duty of the House to consider and discuss any matter if it is thought to be in the public interest. If it is not inconsistent with fundamental rights and duties, the House should avoid setting itself up as an alternative forum or body of inquiry or permitting its proceedings to interfere in the course of justice. Apart from particular matters, such as criminal cases, courts martial, civil cases and matters referred by a legislature to a judicial body, the rule has application to other hearings, inquiries and investigations in which the rights of individuals, or a community group, or the achievement of justice may be prejudiced, and it is the obligation of the Chair to hold the balance between the rights and duties of the House on the one hand and the rights and interests of the citizens on the other. I am not altogether satisfied that this matter is not sub judice. However, I will allow the debate to continue and will bear very closely in mind the points made by Senator Cavanagh in his submission. I now call on Senator Bonner to proceed.

Senator BONNER:

-Thank you, Mr President, for your ruling. I thank the Senate for the debate that has taken place prior to my speaking. Before going into the debate, let me make a few brief remarks. During my lifetime I have always tried to follow the rule of law and I have counselled many of my young Aboriginal fellows that it is within the walls of this Parliament that the laws are made that govern the people of this nation. So I am very proud today to realise that there are people here who are prepared to allow me to speak to this motion today. Surely now my young Aboriginal fellows will understand what I have been saying for so long: It is within the walls of this Parliament that we can bring to the notice of the nation the problems with which we are faced. Perhaps between us all we can find a solution.

When I gave notice of this motion on 1 1 July 1974 1 felt that it was quite appropriate as it was National Aborigines Week- a week supposedly set aside for the recognition of Aborigines, a week during which Aborigines were to celebrate. I ask you, Mr President and honourable senators, to give us, the original owners of this land, something to celebrate by accepting this motion today. I do not decry the vast sums of money that have been spent by previous governments- and, I might add, increased by the present Governmenton indigenous affairs. I do not deny that the present Government, in many areas of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, has instigated superbly beneficial schemes to improve my fellow Aborigines’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ way of life within our broader Australian community. But it is truly to no avail, dig.nitywise, when it is but an allocating of money for a disadvantaged people because it is but a form of charity. We, the indigenous people, for far too long have been the recipients of charitythe charity of the government of the day; charity, with its modern day connotations implying a handout mentality.

What I am seeking is true and due entitlement for dispossession. Surely no one can deny that the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were dispossessed of what was theirs by right of inheritance. Does any honourable senator in this chamber dispute the findings of eminent anthropologists that the indigenous people, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation for thousands of years prior to 1788? I suggest that there are among honourable senators here those who will cry out in dismay and disbelief at the wording of this motion because just who among us but me, one of the remnants of the noble tribes who once walked with pride in the fact that this glorious and wonderful land was theirs, will be able to look at this through the eyes of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders?

On 24 May 1971 the Liberal Party of Australia, Queensland Division, selected me to fill a casual vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. On 1 1 June 1971 the Queensland State Parliament accepted the judgment of my Party by appointing me to fill that casual vacancy. On 2 December 1972 the people of Queensland endorsed the action of both my Party and the State Parliament by electing me to complete the unexpired term of Dame Annabelle Rankin. On 18 May 1974 1 was again elected by the people of Queensland including- I emphasise the word ‘including’- a special vote of confidence by some 20,000 citizens of my State. This was despite the fact, Mr President, that my contributions in this august chamber have been, in the main, on issues concerning the indigenous people.

I submit, humbly, that I have the reputation of being one of the most widely travelled senators in my State. I tour constantly within my State to meet constituents of all colours and from all walks of life. I have travelled vastly also interstate and wherever I go people come up to me and say: ‘Good on you, senator. It is about time an Aborigine made it. ‘ I suggest that these same people, these same good citizens, are really saying: ‘We trust you Nev. Bonner, and we expect you to act for your people’. There are some giggles, I notice, coming from honourable senators on the other side. Mr President, I am acting for my people, and responsibly, I hope. Am I asking Aborigines to throw off their chains and unite? Am I saying: ‘Aborigines, pack a gun and go out on the streets’? Am I saying: ‘Aborigines, down with the whiteys’? No, Mr President and honourable senators, I am attempting to put the horse back into the shafts, for it appears to me that in Aboriginal affairs to date the cart is very much before the horse.

It has been said so many times by so many wise men that it takes a big man to admit a mistake. I ask: Are you then, Australia, composed of big men? Are you willing now to admit a mistake? Are you prepared to admit that your forefathers took this land? This shame, Australia, I say, is your inheritance. There were no treaties. There were no compensations as such. Perhaps it is relevant that I repeat here today what was said to me by a profound old Aborigine. Let me quote his words. He said: ‘Boy, white man, he say America buy cheap country. Boy! That was no more cheap country! White man, he buy Australia for red handkerchief and stick of ‘nigger twist’.’ Mr President and honourable senators, I ask you: Is this true compensation for this vast and glorious land? No. I must stand by this motion. This to me is a matter of deep personal conscience.

I am reminded of Martin Luther when he stood before the Emperor of Europe and the Church’s Legate at the Parliament of Vorms. He said: ‘Here, here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. ‘ I am reminded of the words of yet another ‘Martin Luther’- Martin Luther King- when he said: ‘I have a vision.’ Mr President, I also have a vision- a vision in which I see all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders walking tall in the knowledge that their dignity has been restored by their learning that what was once ours has been recognised as ours but forcibly taken and now compensated for. And all this through Government legislation. I know that there are those among you, perhaps on both sides of the chamber, who are feverishly asking themselves: ‘What is he talking about? What does he mean by compensation? What kind of compensation should be given?’

Mr President, I am not asking for a set amount of money to be paid by the people of Australia for this entire nation, because how do you evaluate it? What was the value of Australia in 1788? That of course would be the argument that many would use. Does one expect to pay the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for Australia at the going rate at the time of the First Fleet landing? Of course not. Many of you on both sides of this chamber would instance that your forefathers settled shortly after 1788 and you, the descendants, built this nation to what it is today. You built the cities, the towns and the roads. You erected the wonderful buildings we see today. I admit that you did this. But for whom? How were you able to do it? You could do it because of the richness of the land which was taken from my forefathers. You took the wealth of the grazing land for your sheep and cattle, for farming, for the growing of grain, for the exploration for minerals and mineral wealth. So today, Mr President and honourable senators, this land is certainly of greater value than it was at the time of the First Fleet landing. But even in 1974 how does one set a just price? What of the indigenous people? What of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders? How do you value human suffering, the loss of human dignity, the loss of culture, the loss of a traditional way of life and the destruction of the Aboriginal society? Mr President and honourable senators, how do you value this in monetary terms? You can put no monetary value on enforced disintegration. I am asking for compensation for this loss of landearth our entire being. I do not ask you to understand this term. I am asking for compensation for our enforced disintegration.

I am asking for an amount of money to be set aside from the annual national Budget which will become the true entitlement of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders so that we may recapture our dignity and our pride as human beings. As it is at the moment, Mr President, money is set aside. As I said earlier, I do not decry the amounts that have been set aside but, again as I have already stated, this charity from one government sets one amount aside and the next government tries to better or perhaps to lessen the amount, depending entirely on the feelings of the people sitting within this chamber and the other place. When this is done, what is the cry? What in fact is the cry throughout Australia today? I suggest that it is the wail of the so-called white backlash. Why is this? It is because charity is being given to the Aborigines or to the Islanders or, as some people term it, to the boongs, the Abos or the blacks; but my God, forgetting that these very same boongs, Abos and blacks inherited this vast nation. Our forefathers indeed owned it.

Mr President and honourable senators, I say that the day is fast approaching when this compensation for dispossession of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders must- I say ‘must’- be channelled to an all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander statutory body empowered to administer such a compensation for dispossession fund, for the survival of fellow Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The statutory body must be empowered to call upon such non-Aboriginal expertise as is considered necessary by the body. I propose that the all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander statutory body should be answerable only to the Parliament. I repeat, Mr President, that we should put the horse back into the shafts. I urge the Senate to accept the fact that the indigenous people of Australia who are now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, and I urge the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people and to introduce legislation to compensate annually the people who are now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land- rather than conquerors ‘ charity.

In the final analysis, Mr President and honourable senators, should I be deserted and sit here alone on one side of the chamber, one lone senator, one lone Aborigine, I will mind not at all, I will understand. But honourable senators, where, I ask, stand you in history? Mr President and honourable senators, today you will judge me. Australia, and particularly my State of Queensland, may judge me tomorrow. But history, I assure you, will judge us all. I pray that history will not render a verdict of guilty.

Mr PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator WITHERS:

-I second the motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) adjourned.

page 1273

QUESTION

RURAL POLICY IN AUSTRALIA

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I move:

At the outset I indicate that I believe that the document which the working group produced will set down the guidelines and broad philosophy for agriculture in Australia for a long time to come. The paper, which is the result of the initiative taken by the Labor Government since it came to power in 1972, is something of an historic document. It is the first paper on agriculture which has been drawn up by a government for more than 20 years. It sets out some of the problems- to a large extent, probably all of the problems- confronting the rural sector and, whilst not drawing any conclusions, presents many thoughts on ways and means by which these problems can be overcome. In drawing up the document the working party considered more than 100 submissions from primary producers, academics, and one would believe, people from a vast cross-section of the Australian scene. However, it must be stressed that the document is by no means the policy of the Labor Government. As I said earlier, it should be a guide to this Government and, one would assume, to any government that governs Australia during the next few years.

The great overriding problem that one sees in agriculture- it is perhaps being pointed up at the present time- is the instability in income for the primary producer. This is not new; it never has been new in the Australian agricultural scene. Prices of various products have fluctuated due to problems across the world and across Australia. They fluctuate because of the economic policies of importing countries and the quirks of nature in Australia itself. One only has to think of the price trends in wool and beef for as short a period as the last 12 months to have some realisation why some farmers in the community are presently expressing some anger. At the present time a prime bullock sells for about $140, whereas earlier this year a beast of exactly the same quality and type was selling for almost $400. The price of wool fluctuates not quite as severely as the price of beef, but almost at the same rate.

The Australian Labor Party realises that in these circumstances there is bound to be some frustration, anger and qualms expressed about the future of agriculture in Australia as farmers see it. However, I say to those farmers who are talking about taking militant action, such as driving their tractors on to the roads, cutting off the supply of produce to their counterparts in the cities and doing all sorts of things short of engaging in civil war, that in my opinion they should go back, sit on the slip rail and rethink or reanalyse the case, and not come out, as many of them are tending to do, and blame the Government. Quite frankly, I think that if they sit down in a rational way and think the thing through properly, they will realise that to a large extent they are the victims of the free enterprise system which many of them have proclaimed and continue to proclaim as being the be-all and the end-all of society. They also will realise, if they think this matter through, that a good deal of their problem lies in the finance and politics of the European Economic Community, Japan and America. Perhaps, while they are doing this within the framework of the free enterprise system in which so many of them glorify, they will take a cold hard look at the free auction system.

Senator McLaren:

– And have a look at the profit margins of the stock companies, too.

Senator PRIMMER:

– And also, as Senator McLaren rightly points out, have a look at Dennys Lascelles Ltd and the various other stock groups that have battened on to them ever since Australia was taken away from Senator Bonner’s people. If any move has been made to try to solve the problems that beset primary industries at the present time, surely it is the initiative that was taken by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) when he formed the Rural Advisory Council. This body is chaired by a man whom I know personally- Mr Heffernan of Victoria. He is a man of high calibre and high integrity. If those who sit under his chairmanship are of the same calibre and integrity- I have no doubt that they are- then I believe that this organisation can be a strong link between the growers or the farmers and this Government or any other government. I believe that, once this Council gets to work and sits down with the Minister and his advisers, many of the problems now confronting the primary industries will diminish.

The Green Paper, as it has become known, touches on most, if not all, of the facets of agriculture in Australia which are too numerous to enumerate in total. Apart from a basic background of agriculture, it goes right through Government assistance, stabilisation and efficiency, land and rural credit policies, agricultural research and extension services and marketing policies including market information and communication. Let me say here that, if there is an area in which governments and primary producers in the past have been remiss, it is this very vital area of market information and communication. One has only to be aware of the situation that applies in the meat market of New Zealand to be fully aware that in Australia we have not even started to think about doing our homework as it relates to market information and communication. It has been a dead area and it is one of the areas that will have to be moved on very quickly in order to help the meat section of our market to which it specifically applies to cope with the problems of today. Primary producers take their stock to the market. No one who takes them there can give a guarantee of quality. At the other end of the line no one ever lets the farmer know what type of meat the market actually requires. So we have farmers continuing to produce animals that may or may not be, by some fluke chance, the type of meat that the consumer requires.

The Green Paper also goes into the field of rural reconstruction, the welfare of rural people, land utilisation, environment and conservation, decentralisation and so on. As I said earlier, the list goes on ad infinitum. One area which it does not touch and which is giving and has given a great deal of concern throughout rural Australia in recent years- perhaps the concern has always been there but lately it has been highlighted- is the question of rural towns. The working party may have felt that this matter was outside the scope of the brief which it was given. But I believe that it is time that some other working group was put to work to study rural towns. It may well be that an offshoot of the Department of Urban and Regional Development could carry out this task. The interim report of the Henderson Committee, which was presented earlier this year, pointed up the fact that the rate of poverty is twice as high in rural towns as in metropolitan areas.

To come back to the Green Paper and more specifically to marketing, there has been a good deal of discussion amongst the primary producer organisations in recent years on this question of marketing and the opinion has been expressed consistently that if marketing can be improved from the farmer’s point of view there is bound to be a higher return for the goods which they produce. The farmers have felt that better marketing through the introduction of better techniques would increase their pay packets. It was rather disconcerting to read that section of the Green Paper and to be informed by the people who compiled it- I believe that they had sufficient information on which to base their case- that the costs of better marketing as they currently apply and will apply in the future will mean that despite better marketing by the farmer he will not receive any higher price for his produce. This is a rather alarming situation. It continues the situation that has always prevailed with primary produce in that the farmer, of course, only receives what is left after all the other people involved have taken their share out of the final price. If it is the case that improved marketing techniques by primary producers will not give them an increase in income, then one wonders where primary producers will go for an increase in their income. The overwhelming majority of primary producers in this country are hard working and, within the restrictions of their total environment, very efficient. Yet we are told in the Green Paper that no more than 4 per cent of our farmers have received a post-school education. In fact, of the developed nations Australia has the lowest percentage of farmers with a post-school education. I believe that this must be a cause for some concern on the part of the Government because, as I read the agricultural scene, having lived in it all my life, and as I see it projected into the future, it is very obvious to me that over the next decade or so people with no post-school education will not be able to cope with the intricacies and the techniques which are constantly evolving in agriculture. I believe that here is a task for some governments to give serious thought to, and frankly I do not know how one gives farmers a post-school education over any extended period if they are to continue to look after their farms. Farming has always seemed to me to be rather a 24-hour job, but perhaps we can evolve some system whereby these farmers can be relieved of their duties over a period of time to allow them to engage in further academic studies. I believe that the authors of this paper deserve the thanks of all of us.

As I have already said, it is a very comprehensive document. I guess that it has been studied by hundreds if not by thousands of people across rural Australia and by not only farmers but also academics, agricultural extension officers and people in departments of agriculture. The call for the paper- people have contacted me- has virtually utilised every copy which has come to print at this stage. In fact, it has been a very hard document to obtain. For that reason it might not be distributed as widely as it could well be but I believe that the great bulk of people who are interested in the matter by some means or other will have access to a copy. I think that covers all I wish to say about the matter. I repeat that I believe it is a first class document, put together by a hardworking group of people and that, to a very large extent, it will be the bible for agriculture in Australia for the future.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Is the motion seconded?

Senator Devitt:

– Yes, I second the motion.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-Briefly, the document is entitled ‘Principles of Rural Policy in Australia ‘. It was drawn up under very broad terms of reference to be a discussion paper for a basis of informed judgment and thought. The work has been done by a very good group of people. I think that it is an extremely valuable document. It reaches no recommendations but it does give a series of broad conclusions and comments. There is an underlying thread throughout the paper in all its chapters and seems to give a reasonably consistent position. I believe that the document is of such far reaching importance that it needs to be discussed in this chamber both more broadly and in some considerable depth. I hope that the opportunity for that will occur later on in this session. With those remarks I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

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

Senate adjourned at 4.58 p.m.

page 1277

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Re- training (Question No. 10)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Did the Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade state on 18 July 1973 that persons who might lose their jobs as a result of the changes flowing from the 25 per cent reduction in tariffs would be offered retraining for new and better occupations if they so desired.
  2. Has any person who has lost his job in such circumstances been offered retraining; if so, how many persons have been offered retraining, and of what type.
  3. Has any such offer been accepted.
  4. What is the nature and scope of the retraining which is available.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes; all those among the 1,404 eligible persons who, to 30 June 1974, had registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service and had expressed interest in training. The training discussed with each person included full-time and part-time formal course training, correspondence training, and in-plant training in any skill in demand on the labour market.
  3. Yes.
  4. See (2) above.

Grants to Sporting Organisations (Question No. 35)

Senator Chaney:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. What rules, if any, have been laid down governing grants to sporting organisations for teams to attend national and internauonalevents.
  2. Does the Government contribute a fixed proportion of fares and/or other costs
  3. 3 ) Is any means test imposed
  4. What information is required from applicants
  5. Who decides whether the grants will be made and on what grounds
  6. Who decides what amounts will be granted and on what grounds
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Broadly, the rules governing grants to sporting organizations are that applications will only be accepted from and payments made to bona fide national sporting bodies for approved national and international events.

    1. No. The grants vary to take account of distances travelled and the popularity of the sport involved.
    2. No.
    3. Each national association is required to provide background information on its structure, office bearers, international affiliations, local affiliates and the number of registered participants as well as copies of annual reports.

For specific events, information is sought on venues, numbers participating, team selection, travel arrangements, the overall budget for the event and other details as appropriate to the particular events.

  1. and (6) The Department of Tourism and Recreation examines requests and makes recommendations to the Minister who determines both the association’s eligibility for a grant and the size of any grant on the basis of the approved guidelines.

The sports assistance programme was explained in detail to national sports associations by letter on 29 October 1 973.I understand that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation has forwarded a copy of this letter to the honourable senator.

Royal Australian Air Force: Resigned Officers (Question No. 80)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. How many Air Force officers who resigned in 1973 and in each month of 1974 had served (a) 12 years or less; (b) 13 to 19 years; and (c) 20 years or more.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Of the male Air Force officers who resigned in the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1974 (a) 106 had served 12 years or less, (b) 25 had served 13 to 19 years and (c) 111 had served 20 years or more.

Royal Australian Navy: Resigned Officers (Question No. 81)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many Naval officers who resigned in 1973 and in each month of 1 974 had served(a) 1 2 years or less; (b) 13 to 19 years; or (c) 20 years or more.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Of the male Naval officers who resigned in the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1974 (a) 34 had served 12 years or less, (b) 8 had served 13 to 19 years and (c) 52 had served 20 years or more.

Army: Resigned Officers (Question No. 82)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. ) How many Army officers who resigned in 1973 and in each month of 1974 had served (a) 12 years or less; (b) 13to 1 9 years; and (c) 20 years or more.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Of the Army male officers who resigned in the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1974(a) 105 had served 12yearsor less, (b) 16 had served 13 to 19years and (c) 257 had served 20 years or more.

Royal Australian Air Force: Re-engaged Personnel (Question No. 86)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many Air Force personnel who re-engaged in the Air Force in 1973 and in 1974 had served for (a) 6 years; (b) 12 years; and (c) 17 years or more.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. ) Of the airmen who re-engaged in the Air Force between 1 January 1973 and 30 June 1974(a) 1381 had served for 6 years, (b) 542 had served 12 years and (c) 865 had served 1 7 years or more.

Army: Re-engaged Soldiers (Question No. 87)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many soldiers who re-engaged in the Army in 1973 and in each month of 1974, had served for (a) 6 years; ( b) 1 2 years; and (c) 1 8 years or more.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Of the male other ranks Servicemen who re-engaged in the Army between 1 January 1973 and 30 June 1974:

    1. 1,628 had served 6 years;
    2. 953 had served 12years; and
    3. 858 had served 1 8 years or more.

Royal Australian Navy: Re-engaged Sailors (Question No. 88)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. How many sailors who re-engaged in the Navy in 1973 and in each month of 1974 had served for (a) 9 years and (b) 15 years or more.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. ) Of the sailors who re-engaged in the Navy between I January 1973 and 30 June 1974 (a) 342 had served for 9 years and (b)255 had served for 15 years or more.

VIP Aircraft: Interior Maintenance (Question No.115)

Senator Townley:
TASMANIA

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

  1. What has been the total cost of decorating the interiors of VIP aircraft, since the Labor Government came to office.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Maintenance of the interiors of VIP aircraft is carried out on a day to day basis by the RAAF and these costs are not recorded. Major refurnishing work is carried out as part of the aircrafts normal cyclical maintenance program and the cost of this work since December 1972 has been $25,300.34.

VIP Aircraft: Purchase (Question No. 116)

Senator Townley:

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

  1. 1 ) What VIP aircraft have been purchased since 1 965.
  2. What was the cost of each of the aircraft purchased.
  3. What was the date of purchase of each aircraft.
  4. Have any of the aircraft been sold; if so, what were (a) the dates of the sales and (b) the sale prices.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Two Hawker Siddeley HS748, three Mystere 20 and twoBAC111.
  2. HS748-$1.160m, Mystere-$ 1 . 072m, BAC 111-$3.367m.
  3. HS748-contract signed 6 April 1966, delivery January 1967 and February 1967.

Mystere 20- contract signed 23 June 1 966, delivery March 1967, May 1967 and June 1967.

BAC 111- contract signed 21 June 1966, delivery December 1967 and June 1968.

  1. No.

VIP Aircraft: Catering (Question No. 117)

Senator Townley:

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

  1. 1 ) To which Department is the cost of catering on VIP aircraft charged.
  2. What was the cost of catering during 1972-73 and 1973-74.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  2. 1972-73- $43,216; 1973-74- $36, 123.

Bills of Exchange Act: Manning Report (Question No. 154)

Senator Martin:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General given instructions to expedite the consideration of the Manning Committee’s Report on the operation of the Bills of Exchange Act; if so, when did this happen.
  2. Has the Attorney-General given any further consideration to the recommendations of the Manning Committee; if so, does he propose to initiate legislation in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations.
  3. Does the Attorney-General intend to act on the recommendation that the law relating to cheques be dealt with in a separate Cheques Act; if so, will he advise the Senate when this will be done.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. Yes; in April 1973.
  2. A considerable amount of work has been done by my Department towards legislation along the lines recommended by the Manning Committee. Extensive research has been necessary in some areas not wholly covered by the Manning Committee ‘s Report and to deal with certain banking procedures that have changed, due to technological changes, after the Manning Committee made its report.
  3. I propose acting upon the Committee’s recommendation that the law relating to cheques be dealt with in a separate Cheques Act. I expect to introduce the legislation during 1975.

Farm Development Loans

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 11 July 1974, Senator Drake-Brockman asked me a question, without notice, concerning the trading banks’ Farm Development Loan Funds and the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department. I indicated in my interim reply that I would check the position with the Treasurer. The Treasurer has now provided the following additional information:

As announced on 8 July 1974 the Farm Development Loan Funds of the major trading banks are being replenished by an amount of $36. 3m. Of this, $24.2m was transferred from banks’ Statutory Reserve Deposits to their Farm Development Loan Fund accounts on 9 July. The balance of $ 1 2.1m will be transferred from banks’ other assets by the end of August. These transfers, when completed, will bring the resources available to the Farm Development Loan Fund since its inception to $285m.

As regards interest rates on farm development loans, from 9 July the rates chargeable for new loans of under $50,000 rose by 2 per cent per annum, in line with the increase in the maximum overdraft rate, chargeable on loans drawn under limits of less than $50,000. The interest rate on new loans of $50,000 or more remained a matter for negotiation between banks and their customers. With reference to existing farm development loans, changes in interest rates will depend on the conditions of particular loan agreements between banks and their customers.

Interest rates on loans from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank are now in the range 9.5-10.0 per cent per annum. The full effect of these new rates on the amount of interest that will be payable on borrowings by the Wheat Board during 1974-75 is a matter for conjecture. Interest payments on wheat loans will be influenced by a number of unknown factors, including the size ofthe Board ‘s intake, the rate of advances to grower/suppliers and the pattern of inflow of cash from sales of wheat.

Loss of Australian Government Cheque

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 17 July 1974 Senator Withers asked me a question, without notice, concerning the reported loss of an Australian Government cheque for $12.5 m payable to the Victorian Government.

The Treasurer has advised that no such cheque was issued by the Australian Government.

Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

-On 18 July 1974, Senator Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the existence of the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee which was set up in 1972 by the Liberal-Country Party Government? Can the Minister say why this potentially important committee has met only once- in February 1974- since its formation? Will he confirm that a second committee meeting was proposed for June 1974 and then postponed? Will he also confirm that the minutes of the first meeting have not yet been forwarded to members of the Committee? Will he assure the Senate that it is the intention of the Labor Government to see that this Committee will continue to function efficiently and effectively and, hopefully, more frequently?

The Minister for Health has now provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. . The Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee was set up in 1972 under section 17 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations.

The functions ofthe Committee are to consider.

  1. any matter referred to it by the Minister relating to the administration ofthe Act; and
  2. the standards applicable to any goods for therapeutic use, and the requirements with respect to labelling and packaging applicable to any such goods, in so far as those standards or requirements relate to the manufacture, distribution or use of goods for therapeutic use; and to advise the Minister in relation to that matter or those standards.

    1. The Committee did not meet until February 1974 because during the intervening period there was no matter referred to the Committee within its terms of reference which warranted calling a meeting. During the period 1 972 to 1974 a number of draft standards were drawn up and agreed to by the Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee, an expert technical advisory body established under Section 1 8 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. Following agreement on the draft standards at the technical level, they were referred to the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee for consideration. February 1 974 was the earliest date that this could be achieved.
    2. The second meeting ofthe Committee was proposed for June 1974 but was later postponed to allow adequate time for groups, that might be affected in their professional or commercial activities by the proposed standards for therapeutic goods, to comment on those standards before they were considered further by the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee. The Committee had referred, at its first meeting, to the necessity for adequate time being granted for such comment to be provided.
    3. The minutes of the meeting of 5 February 1974 were dispatched to members of the Committee on 29 April 1974. However, as the honourable senator’s copy has not reached him, I have arranged for another copy to be sent to him.
    4. I can assure the honourable senator that it is the intention of the Government that the Committee will continue to function efficiently and effectively. With regard to frequency of meetings, it is intended that the Committee will meet between each meeting of the Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee, probably three times each year. However this will depend on the speed with which the Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee is able to carry out the highly complex task of preparing draft standards for consideration by the Advisory Committee.

Baltic States

Senator Maunsell:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Senate on 13 August 1974, without notice:

When was the Australian Ambassador in Moscow informed of the Australian Government’s decision to recognise the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics over the Baltic States.

Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

The Australian Ambassador in Moscow was informed on 16 July.

Baltic States

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Foreign

Affairs in the Senate on 1 5 August, in relation to a statement made by the Minister in the Senate on 13 August that Australia did consult a number of friendly countries beforehand to inform them of its intention to review its position on the question of the de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union, without notice:

What were the countries consulted?

Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs has maintained contact for a number of years with the Governments of the United States, Britain and Canada on this question, and consultations took place with these governments before the Australian Government took its recent decision on this matter. There was also consultation with the New Zealand Government.

Australian Regular Army: Disbanding of Units (Question No. 93)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) What units and sub-units of the Australian Regular Army were disbanded following Australia’s withdrawal from Vietnam.
  2. What units and sub-units of the Australian Regular Army are to be disbanded or amalgamated from June 1973 to June 1974 because of Australia’s withdrawal from Singapore and ANZUK.
  3. What units and sub-units of the Australian Regular Army are to be disbanded because of the Government’s decision to reduce Regular Army support groups and the placing of a ceiling of 3 1 , 1 50 on the Regular Army.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

HQ Australian Force Vietnam (AFV)

HQ 1 Australian Logistic Support Group 2 SAS Squadron

Detachment 1 Communications Zone Postal Unit 8 Field Ambulance

Detachment 1 Field Medical and Dental Equipment Depot 102 Field Workshop 102 Field Workshop Stores Section 1 Task Force HQ Light Aid Detachment

HQ AFV Cash Office 1 Detachment AFV Cash Office 2 Detachment AFV Cash Office

AFV Provost Unit 1 Australian Reinforcement Unit

AFV Amenities Unit

HQ 10 Task Force

(2)

HQ 28 ANZUK Brigade and Signals Squadron (Australian component)

Regimental HQ 28 ANZUK Field Regiment (Australian component) 28 ANZUK Field Squadron HQ and Support Troop (Australian component)

Australian and New Zealand Field Troop (Australian component) 28 ANZUK Aviation Squadron HQ and Workshop (Australian component) 90 Transport Platoon

ANZUK Field Medical Support Section (Australian component) 28 ANZUK Field Regiment Workshop (Australian component) 28 ANZUK Field Squadron Workshop (Australian component) Australian Field Cash Office 106 Field Battery 182 Reconnaissance Flight

HQ ANZUK Force (Australian component)

HQ ANZUK Support Group (Australian component)

Sembawang ANZUK Base (Australian component)

Woodlands ANZUK Base (Australian component)

ANZUK Barracks Service Unit (Australian component)

ANZUK Fire Service (Australian component) 9 ANZUK Signals Regiment (Australian component)

ANZUK Force Intelligence/Security Unit (Australian component)

ANZUK Transport Management Agency (Australian component)

ANZUK Base Transport Unit (Australian component)

ANZUK Postal and Courier Communications Unit (Australian component)

ANZUK Military Hospital (Australian component)

ANZUK Woodlands Hospital (Australian component)

ANZUK Families Medical Centre (Australian component)

ANZUK Hygiene and Malarial Control Section (Australian component)

ANZUK Dental Unit (Australian component)

ANZUK Supply Depot (Australian component)

ANZUK Survey Map Depot (Australian component)

ANZUK Engineer Stores Depot (Australian component)

ANZUK Ordnance Depot (Australian component)

ANZUK Medical and Dental Equipment Depot (Australian component)

ANZUK Area Workshop Stores Section (Australian component)

ANZUK Area Workshop (Australian component)

ANZUK Base Transport Unit Workshop (Australian component)

ANZUK Education Service (Australian component)

ANZUK Provost Unit (Australian component)

Australian Army Band (Australian component)

ANZUK Library Service (Australian component)

ANZUK Auxiliary Police Force (Australian component)

Australian Deputy Assistant

Secretary Staff, Singapore

  1. Excluding the units mentioned in (1) and (2) other major changes in the organisation of the Army have resulted from the Government’s acceptance of the Hassett Committee recommendations for functional reorganisation, the cessation of National Service and the Government’s decision to restructure the Army in a way which placed emphasis on the development of Field Force units. I wish to emphasise that the Army is a dynamic organisation and its manpower ceiling and Order of Battle are under constant review and changed according to need. In this process, the following units have been disbanded and consolidated and manpower reallocated to provide a more effective all volunteer Australian Regular Army to assist in protecting Australia’s national interests: 2 Recruit Training Battalion 3 Training Battalion 1 Officer Training Unit 18 Psychology Unit 20 Psychology Unit

Officer Cadet School Wing, Scheyville 2 Royal Australian Regiment and 4 Royal Australian

Regiment linked as 2/4 Royal Australian Regiment 5 Royal Australian Regiment and 7 Royal Australian

Regiment linked as 5/7 Royal Australian Regiment 8 Royal Australian Regiment and 9 Royal Australian Regiment linked as 8/9 Royal Australian Regiment 12 Field Regiment, 12 Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment and 8 Medium Regiment linked as 8/12 Medium Regiment 1 Australian Civil Affairs Unit 1 Psychological Operations Unit 586 Signal Troop

Ship’s Army Staff, HMAS ‘Sydney’ 106 Field Workshop 106 Field Workshop Stores Section 16 Transport Company Workshop

HQ Mornington Peninsula Area 30 Women ‘s Australian Army Corps Barracks 198 Works Section 55 Engineer Workshop and Park Squadron 55 Field Bakery Platoon 8 Petroleum Platoon

Detachment 1 Psychology Unit

Australian Army Training Team

Royal Australian Army Corps Band (Puckapunyal)

Royal Australian Army Band (Singleton)

Royal Australian Engineers Band (Liverpool)

Liverpool Area Workshop

Army Guided Weapons Trials Unit

In addition, the functions of 30 Terminal Squadron and Workshop, 35 Water Transport Squadron (Medium) and 40 Water Transport Squadron (Heavy) have been absorbed in a reorganised Terminal Group.

Army: Resignations of Officers (Question No. 68)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. How many Army officers, by rank, submitted their resignations in December 1973, and in each months of 1 974 up to 30 June.
  2. How many applications were accepted in each of the above months.
  3. How many applications were rejected and what reason was given for rejection.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. The numbers of Army officer resignations submitted by rank in December 1973, and in each month to June of 1974 were:
  1. Of these resignations submitted in the months given the following were accepted:
  1. Of those resignations submitted in the months given the following were rejected:

In each caseof the four rejections shown above a return of Service obligation under the Defence Act was involved.

In addition some resignations submitted in the months above are still pending a decision.

Royal Australian Air Force: Resignation of Officers (Question No. 69)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many Air Force officers, by rank, submitted their resignations in December 1973, and in each month of 1974.
  2. How many applications were accepted in each of the above months.
  3. How many applications were rejected and what reason was given for rejection.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The numbers of Air Force officer resignations submitted by rank in December 1973, and in each month to June 1 974 were:
  1. Of these resignations submitted in the months given the following were accepted:
  1. Of these resignations submitted in the months given the following were rejected:

The reason for those resignations submitted and rejected was for outstanding return of service obligations.

Royal Australian Navy: Resignations of Officers (Question No. 70)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. How many Naval officers by rank, submitted their resignations in December 1973, and in each month of 1 974.
  2. How many applications were accepted in each of the above months.
  3. How many applications were rejected, and what reason was given for rejection.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. The numbers of Navy Officer resignations submitted by rank in December 1973, and in each month to June of 1974 were:
  1. Of those resignations submitted in the months given the following were accepted:
  1. Of those resignations submitted in the months given the following were rejected:

Two of the resignations submitted in December 1973 were rejected on the grounds that the officers had not completed the return of service for training given, and the third because the officer had not completed the return of service to compensate for passage costs from overseas. The resignations submitted in January, April, May and June 1974 were rejected on the grounds that the officers had not completed the return of service for training given.

Army: Re-engagement of Servicemen (Question No. 71)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1) How many soldiers, other than officers, were re-engaged in the Army in each month in 1973 and in each month in 1974.
  2. ) What was the number re-engaged in each rank.
  3. How many were over the age of 38 years.
  4. What, if any, notice are soldiers required to give of their intention to re-engage.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The numbers of other ranks Servicemen by rank re-engaging in the Army in each month of 1973 and in each month in 1974 are contained in the following table:
  1. Not available. This information is not currently kept for management purposes and would require a lengthy manual search.
  2. Soldiers are required to submit either an application for re-engagement or an election for discharge seven months before the completion of their engagement. However, they may vary this decision up until the last day of the current period of engagement if desired.

Navy: Re-engagement of Servicemen (Question No. 73)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. How many sailors, other than officers, were reengaged in the Navy in each month in 1973 and in each month in 1974.
  2. What was the number re-engaged in each rank.
  3. How many were over 38 years of age.
  4. What, if any, notice are Naval personnel required to give of their intention to re-engage.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The numbers of sailors by rank re-engaging in the Navy in each month of the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1 974 were:
  1. For the period 1 February 1973 to 30 June 1974, 99 of the 869 sailors who re-engaged were over 38 years of age. A breakdown by age of re-engagements for January 1973 is not available.
  2. Sailors must give notice of their intention to re-engage between 1 8 months and 6 months before their engagement is due to expire.

Illegal Immigrants (Question No. 31)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

What were the countries of origin of the 176 persons who entered Australia illegally and who came within the ambit of the amnesty granted by the former Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby, and which was referred to in the Department’s News Release No. 48/74.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

The following table shows the citizenship of the 176 persons to whom reference was made in News Release No. 48/74 issued by the former Minister for Immigration.

Royal Australian Air Force: Re-engaged Airmen (Question No. 72)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. How many airmen, other than officers, were reengaged in the Air Force in each month in 1 973 and in each month in 1974.
  2. What was the number re-engaged in each rank.
  3. How many were over 38 years of age.
  4. What, if any, notice are Air Force personnel required to give of their intention to re-engage.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The numbers of airmen by rank re-engaging in the air Force in each month of the period 1 January 1 973 to 30 June 1974 were:
  1. Not available. This information is not kept for management purposes and would require a manual check and calculation of age from each of the 3,499 member’s individual Service records.
  2. Airmen may defer election to re-engage until the last day of the current period of engagement, if desired. However, the majority of re-engagement elections are made at the 1 1 to 12 month period prior to the completion of current engagement.

Tasmania: Grants Commission (Question No. 101)

Senator Bessell:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has Tasmania ceased to be a claimant State under the Grants Commission.
  2. Did the Premier of Tasmania, Mr E. Reece, refuse to provide the people of that State with the detailed information on which this important decision was based; if so, were these details set out in a letter from the Prime Minister to Mr Reece.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, will the Treasurer either table the letter, or make the pertinent details available, so that the people of Tasmania can be informed of this important decision.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. It would not be appropriate for me to attempt to give information on the attitude that has been taken by a State

Premier in relation to the provision of information to his Parliament. The arrangements agreed between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments on this matter were confirmed in a letter from the Prime Minister to the Premier.

  1. I see no reason for proposing to the Prime Minister that the correspondence should be made public. Information on the arrangements agreed between the two Governments was set out in a press release I issued on 1 1 June 1974. A copy of that statement would be available to the honourable senator.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 September 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19740919_senate_29_s61/>.