Senate
21 October 1965

25^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- AMENITIES FOR AUSTRALIAN SERVICEMEN ABROAD
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
QUESTION
- TELEVISION
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- IRON ORE
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD REPORT
QUESTION
- FISHING
QUESTION
- TELEVISION
QUESTION
- LEGAL AID
COURT LIBRARIES
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- SECURITY
QUESTION
- KANGAROOS
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- IRAN
CHINESE INTERNEE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD REPORT
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
- Precedence
SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT
- Report of Public Works Committee
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
- Report of Public Accounts Committee
- Ordered -
QUESTION
- PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1965-66
ADJOURNMENT
- Department of Works

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1091

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, by saying that I have received a complaint from Australians that Australian woollen goods are unavailable in Canada. Inquiries revealed that the reasons were: First, the prices of Australian products were too high; secondly, fabrics were not the right type; thirdly, styles did not appeal; fourthly, manufacturers found it easier to sell in other countries. Does the- Minister consider the reasons outlined, particularly the fourth one, to be satisfactory? If he does not, will he make strong representations to the Australian woollen textile manufacturers to take a more active interest in the potentially valuable Canadian market?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

– I certainly shall ask the Department of Trade and Industry to consult with the industry on this matter. I feel that the industry in Australia is a pretty live industry. It has made good progress and there is no question about the quality of the goods it produces; they are first class. Without any further information on the matter, I can make no additional comment, but I shall ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to inquire into the aspects that the honorable senator has raised.

page 1091

QUESTION

AMENITIES FOR AUSTRALIAN SERVICEMEN ABROAD

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the

Minister representing the Minister for Defence explain the whole of the circumstances under which the well known Australian entertainer, Lucky Starr, and a dance band group went to Vietnam and entertained Australian troops serving in that area? Because it might be thought by the general public that no other artists have offered their services, is the Minister able to confirm that another well known Sydney television personality, Don Lane, has had an application in for some time to be allowed to proceed to Vietnam for the purpose of entertaining Australian servicemen? Is the Minister aware that other Australian artists and musicians, including the popular Australian artist, Bobby Limb, have stated that they, too, are anxious to offer their services in this regard? Mas the Minister been able to give consideration to the applications referred to, and when will he be in a position to announce whether the offer of the artists to render their services free of charge is to be accepted?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I raised this matter with the Minister for the Army and he has furnished me with the following reply: The policy to be adopted on entertainers for our forces in South Vietnam has been under consideration. Such factors as the type of entertainment it would be possible to stage in view of the limited facilities at such places as Bien Hoa where most of our forces are located, the accommodation facilities, the measures necessary to ensure the safety of entertainers in a hazardous operational environment, and the need to co-ordinate Australian entertainment shows with those provided by the United States are being examined. The extent of transport facilities that can be made available also has to be determined. It has been possible to send some civilians on Service aircraft to operational areas up to recently but, with the priority loadings for service needs, air travel between Australia and South Vietnam cannot be provided by the Royal Australian Air Force at present and may not be available in the foreseeable future. I understand that the Services may be ableto supply some transport assistance within South Vietnam.

The representations made by Senator McClelland to the Minister for Defence were for a party of singers, including two girls. I am not yet in a position to say whether it would be possible for female entertainers to be sent to those operational areas in South Vietnam where our forces are stationed. This party also seeks Service air transport and, as I have mentioned, this is not available at present. The Australian male singer who visited South Vietnam last week was not sponsored by the Australian Services. He went there under a contract arranged privately by an Australian entrepreneur with a United States entertainment agency.

page 1092

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Because the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its reports has never indicated that an unfavourable budgetary adjustment has been made in respect of the subsidising by the Tasmanian Government of the shipping service between King Island and Tasmania, is it correct to assume that the amounts so expended by the Tasmanian Government are reimbursed to that Government through the agency of the Commonwealth Grants Commission? Would it be correct to say that such expenditure falls into the same category in Commonwealth and State financial relations as a considerably greater loss incurred by the Metropolitan Transport Trust in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie, which loss is reimbursed in a budgetary adjustment by the Commonwealth? If the subsidy on the King IslandTasmania shipping service is not wholly reimbursed to the Tasmanian Government, is part of that amount so expended refunded to the Tasmanian Government as a budgetary adjustment?

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Senator Wright asked a question on this matter on 29th September and I have the following information from the Postmaster-General -

The Committee made its report on 29th October 1963. The Committee in its report and recommendations traversed a wide field in relation to television but the Postmaster-General emphasises that its specific purpose was to consider the encouragement of the production of Australian television programmes. This subject has been receiving the special attention of the Postmaster-General for some time. There are very difficult questions of policy which arise for consideration in connection with the recommendations on Australian television productions. The Minister has previously indicated that when his examination of the matter is completed, he proposes to place the whole question of Australian productions for television before the Government. The Minister adds that the recommendations of the Committee on other matters have received some examination and the study of them is continuing.

Senator McClelland:

– I have not seen it.

Senator ANDERSON:

– It was tabled in the Senate yesterday. I am sorry that the honorable senator did not receive a copy; I will see that a copy is made available to him within the hour.

Senator McClelland:

– Thank you.

page 1094

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it true that the Japanese Fisheries Agency has despatched the’ research vessel “ Suruga Maru “ to the continental shelf waters south of Australia for the purpose of developing new fishing grounds? Will this operation take place in the vicinity of South Australia? If so, will the Minister ensure that, if these new fish-, ing grounds are established by the Japanese, ‘ steps will be taken to protect the fishing grounds and interests of those engaged in the fishing industry in South Australia?

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I will forward the question to the Minister for Primary Industry and get a reply for the honorable senator.

page 1094

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question supplementary to that asked today by Senator Wright of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Apart from the general consideration of the Report of the Select Committee on the Encouragement of Aus-, tralian Productions for Television which the Postmaster-General apparently has in hand, is the Minister in a position to say whether he will be able to give some indication, which we have not had in the slightest degree to date during the. course of the estimates debate on the subject, of the Government’s thinking on some of the specific recommendations made by that Select Committee?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– In answer to the honorable senator’s question, I would say: “No”. The position is that the consideration of the Estimates involves a debate on the estimates of the various departments. The honorable senator has asked whether the Postmaster-General will give me some indication of his thinking on the recommendations of the Select Committee. The answer which the Postmaster-General gave to the question asked by Senator Wright, and which I read this morning, indicated that he wanted to give full consideration to the aspects of this matter after which he himself would refer it to the Government. In those circumstances, I would say that the answer to the question asked by Senator Cohen is: “ No “.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I wish to address a further question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Will he acquaint the Postmaster-General of the growing concern felt in this chamber at the fact that nearly two years have passed without any disclosure being made by the Minister responsible for considering this report of any view that he has with regard to it? Will he also acquaint the Minister of the fact that certain honorable senators take the view that the debate on the estimates for the Postmaster-General’s Department will provide an opportunity for them to scrutinise the Minister’s failure to make any decision on a report which was submitted two years ago?

Senator ANDERSON:

– As this subject conies within the administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department, obviously it is competent for any honorable senators to express a view on it during the discussion of the estimates for the Department. No doubt this will be done. I will regard it as my responsibility to direct the PostmasterGeneral’s attention to the comments that are made. However, I point out that a Minister representing a Minister in another place, or indeed the Minister concerned himself, would not comment on a matter on which neither he nor the Government had reached finality. The best that I can do in this case is to ensure that the PostmasterGeneral is made aware of the views expressed by honorable senators in relation to the report of the select committee. As to delay, I think we must remember that, as was indicated in the reply given earlier today by the Postmaster-General, there are tremendous implications in the proposals put to the Government by the Select Committee.

page 1095

QUESTION

LEGAL AID

(Question No. 538.)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

Are State Governments supplying free or subsidised legal aid to destitute litigants?
Is much aid being supplied in actions under

Federal laws?

Have Stale Governments made any representations to the Federal Government for participating in this legal aid scheme when extended to action under Federal laws? If so, what is the Government’s reaction to the representations?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has suppliedthe following answers -

Yes, except that in Queensland a subsidised system of legal aid is still under consideration.
The amount has not been quantified.
The matter has been raised in the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral, which is now waiting on the receipt of material from each of the States. The Commonwealth Attorney-General has undertaken to look into the matter when the material is available.

page 1095

COURT LIBRARIES

(Question No. 565.)

Senator MURPHY (through Senator

O’Byrne) asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

What provision is made for libraries for the High Court and federal courts in each State?

How many volumes are in the library of the High Court in each State?

What is the library staff of the High Court in each State?

In each of the last five years how much was spent on additions to each of these libraries?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. A library containing approximately 15,000 volumes is maintained at the Principal Registry of the High Court in Melbourne. Similarly, a library containing approximately 12,000 volumes is maintained at the District Registry of the High Court at Darlinghurst in Sydney. Smaller libraries are maintained at the arbitration building, Melbourne, and at Phillip House, Sydney, for the use of the Industrial Court and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the States other than New South Wales and Victoria, by arrangement with the States library facilities provided by the States for the Judges of the Supreme Courts are made available to the High Court and other Commonwealth Courts when they visit those States.

Up to the present time, the personal staffs of the High Court Justices have provided the library services for the High Court. Staff and other requirements for the High Court libraries have recently been examined by a librarian on loan from the National Library for that purpose.
High Court. The figures given are for the High Court libraries in Sydney and Melbourne -

Other Commonwealth Courts. The figures given include the provision of books for the use of the Bankruptcy Court -

The Senate will note that these figures have been quantified.

page 1096

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 575.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Were seven applicants for registration as waterside workers on the Sydney waterfront, who were acceptable to the Waterside Workers Federation and had passed the required medical examination, refused registration by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, and if so, why was registration not approved?
Was Mr. S. R. Morcom refused the right of medical examination for the purpose of registration?
Was the decision in that case made by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, and was the reason because his mother was a member of the Communist Party?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers -

The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority refused registration of seven applicants submitted by the Federation because the Authority considered them unsuitable for employment as waterside workers. 2 and 3. Medical examination is one of the considerations precedent to consideration of registration. The question whether Mr. Morcom will be asked to undergo a medical examination is under review by the Authority. All decisions as to whether applicants should be registered by the Authority are determined by it. 1 am informed by the Authority that Mr. Morcom’s parentage is not a determining factor and that, in fact, it only learned that his mother was a member of the Communist Party from a statement made in the Federation’s “ Branch News “.

page 1096

QUESTION

SECURITY

Question No. 584.)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice -

What recommendations were made by the judges of the Petrov Commission for the strengthening of Australia’s espionage laws?
Which of those recommendations have been implemented?
Is any action currently being taken or contemplated by the Government to protect this country against acts of espionage?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. The Royal Commission made no specific recommendations regarding alteration of the law. Extensive alterations were, however, made to the Crimes Act in 1960.

All Commonwealth Departments, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Commonwealth Police are constantly on the alert against acts of espionage.

page 1096

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

(Question No. 624.)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What are the results of the surveys of red kangaroo density in certain regions of New South Wales, referred to at page 12 of the March 1965 edition of “Rural Research in the C.S.I. R.O.”?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The answer is as follows–

I have interpreted the honorable senator’s question as meaning that he would like the latest results of the red kangaroo surveys; that is, after the date of the material used in the article in “ Rural Research in the C.S.I.R.O.” referred to in the question.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has informed me that the red kangaroo study was conducted by its Division of Wildlife Research between 1960 and 1963. During this period it was shown that, at Toganmain, near Hay, the numbers of kangaroos declined drastically, although some recovery was evident at the end of the study. Owing to the encroachment of the Coleambally Irrigation Scheme it has not been possibleto continue the collection of precise data in this area. However, further casual observations have shown that the recovery was very slight indeed, and the kangaroo numbers in this area now seem to have stabilised at a level very much lower than that which prevailed in 1960 and only slightly higher than that measured in the last precise survey of 1963.

West of the Darling River, following the great decline in numbers described in the article, continuing drought conditions have prevented an increase in kangaroo numbers which, with minor fluctuations, remain at a very low level. Survey information in this area indicates that the animals have ceased breeding, that there is virtually no survival of young animals, and that the population is more mobile than usual. There seemslittle doubt that, if the drought continues, kangaroos in far western New South Wales will suffer further.

page 1097

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 634.)

Senator WHEELDON:
through Senator O’Byrne

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

With reference tothe recent statement by the Minister for Labour and National Service that the names of a large number of persons with criminal records were submitted by the Waterside Workers’ Federation for employment on the Australian waterfront, will the Minister table a list, omitting names of the persons involved, of the offences concerned, the dates on which they were committed, and the penalties imposed by the courts?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answer -

No. Omission of names would not, in the case of the smaller ports, necessarily prevent identification of the men concerned and it would be quite unjust to them to publish any particulars. In any case, we are now concerned with the future, not the past.

page 1097

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 642.)

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I have the answer to question No. 642, placed on the notice paper by Senator McKenna.

Senator McKenna:

– Having regard to the course of events and the lapse of time since the question was placed on the notice paper, I have now no interest in asking the question or in hearing the answer.

Senator GORTON:

– In the circumstances, I suggest that the question be discharged from the notice paper.

page 1097

QUESTION

IRAN

(Question No. 660.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

Docs Australia maintain diplomatic relations with Iran; if so, what is the status of the representation?
Has the Minister any details of the arrest in Teheran on 18th August last of the veteran Iranian Socialist Leader, Khalil Maleki?
Is it correct that the grounds given by the Iranian authorities for Maleki’s arrest were that he maintained contacts with West European Socialist leaders, which would include such persons as the Right Honorable Harold Wilson, M.P., Prime Minister of Great Britain, Herr Willi Brandt, Mayor of West Berlin, Dr. Bruno Pitlernian, Vice-Chancellor of Austria, and Her Tage Erlander, Prime Minister of Sweden, and that he had been visited in Teheran on 3rd to 5th August by the Secretary of the Socialist International, Albert Carthy?
If the Minister has not the details concerning this arrest, will he obtain them and consider lodging a protest with the Iranian authorities.

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following replies -

Australia has no diplomatic representation in Iran.
Mr. Khalil Maleki is the founder of the Iranian Socialist League. He was for a number of years a member of the Communist Party in Iran, and has recently been advocating a merger between the Tudeh (Communist Party) and the Socialist League. It has been confirmed that he was arrested in Teheran on 18th August, but no further details of the arrest are available.
It is known that Khalil Maleki recently paid a visit to Western Europe, where it was understood he was in touch with student organisations. The suggestion in part 3 of the question would therefore appear to be incorrect.
The Australian Government regards this matter as being essentially within Iran’s domestic jurisdiction and therefore has no intention of considering a protest to the Iranian authorities.

page 1097

CHINESE INTERNEE

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– During the debate on the Estimates yesterday I undertook to try to get some information for Senator O’Byrne regarding a person known as Chen Yu-teh. The information I have is that this man was a civilian impressed for duty with the Japanese army and, therefore, was subsequently held as an internee, not as a prisoner of war. As an internee, Chen Yu-teh had no entitlement under the Conventions which prescribe that prisoners of war shall receive certain pay and allowances.

page 1097

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD REPORT

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Earlier this morning I answered a question asked by Senator McClelland. In fairness to him, I think I should make an explanation. He asked whether the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1965 had been tabled or whether it would be available to honorable senators in their consideration of the Estimates. 1 said that I was under the impression that it had been tabled. The facts are that on Tuesday 1 tabled the thirty-third annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, together with financial statements, and yesterday 1 tabled the nineteenth annual report and financial accounts of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia). Therefore, the answer that I gave to the honorable senator was wrong. It is desirable that this matter be cleared up immediately. The information that I have been able to obtain in the brief intervening period is that the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is not available and its availability for the debate on the estimates for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department will depend on when we deal with those estimates.

page 1098

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion by (Senator Henty) agreed to -

That Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. this sitting.

page 1098

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator PROWSE (Western Australia).I present thereport of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work -

Provision ofbuildings and services for the international terminal complex and associated aircraft pavements in the north-west building area at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.

I ask for leave to make a statement in connection with the report.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The recommendations and conclusions of the Committee are as follows -

The Committee considered that the provision of more than 12 loading positions did not seem warranted for traffic expected when the proposed terminal commences operation.
Subject to the qualifications which follow, the Committee recommend the construction of the works included in this reference.
Electricity supply should be taken from the Sydney County Council unless the supply from the alternative source is equally economic and the safety of operating staff by reasonable means can be assured.
It would be appropriate to locate the wheel chair lift in the loading concourse near the loading position closest to the building.
The northern access road should be capable of expansion to three carriageways in each direction.
Further investigation of the connection be. tween O’Riordan Street and the northern access road inside the airport boundary should be undertaken.
Adequate car parking space shouldbe provided.
The estimated cost of the proposals referred to the Committee is £8,950,000.
The Department of Civil Aviation should confer with other employers of staff in the terminal area with a view to the provision of hot meals and refreshment services for employees.
There is need for a searching inquiry into the possibility of planning commercial airline operations in Australia to reduce the peak loading of airport facilities and to produce a more economic utilization of installations and staff.

page 1098

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee -

Seventy-third Report - Department of Social Services.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– The Committee’s inquiry into the accounts and operations of the Department of Social Services, under section 8 of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, constitutes the first comprehensive inquiry into that Department by a parliamentary committee. The decision of the Committee to undertake this inquiry was made not because the Department had been the subject of censure but because the growth in the extent and variety of social services provided by the Commonwealth in recent years has expanded substantially and because, in the discharge of their responsibilities, many honorable senators and members find themselves engaged with the Department on behalf of their constituents. The Committee believes that this Report, which covers the detailed administrative operations for the Department, will provide a useful source of information for honorable senators and for the public.

In the course of its inquiry the Committee was impressed with the general level of efficiency found to exist in the operations of the Department. Nevertheless, there are certain matters arising from our inquiry to which the Committee would invite attention. The evidence taken by the Committee shows that urgent action is required by the parties concerned to resolve the problems arising from the proposed introduction of automatic data processing by the Department of Social Services and that there is a need for the Departments of Social Services and the Treasury to consider whether the Department of Social Services should be re-imbursed in respect of services which it provides for the Repatriation Department in the processing of repatriation pensions.

The evidence also shows that the Department of Social Services requires a greater number of qualified officers engaged in internal audit work and in this regard the Committee would emphasise that the decision by the Public Service Board to defer consideration of proposals made by the Department for a reorganisation of its internal audit staff, pending an extensive review by the Board of accounting and audit work in the Commonwealth service, may result in a serious delay in improving the efficiency of the Department’s internal audit programme. We believe that the problems confronting beneficiaries in the more sparsely populated areas should be taken fully into account in any reformulation of the Department’s criteria for establishing regional offices. The Committee also considers that the department should, in the interests of economy and efficiency, adopt a uniform method of payment of social service benefits by cheque:

I commend the report to honorable senators.

Ordered -

That the report be printed.

page 1099

QUESTION

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1965-66

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 20th October (vide page 1090).

Department of Immigration

Proposed expenditure, £19,756,000.

Proposed provision, £464,000.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– Just before the Committee reported progress last night I was addressing myself to some of the questions that had been raised on the proposed expenditure of the Department of Immigration. In the three minutes that were available to me I made some comments in relation to a submission put by Senator Fitzgerald regarding the education of migrants. Senator Fitzgerald mentioned provision for the teaching of English to migrants. The estimated expenditure this year is slightly more than the actual expenditure last year. This is due mainly to the amount to be spent this year on teaching material for shipboard education officers. Some of the increase is attributable to administrative costs - for example, the cost of additional measures to encourage migrants to take advantage of the scheme, and so on.

Senator Fitzgerald dealt with a number of matters which quite clearly are matters of policy. As I indicated in answer to a question asked earlier by Senator Wright, it is quite proper, when matters of policy are canvassed in relation to a department for which the Minister responsible is in another place, that the Minister who represents him in this place should have regard to those matters. Whilst he would not necessarily wish to comment on matters of policy - particularly policy matters related to another Minister’s portfolio - at least he could ensure that the relevant Minister is informed of the expressions of policy made by honorable senators during the debate on the Estimates.

Senator Fitzgerald:

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I wish to clear up matters that were raised last night during the debate as I think that will make for a more orderly discussion of the Estimates. Senator Wright has propounded a point of view with which I do not disagree in the main. Broadly, I accept what he said. The only reservation I have is the one I set out to make at the start: That by the very nature of our system of Cabinet government and the parliamentary system, one Minister does not give statements on policy for another Minister. As to the rest of Senator Wright’s remarks, we can accept them as fair comment.

Senator Fitzgerald questioned the proposed expenditure on operational stores and services for migrant centres which is to be increased by almost £12,000. This has happened because of a book entry. In 1964-65 receipts were credited to this vote but in 1965-66 they will be credited to revenue.

Senator Sir Walter Cooper:

asked a question on the proposed expenditure on the migration office in Austria. The item to which he referred specifically was the proposed vote of £5,000 on postage, telegrams, telephones and cablegrams. Actual expenditure last year was £1,111. Under the overseas accounting arrangements, where office premises are shared between the Department of External Affairs and another department, the former bears the cost of shared services such as postage and telephone facilities, office rent and the like. During 1964-65, the Department of External Affairs shared the office building occupied by the Department of Immigration in Vienna and accordingly met the costs of postage, telephones, etc. for both Departments in respect of that building. The amount of £1,111 brought to account by the Department of Immigration represented costs for its regional offices at Graz, Linz and Salzburg. The Vienna premises proved unsuitable for the Department of External Affairs and arrangements were made for its removal to another building. The 1965-66 estimate of £5,000 under Division No. 278 - 2 - Item 03. therefore provides for the Department of Immigration to bear the costs of postage, telephones, etc. for all its Austrian offices, whereas in 1964-65 the major portion of the expenditure, that is, for the Vienna office, was borne by the Department of External Affairs.

Senator Mulvihilll referred to the migration offices in Austria and Spain. The proposed expenditure for the migration office in Italy is also involved in this matter. Reference has also been made to recruitment of migrants in Belgium. The Department of Immigration fell short of its immigration target in Belgium and this can be attributed to the continued improvement in the economic situation in that country. At no time has the, Italian Government or the Spanish Government closed the door to negotiations for the resumption of a reasonable flow of assisted migrants to Australia. These negotiations are continuing. In fact, the Italian Government has now agreed to the recruitment of 400 unskilled workers and 80 skilled electrical and metal tradesmen for specific employment in Australian industries. Provision for these workers and their dependants has been made in the current year’s programme. There has been no interruption whatever in the flow of unassisted migrants nominated by friends and relatives in Australia. The position is that negotiations are proceeding but naturally provision has to be made in the Estimates for the next 12 months.

Senator Mulvihill raised the question of the screening of potential migrants in countries such as Austria and Spain. The organization of Australia’s immigration posts overseas provides for selection teams and procedures which enable a reliable assessment to be made of an applicant’s character, background, general suitability, health and other personal qualifications. The security aspect is carefully watched as an important part of these procedures. Inquiries into security aspects are in the hands of the appropriate Australian authorities in these areas. These screening procedures apply in the countries mentioned by the honorable senator and in all other countries where we are recruiting migrants.

Senator Mulvihill referred also to the United Arab Republic. It is interesting that the honorable senator raised this question because I recall that, when I was a backbencher looking at the Estimates, I, too, was interested in this one. I well recall raising this point in an Estimates debate. The honorable senator’s question apparently refers to salaries votes which total £18,300 for 1965-66. The proposed expenditure represents a reduction of some £5,000 on costs in 1964-65. Although staff has been reduced, it is still necessary to maintain executive and clerical staffs to process applications which are being received for migration to Australia from Greeks and Armenians living in the Middle East, as well as indigenous applicants. In the past few months, the categories of unsponsored migrants who can come to Australia have been widened generally to provide for ner.sons who have skills which will contribute to Australia’s development. A gratifying and continuing response has been received from this type of migrant in the United Arab Republic. This justifies the maintenance of the office at its present staffing level. I have tried to cover the specific points raised by honorable senators. I have made reference to the generalities of these matters. I feel we can now progress to other matters which relate to these estimates.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I desire to comment on the appropriation with particular reference to Asian migration. The section of our immigration laws relating to this matter is one of the most difficult, and it is necessary for those administering the law to tread most carefully.

There is the impression that we have successfully put a lot of time, effort and publicity into convincing people that no colour bar is involved in our immigration laws affecting Asians. I hope that we will not be smug about the matter and believe that Asians accept that view. I have heard it said at Australian citizenship conventions that Asia appreciates our attitude and that it accepts the situation that we do not implement a colour bar. Let me quote, as an example of the fact that we have to do a lot more if we are to combat that feeling, a statement of Mr. Albert Monk, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in reporting on his attendance at a recent International Labour Organisation Conference where the question of South Africa was dealt with. South Africa was excluded from that organisation because of its colour legislation. What Mr. Monk had to say is very important. He said -

I had been informed by some of my own trade union confreres from Asia that following the attack on South Africa for its apartheid policy, Portugal would be the next country singled out for attack by the Africian nations and that Australia would be similarly attacked at a later stage on the grounds that we pursued race discrimination particularly regarding Papua and New Guinea, the white Australia controversy and the aboriginal controversy.

Here is a remarkable further statement by Mr. Monk in view of the smug assumption that we have made our position all right with Asia and that therefore it accepts our stand. Mr. Monk said -

I did not speak at the conference on the South African situation as I felt we would be vulnerable on these issues.

– The objection to South Africa was on the ground of the implementation of a colour bar. A colour bar is involved, whether honorable senators like to see it or not, in our present immigration policy. In our administration of this matter, we have to tread very warily. We know the influence on Asian feeling of the decisions that were made at the time of the Gamboa case and the Mrs. O’Keefe case. People associated with the external relations of Australia will tell us that although some people will say that these matters are just passed over with a snap of the fingers, there are effects left by such cases as the Prasad case and the case of the little girl who was taken to Hong Kong some time ago. I am not going to say that we can throw all the responsibility on the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Opperman) or the Department of Immigration. They have the perfect answer to any questions raised. They are administering the law as it stands. We are all responsible for the law. We cannot throw the responsiblity onto anybody else. We, in this Parliament, make the laws. The Minister and his Department simply say that they are administering those laws. I say that a certain discretion rests with the Minister and the Department. I hope, as 1 believe was done from 1950 to 1960, that discretion will be exercised as far as possible to prevent these cases coming up. I cannot attack an individual case because there may be factors known to the Department that I do not know. But I repeat: I hope that the Department will do all it can, and that the Minister will exercise discretion as far as possible, to prevent these cases coming up which damage our position.

One matter that I think must damage us in the eyes of Asians is the provision regarding merchants in this country. Let me state the provision. I do not know whether it has been changed. If it has, I have not heard of it. The provision as far as I am aware reads as follows -

Merchants.

A non-European who can evidence that he is willing and able to engage in overseas trade on a wholesale basis between Australia and the countries of Asia and/or the Pacific Territories to the extent of at least £10,000 annually, com- prising imports or exports, or both, may be granted entry with “ merchant “ status. The merchant’s operations are reviewed annually and continued stay is dependent upon the volume of annual overseas trade being maintained.

This is the crucial clause -

A merchant may introduce non-European assistants for his business where the need for such non-European staff from abroad is demonstrated on the basis of one introduced staff member for each £10,000 overseas trade in excess of £10,000, and may retain the services of such staff as long as the volume of annual overseas trade is maintained. He may also introduce his wife, minor unmarried children, a fiancee, a widowed mother who is at least SO years of age and, where his annual volume of overseas trade is £20,000 or more, an amah to care for his children and a domestic for his household.

Senator Wright:

– From what document is the honorable senator reading?

Senator McMANUS:

– I am reading from regulations for Australia’s immigration policy relating to the entry and stay of nonEuropeans.

Senator Wright:

– Issued by the Department?

Senator McMANUS:

– I understand so. At least, it is available from the Department. The feature which would make not only an Asian’s but also other people’s blood boil is that this involves not merely a question of colour; it involves also a question of class. The regulations provide that if, for the purpose of assisting our trade, we decide that certain non-Europeans can come to Australia, the employer can bring with him his wife and children, a nurse for the children and a cook, but the humble employee is deprived of the company of his wife and family for at least 15 years.

I have voiced my objection to this previously and I voice it again. That provision contains a vicious class principle completely foreign to the Australian way of life. It should not be implemented in the case of Asians. If the boss is allowed to have his wife and children, a servant, a cook and the children’s nurse with him, then the employee is entitled to be accompanied by his wife and children. It is inhuman, barbaric and unchristian to say to a man that as a condition of allowing him to come to this country he must do without the company of his wife and children for 15 years. The blood of any Asian would rightly boil when he contemplates that provision. I have made representations to former Ministers for Immigration on this matter. A few years ago I was in hopes that ‘ something would be done but nothing has yet been done. I appeal to the Government, in the interests of better Asian relations, at least to put the employer and the employee on the same basis. I see no reason why that should not be done.

We would make a further graceful gesture if we reduced the period before Asians can be naturalised and brought it into line with the period which applies to other migrants. After all, very few Asians get into this country. The number involved would be very small. When I was a boy there were many Asian market gardeners outside Melbourne. I am told that it is now questionable whether there would be more than one at work in that industry today. When Asian migrants are so few in number it would be a gracious act for the Government to reduce the period for naturalisation to that which applies to other persons.

The only other matter I want to mention relates to the naturalisation of Europeans. I have been told by some European migrants that one objection they have to naturalisation is the insistence of the authorities that they be naturalised on the basis of the country in which they were born. For example, if a person was born in Yugoslavia he is shown on the documents as of Yugoslavian origin. I point out that I am basing my remarks only on the information given to me. I have not checked it with the Department. In the hotch-potch of nationalities in southern Europe, it has frequently happened that owing to changes in boundaries Hungarian communities have been located in Rumania and Albanian communities have been located in Yugoslavia. At present, many kinds of minorities are located in different countries, but the flame of nationalism burns very brightly in their hearts. For example, some people say that Yugoslavian is not a nationality, it is a name. They claim that Yugoslavia really consists of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes and Albanians.

It is all very well for us to say that they should not think in that way, but they do. Because they have a very proud sense of race, some of them object to undertaking naturalisation - a kind of legal act which, they say, appears to imply that they accepted the nationality of a country to which they are opposed and in which they lived previously only because of the force of international or other circumstances. They ask whether, in the case of a Hungarian born in Rumania, it would be possible to include on the naturalisation certificate, or wherever is appropriate, the person’s country of birth, Rumania, and his ethnic origin or the race to which he belongs, Hungarian.

Senator Ormonde:

– That would perpetuate divisions.

Senator McMANUS:

– It is no use talking about perpetuating divisions. A man is always proud of the race to which he belongs. Having regard to the things that have happened in Europe, it is useless to talk about perpetuating divisions. Let the honorable senator try to tell a Scot that he is an Englishman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– My first comment relates to naturalisation ceremonies, in which all honorable senators have the opportunity to take part from time to time. I hope that the act of renunciation of former allegiance and the taking of the oath of loyalty to the new country will always be parts of the naturalisation ceremony and that one will always follow immediately after the other. I imagine that this happens in practically every instance, but I have been present when some other part of the ceremony has been interposed between these two parts. I do not know whether this makes a candidate for naturalisation a stateless person for the time being, but I think it is important for the dignity of the ceremony as well as for the satisfaction of everyone concerned that these acts should follow one after the other. It is imperative that the renunciation of former allegiance should remain in the ceremony. We are all well aware that this has its difficulties and I think we all feel keenly about it, but on the other hand a line must be drawn somewhere and a condition must be observed.

I should be grateful to have the Minister’s comments on certain other matters of concern to me. I refer first to that portion of Division No. 270 which relates to payments to Government authorities for services rendered. I imagine that this includes a certain amount of inter-departmental activity. I notice that there has been a slight reduction in the allocation this year. Has this any significance insofar as fewer authorities are involved, or has the Department set up various segments of its machinery to deal with certain matters?

I turn now to the item relating to publicity. I suppose we all have in mind the films, booklets and brochures which are prepared. I hope that the Department keeps itself well informed on modern media of communication, so that the image of immigration and the matters related to it will not fall into a rut and become unnoticed simply because imagination is lacking in certain aspects. I do not suppose that the booklet entitled “These are Yours” is in this category. It probably deals with the. matter in another way altogether. I think it might be a good idea if the officers of the Department had a look at this booklet. It is a very good one, but as it has been with us a fair while, possibly in the light of modern developments, streamlining might be necessary in some respects.

I turn now to the item dealing with the Australian Citizenship Convention and other assimilation activities. I refer in particular not to the Citizenship Convention, but to the other assimilation activities. The Auditor-General’s report dealing with this particular matter refers to -

Financial assistance given to Church Immigration Committees and federally constituted voluntary associations to assist in their work in the migrant integration field . . .

Of course, there are many organisations involved in the migrant integration and assimilation fields. A fairly regular amount of money is provided for this purpose. But because many of us have been associated with assimilation authorities and integration groups and because many of the organisations have officers engaged in assimilation work, I would be grateful for any information that the Minister or his Department may be able to provide as to how the distribution of money is made and whether it is to be a continuing process.

There is a slight increase in the amount of money that is being provided for Greek migration. I am interested in this matter because of a question that I asked the Minister a little while ago relating to the shortage of labour in the canning industry in the Upper Murray area of South Australia. Last year considerable assistance was given to this industry as a result of the Greek migration programme. I would like the Minister to comment on that matter when he replies to the questions that have been raised.

The next matter to which I refer relates to refugee migration. The allocation for this year is £114,000 as against £124,900 for last year. The plight of refugees has been receiving sympathetic consideration. Australia has a very fine record in this regard. Taking population into account, I think that we are second only to the United States of America in the services that we render to refugees. Does the decrease in the amount of money that is to be provided for this purpose indicate that the need for assistance is not as great as it was or that the work has been taken over by other agencies? I would be pleased if the Minister could give some information on this point.

The only other observation I wish to make relates to the Migration Office in Denmark. A smaller amount is provided in the esti mates this year, especially as far as the salaries of the Australian staff members in this office are concerned. The statistics indicate that while there are not as many Danish migrants now as there, were a few years ago, there is still a steady figure each year. The Danish people make splendid migrants. I imagine that the high living standards that exist in that country may influence the situation. But does the decrease in the amount that has been provided indicate that there is to be a cessation or lessening of promotion activities in Denmark on behalf of Australia? If that is so, what is the reason? Those are the only observations that I wish to make at this time and I would be pleased if in due course the Minister could furnish the information for which I have asked.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I think the Minister has established the point that the teams which select the migrants in the various European countries do so initially having regard to security aspects. I have only one observation to make at this point of time. Despite this process, the situation is that migrants who have been completely inactive in political activities in Australia find that there seems to be an abnormal delay before they are accepted for naturalisation. This is attributed to security reasons. But as I said last night, I believe that much of the odium attaching to the delay falls unfairly upon the Department of Immigration. I shall elaborate on this matter at another stage. Apparently the security angle is considered when the migrants are initially recruited.

Senator McManus referred to European migration. When we look at the item dealing with embarkation and passage costs in the estimates we find that it refers to migrants of Greek, Spanish and other nationalities. There is even a reference to Belgian migrants. I think that everyone who has studied European migration is aware that industrial conditions in West Germany have been in some respects a magnet for foreign workers. If one looks at page 19 of the booklet entitled “Australia in Facts and Figures Number 85 “ one sees that the response of Belgian migrants is very small. It is well known that the Flemings and the

Walloons are very clannish. We will not get much response from them. That brings me to a very important point. If we read Dr. Price’s book “ Southern Europeans in Australia “, Shannon’s book “ Irish in America “ and Dr. Govorchin’s book “ Americans from Yugoslavia “ we can see that we have to provide some attraction to induce Yugoslavs to migrate to Australia.

I know that we are a little hesitant about seeking migrants in countries that have forms of government different from ours. The United States Government showed flexibility in many ways, particularly in its attitude to Poland. So far as Yugoslav migration is concerned, I speak from some degree of experience. The Republic of Slovenia is adjacent to Austria. Many of these people have no deep seated political views. The emphasis is on people going absent without leave, as it were, and crossing the border. If one wanders through Slovenia it is surprising how much common ground one finds with the people there. These days most of the high school children speak English and it is very easy to get into a discussion with them.

I do not see why the Australian Government cannot come out into the open and seek to arrive at an agreement with the Yugoslav Government on Yugoslav migration. After all, this is a country with a booming economy. Many Slavs work on metalliferous mining projects, the Snowy Mountains Scheme and other projects in Australia. They are the sort of migrants that we want. There is no doubt that people who owe allegiance to other countries feel that, by migrating to Australia, they may incur some sort of stigma because it might be said that they were walking out on their homeland. I make a strong appeal that this avenue of migration be investigated further. At the moment we have migration offices in Trieste and Vienna. I know that in border towns such as Klagenfurt there is a certain amount of coming and going across the border. I know that the Yugoslav Government may sometimes be a little intransigent in that way, but the theme I hammer is that as we have here large numbers of a particular ethnic group, Australia has an attraction to people of that group and it is easier to sell the country to them.

Senator McManus approaches the question from an angle different from that from which I approach it, but I see the point that he is trying to make. My attitude as a union official - I know Senator Bishop agrees with me - was that we did not worry whether Slavs were Croats, Serbians or Slovenes, so long as they joined a union. The point I am trying to make concerns the difficulty of applying these nationalistic ideas to Australian conditions. I have really only one point of difference with Senator McManus. I asked a question the other week about some ardent Croatian nationals who were talking about a new way of life. Two of the leading gentlemen among them had not even sought naturalisation.

My fear in relation to fanning the flames of nationalism is that some members of the Yugoslav community here - they are only in the minority - visualise an upheaval in Europe and a redrawing of boundary lines. We want to discourage that sort of thing in the Yugoslav community here. My approach is that what is important is freedom of assembly. We all have our different meetings and we do not gate crash each other’s meetings. That is the Australian way of life. As I have said, I think we should discourage a division of the Yugoslav community here into Croats, Slovenes and so on, although I would be the last person to belittle anyone’s parentage, no matter where he came from. However, I think these divisions are only academic. What is important is not what these people are now, but what their children will be in 20 or 30 years’ time. I have a soft spot for the Slovenes. It might be interesting to honorable senators to know that in the United States of America there are one senator of Slovene origin and also one congressman. We should not really be afraid of these divergent ideologies, because even in the part of Europe from which these people come, the vast bulk of the population is not really politically conscious in that way any more than, unfortunately, some sections of the Australian community are. Many Australians are interested only in things that we regard as second class. I think the Government should consider an intensification of Yugoslav migration and that any restrictions should be based more on the grounds of health than of unnecessary inquiries about subversion.

There is another point that I want to make. Despite the recent upheavals in Cyprus, I am wondering whether we could include Cypriots in the programme for the migration of Greeks. 1 might be leading with my chin in this matter. However, I think Senator McManus would probably agree with me that people who came here from Ireland in the 1920’s had some pretty strong political views, but nevertheless made pretty good migrants. They were not afraid to stand up for what they believed in. If we condemn the Cypriots because they are hotblooded, we will lose some good migrants. The essence of democracy is that you should get up and say what you are. You should not be intimidated, no matter who your critics are or what they represent. Some migrants may have become rather emotional at times, but in my view they have made good Australians. I emphasise the appeal that I have made in relation to Yugoslavs and Cypriots. In the very short time still left to me I ask the Minister whether he could tell me what debts are still owed by migrants at the Villawood and Bradfield hostels in respect of rent.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

. Senator McManus has raised a number of matters which touch substantially on matters of policy. Whilst I appreciate the views that he has expressed, I do not necessarily subscribe to some of them. I listened with close attention to his comments on Australia’s policy in relation to the entry of non-Europeans. I thought he was rather general in his comments. He did not take a strong line on this issue.

One point that he made was that the Minister for Immigration should continue to exercise a discretion in this field. 1 believe it is fair to say that the Minister does exercise a discretion in this field and that the Australian policy in relation to the entry of non-Europeans is quite sound. Inevitably, cases which attract a. great deal of publicity arise from time to time. I believe that it behoves us all to make certain that we get all of the fact’s and circumstances surrounding these isolated cases. I do not want to go very far on this issue. The present policy has been operating for quite a long time. Whilst there is always room for criticism of any policy, I believe that this policy broadly is very wise and very sound.

Senator McManus also referred to the entry of merchants and to alleged discrimination in that respect. This matter has been referred to before at other levels. There are always two sides to an argument, and I believe that this matter has been considered by the Department. Equally, the differential in the residential qualifications for naturalisation - 15 years for non-Europeans, compared with the normal 5 years for Europeans - is a matter of policy which has received consideration by the Minister for Immigration and the Government.

The honorable senator also raised the matter of candidates for naturalisation objecting to their nationality being shown as, for instance, Yugoslav. The nationality of people coming to Australia is shown on their passports and travel documents. That is the nationality that the Department must recognise. The Department must comply with the accepted international practice. If we took the submission that Senator McManus made on this point to its logical conclusion, we could have all sorts of extensions of classifications by a person saying: “ Yes, I am a Yugoslav; but I am also something else.” It is interesting to contemplate just how far such a division into zones, boroughs, areas and groups would extend. I was impressed by what Senator Mulvihill said on this point. As I recall, he said that nobody need be ashamed of his country of origin. If there is- any sensitivity because of something that has happened in a migrant’s country of origin, I do not think it is in our best interest to encourage that feeling in any way. As I have said, we conform to <the international practices in this regard.

Senator Davidson raised a series of queries about items in the Estimates. I will try to deal with them in the order in which he raised them. I will give him the answers contained in the papers .that have been made available to me. He referred to payment’s for services performed by government authorities, including services under legislation administered by the Department. This appropriation provides for payments to other departments in Australia for services performed for the Department of Immigration, for example, to the Postmaster-General’s Department for handling aliens registration forms; payments 40 Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. for caretaking closed hostels; and payments to the United Kingdom Government’ for the issue of visas and for consular services in countries in which there is no Australian representation. The appropriation for this year is lower than last year’s expenditure. The decrease is not a very big amount. I think it is £700. The decrease is due to the lower cost of caretaking closed hostels as a result of more hostels being opened in 1965-66.

Senator Davidson was also interested in the appropriation for assimilation activities. The Commonwealth realises that the successful assimilation of our migrants depends to a large extent on the understanding and co-operation of the Australian people. The successful integration of more than two million post-war migrants has called for special efforts both from migrants and from the Australian community. The co-operation and goodwill of Australians from all walks of life must therefore be sought, gained and held. It is proposed to continue with the policy of consultation with community leaders at the Australian Citizenship Convention in 1966, when about 250 delegates are expected to come together for this purpose. The cost of accommodation and transport for delegates will account for the major portion of the amount set aside under this item. I come now to the particular point to which the honorable senator referred. It is also proposed to support church immigration committees and federally constituted voluntary organisations in their work in the migrant integration field by assisting them with contributions to the travel expenses of delegates attending conferences on immigration.

The honorable senator then referred to the appropriation for assisted passages for migrants from Greece. The Commonwealth will be required to contribute a pledged per capita sum of 164 dollars towards the passage cost of each migrant. The balance will be shared between the Greek Government and the migrant. The Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration will provide some temporary finance to enable migrants to meet their shares of passage costs. The programme planned for 1965-66 is 3,500. In addition to the 164 dollars per migrant, provision has been made for a special contribution of 62 dollars 50 cents by Australia towards the deficit on Greek movements in 1965, due to the withdrawal of the United States subsidy from 1st July 1965. A provision of 74,000 dollars for this purpose has been made under Division No. 270, subdivision 4, item 14 - Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration contributions. The question of financing Greek movements after 1st January 1966 has yet to be determined.

Senator Davidson also referred to the decline from £124,892 to £114,000 in the appropriation for refugee migration. The programme planned for 1965-66 is 1,500, which is the same as the original programme for 1964-65. However, in the latter year 1,698 passages were actually paid for. If the number increases beyond the programme of 1,500 for 1965-66, additional funds will be sought in the Additional Estimates. The honorable senator also referred to the canning industry.

Senator Davidson:

– In relation to Greek migrants.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. The canning industry has indicated that it will require about 250 girls in the coming season. It wants the first party to arrive on 1st February and the second party on 15th February. We are endeavouring to meet its requirements. I turn now to Division No. 281, which makes provision for the Migration Office in Denmark. The item “ Salaries - Australia based staff” covers both salaries and allowances. The decrease is due to the fact that no replacements during 1965-66 are anticipated. High settling-in costs for a replacement officer were involved in 1964-65.

Senator Davidson:

– There is no decrease in the staff?

Senator ANDERSON:

– No. The point that the honorable senator made about migrants was well taken.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I direct attention to what I consider to be anomalies that appear from the figures that are in front of us. The Minister probably has an explanation for them, but I am concerned about what appear to be disparities. For instance, the cost of providing salaries for officers in the Migration Office in London is expected to be £220,000. As a result of the work of these officers, transport costs incurred for British migrants amount to £11,094,000. By comparison, the salary bill for the office in Rome is about £250,000. I am not singling out Rome particularly, it merely exemplifies the point. The amount charged for embarkation costs of Italian migrants is £46,000. I assume that that amount reflects the number of Italian migrants coming to Australia and that the amount of £11,094,000 reflects the number of migrants coming from the United Kingdom. My comment on these figures is that either the people in the Migration Office in London are doing a wonderful job and we are getting great value for our money, or we are getting poor value for the expenditure in Rome.

In reply to Senator Fitzgerald, the Minister said something about the agreement with the Italian Government, but he did not give any details. Can he tell the Committee what are the objections of the Italian Government to re-entering into an agreement with the Australian Government on the migration of Italians? Does the Minister know why the Italian Government will not enter into an agreement? Nobody thinks for a moment that this expenditure of £46,000 on migration between Italy and Australia reflects the total number of Italians coming here. It does not, because one line - the Lloyd Triestino line - operates to Australia one ship a month, which brings 1 ,000 Italians. I assume that those, people are paying their own fares. If Italian nationals in such large numbers are paying their own fares to Australia, surely to goodness there ought to be a fruitful field in Italy for additional migration. If the migration plan has fallen down, I should like to know the reason. Quite obviously more Italians are coming to Australia than are reflected in the expenditure of £46,000 on passages and embarkation costs.

The cost of running the Migration Office in Hong Kong is about £18,500. This is covered by Division No. 287. However, no entry appears for costs of embarkation from Hong Kong. I assume that there are no migrants from Hong Kong; but there may be another reason. I think that the Minister should explain that, if he can. We have a Migration Office in the United Arab Republic. It costs, in wages and allowances, about £20,000, but we have no results from it. I just cannot see the reason for having a migration office in a place from which we are not getting migrants.

Senator Anderson:

– I have already answered that.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I did not know.

I should like the Minister to explain why there is not a Migration Office in Dublin. I could not imagine any race of people who would be more interested than the Irish in coming to Australia and more welcome here - particularly to the Australian Labour Party. I should like the Minister to apply his mind to this, He might reply that Irish people migrating to Australia go through the London office. I suggest that the London, office is not necessarily a very good point of recruitment for the Irish. Quite obviously, it would, be more interested in dealing with British nationals than with Irish nationals.. I think that we would be more justified in having an office in Dublin than one in Hong Kong, which is not doing any business for Australia in the provision of migrants.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- In replying to statements that I made; the Minister said that he agreed with Senator Mulvihill that there was no reason for classifying migrants to a greater degree according to ethnic origin. He said there was no reason why a migrant should be ashamed of the country of his origin. I do not think it is a question of being ashamed of one’s country of origin. That sort of statement merely denies history. The facts are that after the recent war and other wars in Europe boundary lines were drawn without regard to the national aspirations of a large number of people. Those people were forcibly incorporated in countries without any regard to justice or anything of the sort, purely on the basis of spoils to the victor. The first thing that is done in these cases, as history shows, is that the dominant nationality proceeds te try to deprive the subordinate nationality of its language and its racial loyalties and to force it into the same mould as that of the dominant nationality. The dominant nationality even tries to force the subordinate nationality to adopt the religion of the dominant nationality. History shows that all that happens in these cases is that the flame of nationality burns all the brighter in the hearts of those who become the subordinate nationality. I do not see any reason why, if on a nationality certificate the country of birth of a migrant is shown, there should be objection to showing also what he believes to be his ethnic group. I see nothing wrong with that. It will not do anybody any harm. It is simply a matter of saying to a new citizen: “We concede you the freedom to say what is your race.” I am a little surprised to hear people with names similar to mine saying that in this country we should never import the disputations and troubles that occur overseas. This Labour Party of ours took a most prominent part in demanding justice for a little country overseas. The Leader of the Opposition in another place was a most prominent advocate of the rights and independence of a small nation overseas, and its freedom not to be forced to adopt the nationality of those who dominated that country.

– Yes. The report of this debate will be very closely examined by the Minister and his officers when the debate concludes. I understand that officers stationed at Beirut examine Cypriots to determine whether they qualify to enter Australia through the normal processes. Senator Mulvihill asked a question about the tariffs at Villawood and Bradfield Park hostels. That is an administrative question, which I am not competent to answer at short notice. I will arrange for the honorable senator to receive an answer.

Senator Ormonde referred to Italian migrants. As honorable senators are aware, Italian migration over the years has been quite important and dramatic. I would like to repeat that Australia’s attraction for Italian and Spanish migrants is such that the Department’s ability to secure applicants has never been in question. The fact that the anticipated numbers of Italian and Spanish migrants are not coming to Australia is due entirely to the desires of the Italian and Spanish Governments to restrict the migration of workers. There has been no lessening of Australia’s desire to negotiate an agreement, which is currently being canvassed. At no time have the Italian or Spanish Governments closed the doors to negotiations for the resumption of a reasonable flow of assisted migrants to Australia. Those negotiations are continuing. Reference was made to the cost of bringing out assisted British migrants from the United Kingdom. Australia pays the whole fare, except for a contribution of £10 sterling which is paid by the migrant. It is expected that 70,000 assisted British migrants will arrive this financial year. There is a large flow from Italy of unassisted migrants who are nominated by relatives and friends in Australia. We expect 12,000 nominated Italian migrants to arrive this financial year. At the time of negotiation, the economic situation in Italy was such that the Italian Government was not particularly eager to allow members of its work force to move out of Europe. Of course, that is purely a matter for the Italian Government. It should be remembered that negotiations are still being conducted, and it may well be that in the fullness of time some agreement will be worked out.

Reference was made to the cost of office salaries in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Senator Ormonde drew a tentative conclusion from the figures referred to. There is no direct comparison between the two sets of costs. Provision for locally engaged staff in the United Kingdom is included in the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department. Passage costs for the 70,000 British migrants who will come out this year under the assisted passage scheme amount to approximately £150 per head. In Italy, the costs referred to cover both Australian and locally engaged staff. The average cost for the 1,000 persons who will come out under the assisted passage scheme will be approximately £45 per head. In addition, about 12,000 unassisted Italian migrants will come out in 1965-66.

Dublin has been mentioned. The authorities in Eire are not particularly eager to encourage emigration from that country.

That, of course, is a matter for the authorities there. What happens in fact is that people go across to the United Kingdom and, after a certain period of residence, qualify for an assisted passage to Australia. The Hong Kong office was established not for the purpose of assisting migration but mainly to deal with entry policy procedures such as those involved in bringing Asian students to Australia. The honorable senator did well in raising this matter. The fact that a large number of Asian students are coming to Australia and that the entry of those persons is facilitated is of importance. There is no assistance franchise in respect of Asian countries. Consequently, no embarkation and passage costs are included in the Estimates.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

I wish to refer to the administration of the Department of Immigration and to add my views to those that have already been expressed about eliminating the oath of renunciation from the naturalisation ceremony. It is my view that a large number of migrants find the requirement to take this oath to be deeply offensive, even though it is the price they have to pay to obtain Australian citizenship. The physical act of swearing by Almighty God that one will renounce allegiance to one’s own country must drive deeply into one’s heart. It has had that effect on me as I have seen the act taking place. I have often said that it is an imposition which this country should not expect. It is my view that many migrants who are not seeking Australian citizenship realise that the world is still unsettled and that the economies of some countries have rapidly improved over the years and are still improving. Germany is a case in point. Migration from that country to Australia has dropped off quite a lot. People are not coming from the eastern States of Europe in anything like the numbers that came here in the earlier part of our migration programme. Moreover, the Mediterranean people see in their own countries greater opportunities for themselves and their children. I am reminded of this little poem -

You may speak of the shamrock, the thistle, the rose,

Or the three in a bunch if you will;

But we know a country that gathers all those.

I love the great land where the waratah grows

And the wattle bough blooms on the hill.

The subject of nationalism was raised by Senator McManus. It is of extreme importance for us to understand the nature of nationalism in Europe. Nationalism was not expressed in that little poem, because we of this continent, coming as we do from various ethnic groups in the world, are being welded into a brotherhood. The main cause of the bitterness, the strife and the wars that have occurred over the centuries in Europe is ignorance based on nationalism. People have been separated into religious and ethnic groups and led to hate their neighbours. The result is that a line has been drawn across the map and on one side of that line are to be found the goodies and on the other side the baddies. That sort of thing has been for the aggrandisement often of little puppets, upstart kings, princes and other chieftains. So the bitterness that has existed in Europe over the centuries has been perpetuated.

This great achievement of ours - our immigration scheme - is proving that mankind can become a brotherhood of men with a common denominator, a common language. I hope that every effort will be made by the Department of Immigration gradually to ease away from dividing people into ethnic groups. Since the . 1914-18 war Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Esthonia have been built up by migration. The whole history of man has been marked by the movement of one ethnic group into the area of somebody else. If we went back far enough in history, possibly we could trace man back to the cave or wherever he came from and establish that he does not necessarily belong to any specific geographic area.

In formulating our own migration policy we are doing an excellent job in trying to break down the old bitterness that existed and in trying to encourage new settlers to have their children assimilated in the community. The older people find the language barrier very difficult to overcome. We should not try to force citizenship on people who do not wish to accept it, because deep down in their own hearts they feel as did the poet who wrote -

Breathes there a man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

The economic or political situation in the country from which the migrant has come may change in time and he may want to return. It is asking a lot of a man who has any spirit in him to swear by Almighty God that he will sever his allegiance to that country. I hope that this part of our migration policy will .be examined very closely and that this objectionable part of a very fine ceremony will be eliminated. If we encourage national groups we shall only sow the seeds of strife and bitterness in line with the long history of developments of this sort in Europe. We have an opportunity here to build a new group or unit of people. We can establish a common denominator for the whole of the human race, constituted regardless of race and creed and, I hope, of colour. Australia can be made a country where decent God-fearing men and women can live in peace with their fellow men.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– I direct my remarks to the proposed vote for the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory, Planning and Publicity Councils. I am descended on both sides from people born in Ireland and I want to comment on what was said by Senator McManus. No doubt he meant well but he referred not only to an Irish nation but also to an Irish race and to people of other races. So far as I am aware, there is an Irish nation, part of whose territory is still occupied by others. There is no Irish race. The ancestors of the Irish belonged to a Celtic group of peoples. So far as I know the only race to which the Irish belong is the human race. The High Court of Australia, in an historic decision which extended the liberty of the people of Australia and concerned the rights of persons under the immigration laws, even found that the ancient Irish language, Gaelic, was merely a dialect. I think it does not help to introduce into Australia notions of racialism. They are redolent of the theories that found a place in the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. The less we hear of these theories of race the better.

Senator McManus:

– We also heard of them under De Valera, Kosciusko and others whom the honorable senator did not mention.

Senator MURPHY:

– Men are great because of their achievements, not because of their claims to what might have been done in the far distant days of their ancestors or because of some supposed links in blood between them. We in our humanity move from place to place. By doing so, we become part of some nation. We might develop a culture which is distinctive and which perhaps ought to be preserved but let us not talk of race or in terms which tend to separate human being from human being. Such terms naturally give rise to notions of superiority between human being and human being, based not on the abilities of the individual person but on being a member of a particular race.

Under this item, I would ask what has been done by the Department of Immigration to encourage United Kingdom citizens and other British subjects to become registered as Australian citizens. No pronouncement has been made by the Department - and even in the answers given in this chamber the matter is passed over - on the great number of persons in Australia who are not Australian citizens. Leaving aside altogether those who were aliens, the latest figures available show that there are hundreds of thousands of persons in this country who are not Australian citizens. They are British subjects but they are not Australian citizens.

Since 1949 when the present categories of citizenship were determined, only a very few of these persons have become Australian citizens. I understand that there are some 600,000 or 700,000 British subjects who are not Australian citizens but are eligible to achieve that status. In the whole period since 1949, fewer than 20,000 have become registered as Australian citizens. I think this is due in part to the failure of the Department to encourage them to become citizens and to the failure of the Department even to tell these people that they have to do something about it if they want to become Australian citizens. It should be realised that most of these persons have been in Australia for a long time. They have acquired roots here. They have children going to school. Obviously they intend to live here permanently and really want to he citizens, but they are not told of the necessity to go through certain procedures. It is not brought to their notice.

Another reason is the failure of the Government to initiate legislative steps to encourage these people to become Australian citizens. It is time there were some privileges in becoming an Australian citizen but the Government seems determined to give no encouragement to persons who could take this step. Why should not some of the rights granted under legislation, such as the housing legislation, and various other benefits provided by legislative action, be dependent on such persons becoming Australian citizens if they are eligible to apply? I do not think we should force people to become citizens but we ought to take any reasonable steps to encourage such action. I should like an answer from the Minister which might explain what appears to be a dismal failure in this matter at least in respect of United Kingdom citizens who have been in Australia for a long time.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I rise to refer to immigration to Australia from some of the countries behind the Iron Curtain if it still exists. The Minister referred to immigration from Yugoslavia. Will he inform the Committee what is the position in relation to other countries behind the Iron Curtain? I know of migrants who have mothers, brothers and sons in Europe and they want to get these next of kin out from the Iron Curtain countries to join them here. They appear to be having great difficulty in this connection. Is there any set procedure in getting next of kin from these countries? Is there anything resembling an agreement, any point of contact or any method of doing so? If there is no arrangement, would it be worthwhile approaching the Governments concerned with a view to more liberal treatment of some cases on compassionate grounds?

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I want to raise a matter which comes under the general heading of Administration. I think it has been dealt with somewhat exhaustively during the course of the discussion on the estimates of the Department of Immigration.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Is the honorable senator dealing with- Division, No. 270, subdivision 2, item 08. - “ Education of migrants in the English language “?

Senator TOOHEY:

– Yes. The matter on which I wish to touch is naturalisation. I am handicapped to some degree because I have not been able to follow all of the debate on this matter and it may well be that some other honorable senator has raised this point. I hope it has not been raised. I am concerned about a problem that confronted me when an Italian came to see me some six months ago. He was agitated because his father had been refused naturalisation on the ground that he did not have sufficient knowledge of the English language to enable him to be fully acquainted with the terms of the naturalisation oath. As a consequence of this, his application for naturalisation was refused.

I raised this matter with the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Opperman). As a result of the interview I had with the Minister, he permitted the person concerned, who did not have sufficient mastery of the English language to understand the naturalisation procedure, to be naturalised because of the concern it was causing this person and his family. But this does not alter the fact that today, as I understand it, the chief migration officers in the various State branches require migrants to have a full appreciation of what the naturalisation ceremony and the oath embody before they can be granted naturalisation. This to me seems to be illogical in the light of the fact that we have such a great number of people who, up to this point of time, have accepted Australian citizenship. It opens up the thought that some consideration may be given to having some person available who understands the language of the person applying for naturalisation - whatever nationality he may be - to acquaint the applicant with the terms of the oath and to make sure, as an interpreter, that the naturalisation ceremony is understood. In this way, the person seeking naturalisation would have his desire satisfied. I am making this point because I believe that, unless something is done along these lines, the number of persons affected will be added to year after year and people, for reasons that we do not sometimes know, will not become naturalised Australians.

Senator Kennelly:

– There is a very valid reason at the moment for young, people not to become naturalised. Australians are drafted for national service while young people from overseas, who are not naturalised, enjoy all the benefits of the country and are not drafted.

Senator TOOHEY:

– Senator Kennellys interjection makes my argument all the more compelling. I understand that the reason advanced by the officers of the Department of Immigration for the adoption of this policy is that in the United States of America the same requirement is made before naturalisation is granted. I feel that we may be in a different position from that in which the United States has found itself in regard to these matters. I can see no reason in the world for this requirement so long as the applicant understands clearly what is involved in the naturalisation ceremony and in the act of taking the oath. So long as the act of naturalisation is accomplished, does it matter whether the ceremony is conducted in the English language or in some other language? It seems to me that if we continue to make it a rigid condition that some knowledge or sufficient knowledge of English is required before naturalisation can be granted, we will continue to drive away intending applicants for naturalisation. I make this suggestion to the Minister so that he may convey to the Minister for Immigration the thoughts that I have on this matter. The waiving of the requirement that intending applicants for naturalisation should have a sufficient mastery of the English language may result in a larger number of adults, in particular, seeking Australian citizenship.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I am fascinated with the logic of Senator O’Byrne’s position. He said that nationalism is a curse. Then he said that we should not force applicants for naturalisation to renounce allegiance to their former countries. What would more induce people to give up nationalistic ideas than to say to mem: “ You have to renounce your allegiance to your former country. From now on, you are an Australian only.” Having said nationalism was a curse, Senator O’Byrne then quoted with approval the lines from Sir Walter Scott’s “Lay of the Last Minstrel “ -

Breathes there a man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said.

This is my own, my native land!

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honorable senator must bear in mind that this is a matter of policy. The Act requires a candidate to have an adequate knowledge of English.

Senator Murphy referred to British nationals who do not seek Australian citizenship. I think the human element enters into this matter. A British family does not remain very long in Australia before it considers itself Australian. Long may that continue. There is really no incentive for British subjects to seek Australian citizenship apart from obtaining an Australian passport. Otherwise they have all the right’s and privileges that Australians have. They are entitled to seek Australian citizenship after they have been here 12 months. As the honorable senator mentioned, the number of British subjects who have sought Australian citizenship is very low. There were only 3,344 in 1962-63; 3,315 in 1963-64 and 4,002 in 1964-65.

Senator Lillico referred to immigration from countries behind the Iron Curtain. In early 1956 the Australian Government sought the co-operation of the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Communist countries to enable the reunion of residents of those countries with relatives in Australia. The Australian Government has decided that people from those countries can come to Australia if they have relatives here who wish to sponsor them. As the granting of exit permits is entirely a matter for each sovereign government, these approaches can be made only as appeals to common humanity. With the greatest goodwill in the world, the essential thing is that persons wishing to come to Australia must have an exit visa from their own country.

Several governments, including the Government of U.S.S.R., initially promised sympathetic consideration but positive results were not forthcoming until 1959. Poland and Czechoslovakia initially rejected the approaches that were made, but subsequently Poland has issued exit permits fairly freely and Czechoslovakia has issued a number. Yugoslavia was not included in Operation Reunion until 1958. Since then a reasonable measure of success has ensued, as was mentioned earlier. As there is no British or Australian representative in Albania, nominees in that country can be dealt with only if they move to a country where there is a British or an Australian representative. As honorable senators know, we have diplomatic representation in Moscow but none in the other countries that I have mentioned, so we operate through the British diplomatic service. All things being equal, we grant permission to enter Australia when there are in Australia relatives or next of kin in certain categories who wish to bring their relatives here. The essential thing is to facilitate exit at the other end.

Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted.

Department of Shipping and Transport

Proposed expenditure, £13,303,000.

Prosposed provision, £14,990,000.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– At the outset let me, as a Tasmanian, express my appreciation of the service which the “ Empress of Australia “ and the “ Princess of Tasmania “ are rendering to Tasmania. It is fair to say that the operation of these two vessels between Tasmania and mainland ports has been a great boon to the tourist industry and the economy of my State.

While I pay tribute to the service which these vessels are giving, certain aspects of shipping in Australia cause me some concern. One of the main points which concerns me is the lack of dry dock facilities in Australia. There are very few dry docks in Australia, and of these the number which are over 400 feet long can be counted on the fingers of both hands. There are two dry docks in Brisbane, one of which is Government owned. It is 430 feet long. The other, Cairncross, is 830 feet long. Sydney harbour is recognised as one of the best harbours in the world but it has only three dry docks. Fitzroy, the shortest, is 500 feet long, Sutherland is 690 feet long and Captain Cook is 1,139 feet long. Melbourne has only two dry docks, one being 470 feet long and the other 507 feet long. Newcastle has a floating dock 630 feet long. With the build-up of Australian based ships, particularly in the Australian National Line, there is a growing need for more dry dock facilities in Australian ports. I point out that there are no dry dock facilities in South Australia, Western Australia or Tasmania.

I make a suggestion to the Senate for what it is worth. I believe that Tasmania has a good claim to the establishment of a dry dock in Hobart. 1 suggest that earnest consideration should be given to this matter. We all agree that Hobart is one of the great ports of Australia. 1 do not want to introduce a parochial argument, but I have heard that the port of Hobart compares more than favorably with the port of Sydney. It is not necessary for tugs to be used in Hobart for the berthing of ships. In fact, one can say that the port of Hobart is in world class.

I refer now to the Melbourne-King Island Shipping Service for which an amount of £90,000 is to be provided this year as against an expenditure of £25,343 for 1964-65, which considerably exceeded the appropriation for that year. I refer also to the item in the estimates dealing with the establishment allowance for the Bass Strait islands shipping service. The expenditure on this item in 1964-65 was £8,000 and the appropriation was £5,000. The estimates do not show any amount for 1965-66. When the Minister addresses himself to the matters raised by honorable senators, I would be pleased if he would give me information on that item.

The shipping service to King Island is vital to the people on the island. The Federal Government subsidises the service between Melbourne and King Island, and the Tasmanian Government subsidises the service between Tasmania and King Island. Approaches have been made to the Federal Government to get it to subsidise that service also. The granting of the subsidy for the service between Melbourne and King Island by the Federal Government engendered a considerable amount of feeling among Tasmanian traders who had been supplying the requirements of the people on King Island. It meant that a source of revenue was immediately taken away from traders in the northern part of Tasmania. There were expressions of dissatisfaction at the introduction of the subsidy.

A few moments ago I mentioned the Australian National Line. This Line has done particularly well since its inception. If one looks at the profits that it has made between 1958 and 1965, one sees that the figures indicate good management. The Line has enjoyed prosperity. After providing for taxation and other items, the profit for 1965 was £783,737, which was the lowest for any of , me years which I have mentioned. In only one other year, 1959, did the profit of the Line fall below £1 million. I believe that that indicates very clearly the wisdom in establishing the Line. It also indicates that the Australian National Line would be justified in extending its activities to overseas routes.

I believe that if the Line were to be given the green light to go ahead and either purchase or build ships, it could operate on overseas shipping lanes and thus achieve a greater profit than it has in the years which I mentioned. Even if the Line were permitted only to purchase or build ships at the rate of two. three or four per year, we would find that very quickly it could compete with the shipping lines of other countries. One of the main difficulties we are facing in regard to transport at the present time is the freight charges of overseas shipping lines. If the Australian

National Line were permitted to operate overseas, it would mean a reduction in the cost of freights both to and from Australia, and it would enable Australian products to be put on the world market at much lower prices than at present.

I realise that 1 am not the first person who has made this suggestion. It has been advanced by honorable senators on this side of the chamber on a number of occasions, and it will continue to be advanced until such time as the Australian National Line is permitted to enter into competition with the other lines which are operating to and from our shores today, or, alternatively, until we sit on the right hand side of the President’s chair.

The proposal has been advanced on a number of occasions that we should establish an interstate commission which would co-ordinate rail, road, air and water transport in Australia and regulate the carriage of goods. I feel that if that is done Australia will be much better off in regard to both transport within the country and overseas shipping. Another reason why I commend the Australian National Line is that it has done a very good job in the transport of timber, particularly from northern Tasmania to mainland ports. The problem of transporting timber from northern Tasmania to the mainland markets has caused the Tasmanian Timber Association a headache for a very long period of time, and on many occasions representations have had to be made to the Australian National Line to make ships available to shift accumulations of timber at Tasmanian ports.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wedgwood:
VICTORIA

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

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise to direct the attention of the Committee to one aspect of these departmental estimates. I refer to financial assistance for the King Island shipping service - for which the appropriation is £90,000. I believe we have a duty to do something real in regard to this matter, because the present position is quite inappropriate. It concerns a small outlying community. I think King Island has a population of about 3,000. In Australia there is a great drift of population to the cities, and Melbourne and Sydney at present accommodate two-thirds of our total population. Therefore decentralisation and a better distribution of our population are essential.

Good government demands that when an isolated community becomes established, a government with any national responsibility whatever will ensure that all the essential services required for the proper life of that community will be supplied. It is not a question of equating assistance to that community with any benefits that other people receive, although one would make a calculation from the point of view of relativity from time to time. We have established a community of 3,000 people - quite a meritorious farming community - on an island in Bass Strait, and I believe that government - I will come to the sharing of the responsibilities of government in a minute - is bound to maintain proper communications with that community. In this instance we are dealing with shipping communications between King Island and Victoria and Tasmania, they being the two States between which this island lies.

For a long time this community was striving to maintain itself in the face of ever increasing costs of shipping services, with only a slender subsidy - about 10s. a ton - paid by the Tasmanian Government over, I think, the last 10 years. Increasing shipping costs imposed a burden that made it impossible for some of the residents of the island to continue fanning. One has only to think of the problems of exporting produce and livestock and of importing farm requisites, household requisites and livestock, to realise the special needs of an isolated community such as this. The Commonwealth Government, after taking a long time to consider a request for a special subsidy to the King Island shipping service, made a decision which is sadly in need of review. In April last the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Freeth), through the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty), announced that the Commonwealth Government had decided to subsidise the shipping service between Melbourne and King Island. The decision, I believe, involved a subsidy of about £2 10s. a ton.

Senator Kennelly:

– What is the total amount involved in the subsidy?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I believe the total amount involved in a full year is about £65,000, but .the appropriation proposed in this year’s Estimates is £90,000. The point is that’ that subsidy is to be paid only on the shipping service between Melbourne and King Island. Senator Poke, in the course of his remarks - I found them most interesting from other points of view but 1 want to concentrate upon this matter to give it emphasis - referred to the fact that, with the advantage of that subsidy on freight from Melbourne to King Island, there was immediately a tendency for the services from Tasmania to King Island to be placed at a great disadvantage. Then there ensued a discussion between the politicians. The Premier of Tasmania, first of all, said that the Commonwealth should extend its subsidy so as to cover the Tasmania to King Island service on the same basis as the King Island to Melbourne service. The reply of the Minister for Civil Aviation was that this year the Commonwealth is paying about £8 million as a special grant to Tasmania, which should enable the Government of that State itself to lift the subsidy on the service between King Island and Tasmania. I have looked through the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and have found no special reference to this as an item.

My colleague, Senator Lillico, at question time this morning, asked what I felt was a very thoughtful and probing question. I thought he made the point very forcibly that from the point of view of subsidisation, there is no difference between what is required for the shipping service from the northern ports of Tasmania to King Island and what is already being given to metropolitan transport in the two main cities of Tasmania, where the deficits of the transport systems are made up out of Tasmania’s revenue, which is largely supplied by the Commonwealth. I am not interested in political disquisition or in political duck shoving in this matter. This island community deserves to be put on a business basis. We all appreciate the Federal subsidy on shipping from Melbourne to King Island, but it is imperative that .the politicians immediately find an equal benefit for the shipping service from King Island to Tasmania.

Senator Kennelly:

– Has the honorable senator any idea whether that would require approximately the same amount of subsidy?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have not made any real calculation, but I would hazard the guess - it is merely a guess - that it would require a little more than half of the figure that I mentioned for the service between Melbourne and King Island. It is quite obvious that the amount involved is very small compared with any relative figure that we may take into account. I am saying that this community exists on the island. The need for a subsidy for the service between Melbourne and the island has been recognised. I believe that it is the responsibility of us representatives of Tasmania to see that a solution is arrived at.

Having raised this point, I reserve to myself complete freedom to follow it up. As I have raised it on the floor of this chamber, I will take all the gibes that come from the standpoint of party politics. It may be suggested immediately that a motion on this matter will be moved and that I should vote for it. I am not saying that I will not do so. I reserve complete freedom to discuss this matter purposefully and to debate it. I am appealing to honorable senators as a whole to make such an impression on the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport that he will obtain from his colleague an assurance that within the next month - I think that would be a reasonable period - means will be found of resolving this piece of political duplicity. We might well accept an assurance to that effect and pass these estimates. But if the Minister simply said: “ You are talking nonsense; we will not consider the matter “, I think it would be appropriate to move for the deferment of this section of the Estimates so that he could reconsider his attitude by, perhaps, one day next week. He may even say: “ I have not really considered the imbalance that this Commonwealth subsidy has created in shipping costs, giving Melbourne a great advantage over Tasmanian ports.” Having had that pointed out to him on all sides - not necessarily only by Tasmanian senators - he might indicate, perhaps before this evening, that an adjustment will be made.

I go so far as to say, as a representative of Tasmania, that when the relevant States grants bill comes before us I would suggest a constitutional innovation. If it were proper, I would suggest that part of the funds that we are asked to vote under that States grants bill be earmarked for this essential service and that the grant to Tasmania be reduced by that amount. Subject to further debate and further consideration, what I am saying is that it is our responsibility, with a much closer knowledge of what parliamentary procedures are available to us, to resolve this question and not to leave the people on this island simply entangled in a mesh of political arguments. It is our duty to bring this matter to finality.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- I was very interested in what Senator Wright said. I think the matter goes a little further than he suggested. Let us face the facts of it. If the people on King Island had no outlet at all, his case would be unanswerable. But they have an outlet. It seems to me that what Senator Wright is most concerned about is that they want a second outlet.

Senator Wright:

– They want equal access to Victoria and the Tasmanian mainland.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I will put it in my own way. They want a second outlet. I agree with Senator Wright in many respects. I believe that our population should be spread more widely. Melbourne is much too big. Victoria is the most thickly populated State, and Melbourne has about 65 per cent, of the population of Victoria. Everyone in that State is anxious to decentralise population. This is purely an economic question; nothing else. I have spoken before about trying to get people away from one centre. I have heard many speeches on decentralisation in Victoria over a long period. It is purely a question of pounds, shillings and pence.

– 1 do not suppose so. People are entitled to have justice done to them, wherever they live; that is fundamental. But we must look at the economic position. I rose to speak on another matter, the very vexed question as to whether we can ever really get down to investigating whether it is wise or unwise to have an overseas shipping line. I think that the Senate should appoint a committee to examine the whole position. Overseas shipping costs Australia from £130 million to £150 million a year in invisibles. All of this money goes out of Australia. In view of the present state of our overseas balances, in which invisibles play a very important part, there is a growing feeling that we should do more than talk about this matter. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) is reported to have said that the question is deserving of consideration. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen) has stronger views on this matter than those of his colleagues in the Government.

– The latest report states -

Over the past seven years, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission has been able to absorb the steady increases in operating costs experienced by the shipping industry without any general adjustment in freight rates.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wedgwood:

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

– Senator Cavanagh referred to proposed expenditure under the Railway Standardisation (South Australia) Agreement Act. Provision has been made for financial assistance to South Australia under the terms of the Act for the purpose of converting the permanent way between Port Pirie and Broken Hill to standard gauge. This project is expected to be completed in another three years. Although we are only in the comparatively early stages of construction, progress of the work is up to schedule. The increased estimate for 1965-66, which is based on a programme of works as prepared by the South Australian Railways, is an indication of the manner in which the tempo of activity is increasing.

Senator Cavanagh referred to the road safety campaign and to road safety practices. It is always risky to start me on a debate on this issue because I had the honour of being chairman of a Senate all party select committee on road safety some years ago. In considering road safety procedures and practices, we have to start with the fact that this is not something peculiar to Australia. It is a world wide phenomenon. Because of the increased speed potential of vehicles and advances in the equipment and engineering of vehicles, there has been a natural increase in road casualties. All over the world there is an acceptance of the need for public education and alertness to responsibility in this field. Nobody can argue successfully that we are not justified in providing funds for the promotion of road safety practices.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I thought that perhaps the provision should be increased.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The increase in the number of casualties and deaths on the roads can never be argued as a reason for not continuing and widening the road safety programmes. These programmes can be simplified within the pattern of the three E’s - education, enforcement and engineering. We have to make an impact in these fields. We seek to make an impact by cooperation between the Commonwealth and States through the Australian Transport Advisory Council on which the Commonwealth and State Governments are represented. Through this organisation, each State has set up a Road Safety Council. The activities of these Councils permeate through the local authorities and regional and area committees. At the same time superimposed on this work there is a national campaign. Senator Cavanagh asked why the amount provided for the promotion of road safety practices had been reduced this year. The simple answer is that the annual allocation was over spent the previous year and it has been adjusted.

– It is a matter-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, although I am short of voice, I rise in this debate to address my remarks to the estimates of the Department of Shipping and Transport in relation to the financial assistance to the MelbourneKing Island shipping service and the establishment allowance for the Bass Strait Island shipping service. It has been interesting to listen to the comments made by the Minister in the last few minutes regarding the queries by Senator Wright in relation to the proposed subsidy of £90,000 to shipping services between King Island and Melbourne. Let me say that, in my experience, the work of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, which controls these coastal shipping services, is a great credit to those in charge of that organisation. I have paid particular attention to this service. I have travelled in the freight ships from Tasmania to Victoria. Their efficiency and their modern techniques reflect great credit on the Commission. The generation of business between Tasmania and Victoria, the benefits of which both States enjoy at this time, is due in no small measure to the work of the Australian coastal shipping service.

Speaking directly to this subsidy of £90,000, I consider it is interesting to note that the points that have been raised in this matter have been avoided - perhaps not intentionally - by the Minister.

Senator Anderson:

– I was about to touch on them when my time expired.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The basic need, when we are considering this subsidy, is to take account of the conditions that existed prior to the introduction of the subsidy. When the transport of goods from point A to point B is encouraged by subsidy when previously goods travelled from point A to points C and D, grounds for inquiry are established. The Minister did not answer the query. I imagine that the inquiry from the Tasmanian senators is based mainly on the fact that much of the trade being stimulated between Tasmania and King Island was promoted by the original shipping service from the various islands in the Strait to Tasmania. I criticise the Tasmanian senators because they have not said that this subsidy should be applicable to shipping services to islands in addition to King Island. The subsidy is for the benefit purely of residents of King Island for the shipping service between that island and the mainland of Victoria. Certainly, something should be done to widen this field. Every island in this group should have the benefit of the subsidy. Although I am a Victorian, I do not suggest that this service should operate necessarily to the port of Melbourne.

The query I raise on this matter may produce comments from and perhaps be endorsed by, my fellow senators. Honorable senators may be interested to know that, prior to the allocation of this subsidy, quite a volume of the livestock from King Island was transported to Port Welshpool in Gippsland. Then, I believe without any intention on the part of the Department, financial assistance is given and the effect is to direct the freight to the great port of Melbourne.

– This is actually happening now with the “ Bass Trader “?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes. On my last trip the vessel had blood stock and other stock headed for the market. This is a wonderful thing. There must be certain facilities when there is a rising tide. That is the point. If there is a tide variation of 10 feet, there must be some means of rolling cargo from the vessel without it ending up in the water.

I congratulate the Government and the Department for providing the subsidy. It is an excellent thing. However, prior to the granting of the subsidy some consideration should have been given to existing markets and to locations from which trade will flow. I believe that was not done. The information I have received from the Department has not established to my satisfaction that the trade between King Island, other islands and decentralised ports such as Port Welshpool was taken into account.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I intervene briefly to comment upon that portion of Division No. 450 which relates to the Melbourne to King Island shipping service. The problem which faced the Commonwealth some time, ago when it decided to pay the very ample subsidy of 50s. a ton was how to alleviate the freight burden upon the residents of King Island, where there is a substantial soldier settlement. They have their own particular difficulties and problems. Surely it was never intended by the Commonwealth that the subsidy on cargo between King Island and Victoria would result in discrimination between services to Tasmania and services to Victoria, but that has been the result.

Senator Anderson:

– In part.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is one of many results. Perhaps some of the results were unexpected. The subsidy is a good thing and much appreciated, but the fact that there is a subsidy does not mean that the Commonwealth should stop there and pay no regard to the side effects. These are considerable. They bounce in many directions. For instance, the lowering of the freights on cargo carried from King Island to Victoria has had a very adverse effect upon the abattoirs on King Island. Whereas formerly the abattoirs killed the beasts and the carcases were sent to Victoria, it is now cheaper to ship the cattle. The result is that the abattoirs on King Island are suffering heavy losses every month. That is one debit against the credit of the subsidy.

Further, the whole balance of trade between King Island and the Tasmanian mainland has been disturbed. Previously King Island wool was sent to Devonport for sale in Tasmania. That practice will come to an end. Tasmania is a large timber producing area. Previously timber was sent direct from Tasmania to King Island. That practice also will stop. If there is no subsidy on services between Tasmania and King Island the timber will be sent to Victoria and then returned from Victoria to King Island, with the result that the people on King Island who buy the timber will have to pay double freight. In that way a good deal of the benefit of the subsidy will be lost.

Superphosphate, which is available in Tasmania, will almost certainly be purchased from Victoria because it is some £2 3s. 6d. a ton cheaper. Prior to the granting of this subsidy the freight on general cargo from Victoria to Tasmania was 133s. a ton, and from King Island to Tasmania 108s. a ton. There was a differential very much in favour of Tasmania. Now it has shifted. The VictoriaKing Island trade operates at 83s. per ton, and that to Tasmania at 108s. per ton. That has a grievous effect upon all kinds of trade from Tasmania to King Island. I have a list of the commodities that are imported into King Island, not from Victoria but from Tasmania. Besides timber and superphosphate, it includes cement, coke, coal, fruit, potatoes, fuels and oils, flour and other items.

The main exports from King Island to Tasmania are butter, wool and livestock. The production of wool is increasing annually. More and more bales are being shipped each year, lt is certain that unless something is done to adjust the freight rates that apply between Tasmania and King Island, the shipping service now operating there will disappear. The net result will be the transference of the King Island trade entirely to Victoria and the disappearance of trade direct with Tasmania, except by the circuitous route from Tasmania to Victoria and back to King Island. That is not a desirable result and I believe it is not one that the Commonwealth intended.

The Public Works Department in Tasmania in all its contracts specifies that Tasmanian labour and materials are to be used. With that clause operating - and it is a proper one from the point of view of the Tasmanian Government - it simply means that, on the cessation of the shipping link between Tasmania and King Island, Tasmanian tenderers for work on King Island will be right out of the picture. They will not be in a position to tender against tenderers from the mainland because they will be faced with the necessity of transporting materials to Victoria and from Victoria back to King Island instead of by the short route across from the Tasmanian mainland. These are some of the factors that are operating at the present time.

To be fair, the matter is not as simple as subsidising only the King Island service. As Senator Webster quite properly pointed out, there are other islands, particularly Flinders Island, to be considered. The main trade of Flinders Island comes to Tasmania and not to Victoria. A subsidy could hardly be given to the shipping service between King Island and Tasmania without a similar subsidy being given to the shipping service between Flinders Island and Tasmania. To produce a basis of equality, it would take approximately £79,000 or £80,000 per annum to subsidise the two services. That is not a large amount when we consider the total Commonwealth revenue, but we cannot look at one situation and disregard the other. We have to look at both situations.

The question has been asked: Why does not the State Government provide an additional subsidy of £2 10s. per ton, as the Commonwealth does, to equalise matters? Tasmania is heavily dependent upon the Commonwealth for its revenues. It is under the constant supervision of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Apart from the fact that the Tasmanian Government has not the money to make it readily available, there is the fear that if it does provide an amount it will be penalised by the Commonwealth Grants Commission as incurring expenditure for which there is no comparable basis in the standard States of New South Wales and Victoria. Recently in the Senate I asked whether, if the Tasmanian Government granted such a subsidy, the Commonwealth Government would join with it in asking the Commonwealth Grants Commission not to penalise the State. The answer I received was that the suggestion contained in the question would be considered if and when the need to consider it arose. In other words, the Government completely sidestepped the question.

The position might be a lot easier for the Premier of Tasmania and the State Government if the Commonwealth would say at this stage: “ If you incur the expenditure we will support an argument addressed by you to the Commonwealth Grants Commission that you should not be penalised”. From the answer which I received on that occasion, I understand that there is no comparable position in the standard States. The State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria do subsidise intrastate shipping services. If some assurance from the Treasury could be forthcoming, that the Commonwealth Government will accept the suggestion that I have made and will support an application to the Grants Commission not to penalise Tasmania if it provides a subsidy, the State Government might be more readily induced to take action, either alone or in conjunction with the Commonwealth.

I have stated the broad elements to the Committee. We have the situation where the Commonwealth, by moving to alleviate the position on an island, is creating a great disturbance of the trade with the mainland of Tasmania. Its action has the effect of diverting trade from Tasmania to Victoria. I think that is an adequate reason why the Commonwealth should look very carefully at this problem and at all the side effects. It should consider, not only the position of King Island, but also the position of Flinders Island. On 15th June 1965 the Premier of Tasmania, in a letter that he wrote to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen) in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, suggested that a committee should look at this question. He said -

I have noted from a report in the last issue of the “King Island News” that Senator Henty stated in the Senate that the Commonwealth Committee which investigated and approved the subsidy on the Melbourne-King Island shipping service, has been reconvened to study the need for equalisation of freights between Tasmania and King Island, and also the effect of the subsidy on air freights from Tasmania or Victoria to King Island. If this is so, it would be appreciated if you would refer the letter from the Chairman of the King Island Abattoir Board to the Committee, or else take other appropriate action.

As a result of that letter, I asked the Minister whether if there was such a committee, it could not be reconvened to consider the various aspects that quite briefly and perhaps inadequately I have touched upon, to see whether it is fair that the Tasmanian trade should be disrupted in the way I have described and that the Tasmanian tenderers for contracts on behalf of the Public Works Department should be forced out of the field; and to see that justice is done between the residents of King Island on one side of the Strait and of Flinders Island on the other. I hope we will get an assurance from the Minister that all of these side effects will be looked at and that the committee will be reconvened so that it can examine the various aspects that have been put by the State Government and other interested bodies in Tasmania to see that justice is done.

Tasmania is not so affluent or strong in population, resources or activities that it can afford to be weakened in any particular. What has been done has had an adverse effect upon the trade from Tasmania to King Island and from the island to Tasmania. The Government never really intended to do what has been done or did not really foresee the effects of what has been done. But now that the subsidy has been in operation for some time, now that its effects are much more apparent and now that the problems involved are a bit more clear, why not lay out the facts, test them at a conference of all interested parties, including the Government of Tasmania, and get down to a sensible solution of the problem so that the intended result may be achieved? The decentralised activities of Flinders Island and King Island should not be adversely affected by action that has been taken to deal with one part of the problem. The whole situation has not been looked at. I think it ought to be looked at as a whole.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

.- I also rise, to comment on the Melbourne to King Island shipping service, to which Senator McKenna referred. The Commonwealth subsidy on the shipping service from Melbourne to King Island has been a great boon. In point of fact, it has saved the position economically on King Island. Freight rates on the service from King Island to Melbourne - the service, used to carry nearly everything produced on the Island - reached such a height that probably it would have been difficult for the producers on the island to carry on with any reasonable chance of success. But the subsidy brought disadvantages with it. Senator McKenna referred to the abattoirs. I do not see how the difficulty there could have been avoided. It is true that this subsidisation, which was very much more generous than was ever anticipated, has placed the abattoirs in the position that they are finding it difficult to compete and that stock is going out on the hoof, by means of this roll on roll off shipping service, to Melbourne.

I am fairly familiar with the service that has operated between King Island and Tasmania over the years. Even before the introduction of this subsidy, when the King Island to Tasmania service could compete on fairly even terms with the King Island to Melbourne service, it can truly be said that those who operated the service from Tasmania to King Island found great difficulty in keeping it going. Of course, with the payment of the subsidy on the King Island to Melbourne service they were placed in an impossible position. The King Island to Tasmania service will go out of existence if something is not done for it. I have been told by shipping people on King Island that approximately half the island’s requirements of superphosphate came from Risdon - I think these proportions are approximately correct - and the other half from Victoria. As Senator McKenna has pointed out, this subsidy has meant that Victorian superphosphate can undercut Tasmanian superphosphate on the King Island market by approximately £2 a ton.

I know it is not well to look a gift horse in the mouth, but the difficulty is that this subsidy is paid, in effect, to one service and to one ship. The effect is that the people on the island are tied - in their imports from Victoria, which of course will increase, and in the export of their products - to one service and to one man. Before this subsidy was introduced the shipping service to Melbourne, according to people on the island, was so unsatisfactory in regard to butter shipments that the farmers diverted their butter from Melbourne to cool stores at Devonport, using the King Island-Tasmania service. They did that because in the other service they were at the mercy of one ship and one man and the service they were getting did not suit them. As I have said, because that service was unsatisfactory they diverted the whole of their butter output to cool stores at Devonport.

The advent of the subsidy meant that they had to revert to the other service, which had some disabilities which they claimed could have been remedied had there been a will to remedy them. The service which has operated for so many years between King Island and Tasmania will certainly go out of existence. It is a great pity that the people of the island - there are nearly 3,000 of them - should be tied to one shipping service, which is a complete and absolute monopoly. Having said that, let me say again that I appreciate what the Commonwealth has done. It was a wonderful gesture.

Senator Kennelly referred to the advantages that could accrue if the service to Tasmania continues. It is always an advantage to have an alternative route and an alternative service so that people - as the King Islanders did in the case of their butter - can exercise freedom of choice. The great pity about the present position is that the amount that would be required to remedy it is comparatively small. I believe that the subsidy paid by the State Government on the King Island to Tasmania service and the Flinders Island to Tasmania service is approximately £36,000. Assuming half of that sum goes to the King Island service, the subsidy paid by the State Government on that service would be approximately £18,000. The State Government has refused to increase its subsidy and the Commonwealth Government has stated that it will not embark upon subsidisation of intrastate shipping services, so the people of the island are caught between two governments. Although only a comparatively small amount is involved, the matter is going backward and forward, from one government to the other. That is most unfortunate.

Whilst I cannot understand the attitude of the State Government, I cannot go along with Senator McKenna’s idea in regard to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Mr. Reece has said that the £36,000 subsidy has not changed for many years, but during that time freight charges between King Island and Tasmania have increased considerably. Looking back through the reports of the Grants Commission, we do not find that it has ever made an unfavorable budgetary adjustment in respect of the subsidies on the King Island to Tasmania and Flinders Island to Tasmania services. If that subsidy were brought into line with existing freight rates- if it were increased commensurately with the increases that have taken place in freight rates - it would be indeed surprising if the Grants Commission were to inflict an adverse adjustment on Tasmania.

I have before me a considered Treasury opinion on this matter. In making this statement in reply to a question that I asked him today, Senator Henty was not speaking off his own bat. He obtained this considered opinion from the Commonwealth Treasury. The significant sentence in the statement was - if the shipping subsidies -

He was referring to the subsidies on shipping services between the Tasmanian mainland and King Island and Flinders Island and commenting on the attitude of the Commonwealth Grants Commission -

. were not paid or the transport losses were not incurred -

There he was referring to the losses incurred by the Metropolitan Transport Trust in Hobart, Launceston and Burnie -

, then the special grant paid to Tasmania would, other things being equal, be reduced by an equivalent amount. Of course, the same could be said for a number of other items of expenditure incurred by the Tasmanian Government.

Is it not perfectly apparent that that sentence indicates that the £36,000 that is paid by the Tasmanian Government in freight subsidies in respect of shipping services to these two islands in Bass Strait is being reimbursed by the Commonwealth Government through the Commonwealth Grants Commission? That is a considered Treasury opinion. I repeat that, if the subsidy were increased commensurately with the increases in freight rates that have taken place since the subsidy was inaugurated, surely it would be most extraordinary for the Commonwealth Grants Commission, after pursuing the policy that it has pursued in regard to this matter for many years, suddenly to turn in its tracks and say: “ We have to stop this. It cannot go on. We will bring about an unfavourable budgetary adjustment”. Surely that would be extraordinary, especially in view of the fact that the loss on the Western Australian State Shipping Service - Western Australia is the other claimant State - amounts to about £11/4 million.

However that may be, the fact that this matter, which so deeply affects the people of King Island in particular, should become a subject of buck-passing between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments is very unfortunate. Let there be no misconception. It is a very definite and distinct advantage for the people of King Island to have a shipping service with the Tasmanian mainland which can compete on favourable terms with the shipping service between the island and Melbourne. It is of no use to ask, as Senator Kennelly did: Can you indicate what benefit would accrue from an increased subsidy? It goes without saying that a very definite benefit would accrue from it. It is completely necessary that these people have an alternative shipping service to the Tasmanian mainland. The mere fact that this service operated for so many years and carried so much freight between the Tasmanian mainland and King Island indicates the very great necessity for continuing it.

Senator McKenna has suggested that a certain committee should try to do something about this matter.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honorable senator know what the committee’s proposition is?

Senator LILLICO:

– Senator McKenna mentioned that this committee was established, did he not?

Senator McKenna:

– The committee as referred to in a letter from the Premier of Tasmania to Mr. McEwen. It was set up for the purpose of looking into the question of freights from King Island to Victoria.

Senator LILLICO:

– Was it a Commonwealth committee?

Senator McKenna:

– I do not know how it was constituted. I asked the Minister to tell me that. The honorable senator might ask the Minister that question. I cannot help him.

Senator LILLICO:

– Anything that will bring about some alleviation of the present position will certainly have my support.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I rise to express surprise at the paucity of the appropriation for the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads and to make one or two other comments about the Bureau. I note that the appropriation for this financial year is a mere £25,000. Having regard to what Ministers said from time to time about the urgency of the need to establish the Bureau, I believe that what the President of the Long Distance Road Transport Association of Australia said recently is quite correct. He said that the Government seems to be soft pedalling and to have gone cold on the idea of a Commonwealth Bureau of Roads.

We remember that during the 1963 Federal election campaign the Government undertook to establish a Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. Towards the end of the sittings of the Parliament in 1964 the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Bill was rushed through. At about that time, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) went on record as saying, with reference to the Bureau -

We intend to push on with its early establishment because it has a big and urgent job to do, and the sooner it gets launched on the task the better it will be.

That statement was made about 17 or 18 months ago. Now we see that only £25,000 has been appropriated by the Government for this purpose. Obviously, the Bureau will not do much this year in making an overall survey of road requirements. In the notes provided by the Department of Shipping and Transport, the section dealing with the Bureau states -

Funds provided are to meet the cost of salaries administrative expenses and the like, which will be incurred on the setting up of the Bureau following the recent appointment of Mr. H. T. Loxton as Chairman.

As far as I can see, all that that means is that this appropriation of £25,000 is only for the purpose of drawing in !he necessary staff to get the Bureau under way.

This matter o*. road construction and development should be treated as one of urgency not only by the Government but also by the Department. I would like to know when the other members of the Bureau - the part time members - will be appointed and what Mr. Loxton has been doing since he was appointed Chairman. I understand that he was appointed in August of this year. Frankly, I agree with what the President of the Long Distance Transport Association of Australia said in June of this year. He said - Until it-

That is the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads - . . is established, we will not get the development we expect, especially on national roads . . . The Government seem to be soft pedalling and have gone real cold on it. They have been overlong in fulfilling their promise.

All that I need to say is that the Government has been pulling the wool over the eyes of many people in regard to this Bureau. This is certainly confirmed by the paucity of the amount to be appropriated under this division.

I refer now to Division No. 949, which relates to payments to or for the Stales, and I am concerned particularly with expenditure under the Railway Standardisation (South Australia) Agreement Act and under the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act. For the work in South Australia an appropriation of £3.7 million was made last year, of which only £2.2 million was actually expended.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have already raised that matter.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I am raising it in connection with another aspect. The appropriation last year for the work in Western Australia was £7.5 million, of which only £5.1 million was expended. I should like to know why there were overappropriations last year. I raise this matter because when the rail standardisation work is eventually completed a standard gauge line between east and west will become effecvice The New South Wales Government has been pressing for some time for upgrading of the railway line between Parkes and Broken Hill to meet the effects of rail standardisation. It is contended that this work should be the subject of Commonwealth assistance. The condition of the track between Parkes and Broken Hill, although it is of the standard 4 ft. 8i inch gauge, is such that unless there is upgrading with sufficient ballasting to cope with increased traffic trains will have to be slowed to a mere five miles an hour practically all the way between these two towns. Therefore, benefits to be derived by rail standardisation throughout will be eroded by time wastage.

Civil Aviation.

Department of Civil Aviation.

Proposed expenditure, £18,705,000.

Proposed provision, £2,600,000.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– Before we proceed any further I should like to answer some of the questions that were asked earlier. Senator Cavanagh ranged over a wide field of subjects. He commenced by referring to the recent increase in air fares. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to correct some misunderstandings which honorable senators on the other side apparently have on this subject. My comments will serve also to correct some inaccuracies in the statements that were made by Senator Kennelly earlier. Comparisons were made between the increase in TransAustralia Airlines’ revenue of approximately £4 million and increases in the costs of the Australian National Airlines Commission. Senator Kennelly pointed out that the Commission’s direct operating costs had increased by only £2 million but that revenue had increased by £4 million. These direct operating costs, however, related only to flying costs of aircraft and did not include indirect operating expenses and ground and administrative expenses, which in 1964- 65 totalled about £9.4 million. If we compare the total expenses of the airline and its tax provision between the two years, an increase in costs of nearly £4 million is shown. This is, in effect, a justification for the increase in fares that was applied some 12 months ago, and it provides further support for the increase I recently approved and which is intended to cover known increases in costs which will occur during the current year.

Senator Cavanagh referred also to increased appropriations for my Department this year and under-expenditure of those same appropriations last year. He said that the appropriations for last year under Division No. 135, Administrative, and Division No. 140, Civil Aviation Facilities, had been underspent to the extent of £1.325 million. This is a gross inaccuracy. The total appropriation for the Department of Civil Aviation in 1964-65 was £17.656 million, and of that sum £17.482 million was spent. This represents an underexpenditure over a very wide range of activity of only £175,000. It is quite apparent, therefore, that no single appropriation within the total could have been underspent by more than a very minor sum. My Department’s ability to expend its appropriations in accordance with its long term programmes of expenditure is something of which it can be proud. Therefore, 1 am most anxious to correct any false impression which honorable senators may have gained from Senator Cavanagh’s remarks.

The honorable senator went on to refer to further items in the estimates of my Department. It is true that a lower estimate is provided for payments under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act than was provided last year. However, expenditure under this head cannot be estimated and it is the Department’s usual practice, with Treasury concurrence, each year to make a fairly nominal provision which can be supplemented as the need arises. Reference was made by Senator Cavanagh also to the Department’s bill for petrol, fuel and lubricating oils. He asked whether the Department would gain the benefit of the petrol subsidy for country areas. The Department will pay less this year for that proportion of its liquid fuel supplies which is purchased in country areas. But the major proportion of its supplies is purchased at the seaboard. Therefore, the subsidy will provide very little offset to the Department’s requirement to purchase increased supplies to support its expanding activities.

In referring to the salary schedule which supports the Department’s estimates, Senator Cavanagh pointed out that the Department has provided for four directors at its head office this year, that being an increase of two on last year’s number. The increase in the number of head office directors results merely from a reorganisation of the head office staff structure and the refitting of two positions as director. The honorable senator referred to the reduction in the provision for officers on the unattached list. This figure varies from year to year as officers are transferred to or from this list, and there is no real significance in the variation. Similarly, the increase of about £500 in the provision for miscellaneous allowances is merely a reflection of the growth in the staff of the Department. Again, a slight increase is recorded in higher duties allowances. This provision is made to cover periods when officers temporarily occupy the positions of more highly paid officers during absences on recreation leave, sick leave, overseas duty and so on. The increased provision for officers on loan from other departments is more significant, it results from the seconding to my Department of an additional medical officer from the Department of Health for employment in the Aviation Medicine Branch of the Department.

To complete my answers to Senator Cavanagh’s questions, I inform him that there was no increase in air freight rates in the period from 1957 to 1965, when the rate was increased only very recently by 6 per cent. The honorable senator infers that passengers may have been subsidising consignors of air freight because passenger fares have been subject to more frequent increases. I should point out that the two markets - that is, the passenger and freight markets - are entirely separate. Whilst the passenger market is, to a very great extent, one that has been created by the air transport medium, air freight is subject to strenuous competition from surface transport operators. It would be foolish in the extreme if the airlines were to price themselves out of the freight market and to operate their aircraft with empty freight holds. The airlines have been able to economise in the carriage of freight, and the increased freight carrying capacity of the larger aircraft that have been progressively employed has been a major factor in this.

Senator Benn raised a few points. He referred to trading activity at the Brisbane airport. There six business leases have been issued for enterprises to be conducted under the terms of the Airports (Business Concessions) Act. Two are for combined food and liquor services, one for a service station, one for a car rental business, one for a barber shop and one for the use of advertising space. The Department’s usual practice before issuing an authority is to call tenders and then, of course, to negotiate the most favorable deal for the Commonwealth. The Department has experienced officers to appraise the offers and has no need to call in outside specialist advisers.

Another matter raised by Senator Benn related to parking fines that are collected by the Department. The honorable senator was interested to know how these were imposed. When a parking infringement occurs

In the public parking areas at airports, a parking infringement notice is issued to the offender. In most cases the appropriate penalty is paid, but if it is not paid action is taken through a Magistrates Court to impose the penalty. The Department does not impose on the spot penalties.

– If the honorable senator does not want to hear this from me, somebody else will say it. The only thing is that I will take a little bit longer. In his report, Sir Giles Chippindall said -

Because of the extensive network of noncompetitive groups not open to T.A.A., its competitor now carries almost 20% more traffic. It is significant that of the first 72 airports in the Commonwealth (excluding Papua and New Guinea) in order of airline passengers handled - as shown in the Department of Civil Aviation’s statistics for the year ended 31st December, 1964 - T.A.A. operates into only 27.

It is true that T.A.A. has made profits since the Government came into office -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Let me refer first to what Senator Kennelly had to say and then later I shall deal with Division No. 140. Obviously I would be lacking in my duty if I did not support Senator Kennelly’s remarks. He mentioned a fact which is well known in the Australian community - that the Government is assisting Ansett-A.N.A. No-one can deny that. Some honorable senators opposite may have read the item by columnist Jim Macdougall in his column “ Town Talk “ which appeared in the Sydney “ Daily Mirror “ recently. It is in these terms-

A pert little girl we met on Saturday night turned out to be an air hostess. And in fairness we won’t mention her name. “ T.A.A.?” we asked. “ No “, she said, “ I fly with the opposition- the GOVERNMENT airline!”

– Yes it is. It is the

Commonwealth’s airline. It was established by the Commonwealth with the taxpayers’ money. That is the Minister’s first obligation. If we were involved in a war the Government would be the first to call upon Qantas and T.A.A. to assist our defence forces. Instead of trying to meet the requirements of the people, the Government is concerned about keeping the flight schedules of T.A.A. and Ansett-A.N.A. together.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator is talking complete baloney.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is not baloney. The Minister could alter the present arrangements.

Senator Henty:

– The airlines draw up their own schedules. They are not told what to do.

Senator BISHOP:

– The point is that the Government is responsible for the rationalisation policy and it influences the airlines. For the Minister to suggest that it does not is complete nonsense. Adelaide airport is congested. When aircraft come into or are about to leave Adelaide you cannot get a cup of coffee, you cannot buy even a newspaper, you cannot park your car in the area and you cannot even get near the traffic counter because there are too many people around.

Senator Henty:

– How does the honorable senator manage to get to Canberra?

Senator BISHOP:

– The same congestion is in evidence at Canberra. The Government should tell the airlines to provide a proper service for the travelling public. Instead of T.A.A. and Ansett-A.N.A. giving the people the service that they should have, what do we find? Ansett-A.N.A. and T.A.A. planes leave Adelaide for Melbourne within five minutes of each other at about 7 o’clock in the morning. If you want to leave Adelaide between that time and 11 o’clock you cannot. You must leave at about 11.10 a.m., when Ansett-A.N.A. and T.A.A. planes leave within minutes of each other. If you want to travel between that time and 5 p.m. you cannot, because T.A.A. and Ansett-A.N.A. planes leave Adelaide at 5.40 p.m. and 5.45 p.m. respectively. Similar schedules apply to the service to Sydney. These schedules are uneconomical and the Government’s rationalisation policy should be changed. The Government could save the people of Australia a good deal of money if it told the airlines to change their flight schedules.

It is no use the Minister saying that the Government does not advise the airlines. No-one can tell me that the Minister does not pass the word to the Department of Civil Aviation and that the Department, when required, does not consult with AnsettA.N.A. The Government should tell the airlines that the Australian people are entitled to a better air service than they are getting now. The people should not be told that the schedules have to run together because the two airlines must have a fair share of the traffic. We should be able to have two airlines operating in real competition, providing better schedules and improved facilities for the travelling public. We could have this if the Government got away from its hidebound rationalisation policy.

Senator Kennelly obviously was right in what he said. Everyone knows that this Government is assisting the private airline to such an extent that the stage will be reached when it becomes too strong for the Government to control. We have reached the stage already when T.A.A. cannot really operate in competition with Ansett-A.N.A. because within the States the private airline has access to the transport and accommodation fields. TransAustralia Airlines cannot develop in those fields, lt is time that the Senate took action to remedy the position which exists, particularly at Adelaide.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– The debate so far has adequately covered the increased air fares, the benefits which have been given to AnsettA.N.A. at the expense of Trans- Australia Airlines, and the Minister’s disgraceful attitude towards the whole question. I want to deal with Division No. 135 - Administrative - and refer to the schedule on page 149 relating to salaries and allowances. I wish to raise the matter of the serious shortage of experienced airline pilots in Australia. I know that Australia has the greatest air safety record in the world and, like every honorable senator, I am anxious that it should remain so. On behalf of a number of very interested parties, I raised the matter approximately five weeks ago in the form of a question to the Minister. I asked -

In view of the serious shortage of experienced pilots which has developed in Australia, I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether the Federal Government will sponsor a training scheme to ensure that a sufficient number of highly trained pilots is available for the needs of commercial aviation, and also as a contribution to Australia’s defence. Will the Minister consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into, and make recommendations on, the recruitment and selection of professional pilots for civil aviation and the facilities and standards of training?

The Minister went into some detail, but amongst other things he said -

I think that at the present time the airlines are successfully overcoming the shortage which has developed since 1961 because of the increase in air traffic in Australia. However, I have not looked at the matter lately, and I shall examine the situation to ascertain the present position.

Some weeks later I heard about a statement that had been made in, I thought at first, a broadcast, but after making further inquiries I found that it had been made through television station Channel 7 in Sydney. It led me to believe that the Minister must have realised the importance of this matter. So I again raised the question with the Minister. He gave me a further reply and said, in effect, that he was looking at the matter and that he hoped in the very near future to make a statement on it.

Until quite recently the airlines recruited their flight crews almost entirely from the Services, or, alternatively, they skimmed off the best of the younger flight instructors from the aero clubs and flying schools. The output from both these sources, however, is now irregular and insufficient. An airline pilot training scheme, evolved in 1959 by the Department of Civil Aviation and the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs, collapsed after two years because of lack of firm support and financial assistance from the airlines. Each trainee paid between £2,000 and £2,500 for his training. The Royal Australian Air Force pilots who were trained during the war years and immediate prewar years and who now form the bulk of the airlines’ senior flying staff, will, in five to ten years time, be reaching the retiring age.

To provide staff for its future jet operations, Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. has already had to go overseas to recruit many suitably trained young pilots. If the current rate of recruitment of flight crews from outside Australia continues, there is a danger of Qantas losing much of its character as a national airline. The present method of recruitment and the present system of training future airline pilots and flight instructors is not the answer to the problem. I believe the solution lies in the establishment of a civil air academy, such as the National College of Air Training, which is sponsored by the British Government. A similar college in Australia could be useful for Colombo Plan purposes. It would provide a central flying school for civil flight instructors undertaking refresher flying training, and it also would provide a suitable venue for annual symposiums at which problems concerned with flying training could be discussed with interested parties, such as officers of the Department of Civil Aviation and representatives of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.

To say that facilities are available in Australia for the training of pilots is just not correct. It is useless for the Minister continually to make that statement. The people in authority and the representatives of the major airlines are concerned about the situation. I have it on the best authority that greater facilities must be provided to bridge the gap which is appearing between the number of pilots who are being trained and the number of pilots who are being sought by the airlines. The Hamilton inquiry has been mentioned. It was undertaken in the United Kingdom in 1 962 for the purpose of considering problems in the training of airline pilots. It received submissions from the various airline operators, the airline pilots and the airline navigators. All of these people came forward and made submissions on this vital matter. It certainly brought great benefit to the airline industry of the United Kingdom.

I know that the Government makes money available to the aero clubs, which is very commendable. It provides the necessary impetus to get young people to join these clubs. But this training is almost worthless because of the advanced flying knowledge that is required by airline pilots today. I again ask the Minister to consider this important question of the serious shortage of airline pilots in Australia at the present time. If he looks at what is happening with Qantas, which is supplying instructors to train lads whom it recruits from various sources, he will see the serious situation that is developing. Qantas is recruiting pilots from other countries. They are here for a short while. The airline spends thousands of pounds in training these pilots and then they are lost to an overseas airline which pays much higher wages than are paid by Australian airlines today.

In 1950, a lad who had been trained by an aero club and who got into a DC3 aircraft confidently expected easy flying. But today with all weather landings, high performance planes and turbo jets, that training belongs to the horse and buggy days. I suggest in all sincerity that the Minister should look at this matter in the interests of Australia, in the interests of the various organisations which are concerned about the matter, and in the interests of every honorable senator and every Australian who is concerned with his own safety. We must recognise that we have a magnificent air safety record which must be sustained. The only way in which we can do this is to secure able and efficient men. That could be accomplished by the establishment in

Australia of an organisation such as that which I have suggested to the Minister on many occasions.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I would like to answer a few of the queries which have been raised by honorable senators. Senator Davidson and Senator Bishop referred to the need for an enlarged terminal building at the Adelaide airport. There is no question that there is an urgent need for increased facilities at the Adelaide airport. I have stated this many times. An increase in the size of the terminal building at the airport is one of the items that is contained in the five year plan of the Department of Civil Aviation. The item is not included in this year’s estimates. However, it is one of the matters which is being considered by the interdepartmental committee which has been set up to recommend to the Government the priorities of the various projects that are envisaged at the present time. Until I receive the report from that committee, I am not able to give any further information.

Senator Kennelly referred to the increase in air fares. He mentioned the statement which was made by Sir Giles Chippindall, who is Chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commision. The honorable senator mentioned the figure of £800,000. That referred to the increased costs in wages and materials incurred by the two airlines.

Senator Kennelly:

– The Minister said that £800,000-

Senator HENTY:

– I listened to the honorable senator with interest and I want him to listen to me. The only figure published at that stage was £800,000. That was given as the increased costs incurred by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett-A.N.A. as regards wages and materials. At that time no assessment had been made of the effects of the increase in fuel tax or the increases in air navigation charges, depreciation of aircraft and depreciation of Commonwealth owned buildings at airports. In Sir Giles Chippindall^ own words, now that an assessment has been made, it shows that the increase in costs this year will be about £1,200,000, and to cover this the airlines needed a 6 per cent, increase in air fares and freight charges. That was granted, because of the increased costs I have mentioned. Honorable senators have been quoting from Sir Giles Chippindall’s statement. I refer them to the third paragraph of his statement, where he warns that the pressure of rising costs prevented the profit level from increasing with the record volume of business. Here we have T.A.A., which has been a most profitable, well run and efficient airline since this Government came into power, stopped the rot and put it on its feet-

Senator Cant:

– That is not true. The Minister is trying to make political capital out of this. I thought he was a responsible Minister.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! Senator Cant must not continue to interject.

Senator HENTY:

– Honorable senators opposite do not like the truth. It touches them a bit.

– I know that honorable senators opposite want a Government monopoly in this field. If we had that situa tion and wanted to travel on a Tuesday, we would be told we could not do; and if the airline wanted us to travel on a Wednesday, it would tell us to do so. But we will not have that.

I want to reply to the point that was made about schedules. A lot has been said on this subject, but the two airlines themselves meet and decide upon the schedules. All that they do after deciding on the schedules is obtain the approval of the Department of Civil Aviation on the basis that the schedules are safe and efficient. People talk about aircraft from the two airlines leaving at the one time. What about the trams in our cities? Surely nobody will tell me that he wants 10 trams between 7 o’clock and 8 o’clock, 10 trams between 8 o’clock and 9 o’clock and 10 trams between 10 o’clock and 11 o’clock. Passengers do not want to travel at those times. So we have 30 trams early in the morning to take people to work when they want to go to work, and we do not have many trams later in the morning.

Senator Murphy:

– We have no trams at all in Sydney.

Senator HENTY:

Senator TOOHEY:

– I do not think it is very good at all. I want to reply to the quite erroneous statement that the Minister made, namely that under a Labour government Trans-Australia Airlines made no progress. This is just the sort of smart sophistry that will not convince anybody. I make this point quite validly: If the Liberal PartyCountry Party Government today had to commence the operation of an entirely new government airline, it would be many years before it would be able to make that airline pay. I do not think any honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber would be bold enough to try to contradict that statement. It is quite conceivable that before the airline started to pay under the jurisdiction of this Government another government could come into office just at the time when the airline was beginning to pay its way and calmly take the credit, saying: “ Look what we have done. We have made the airline pay.”

I remember quite vividly various election campaigns which were held in South Australia during the time when the Australian Labour Party was in government in the Federal sphere and in which members of the present Government parties were running around the State claiming that T.A.A. was a Socialist undertaking; that it was doomed to failure; and that no government undertaking could pay. Members of the Government parties know that that is what they said. Yet today they are basking in the success of this airline simply because this government undertaking has proved that it can pay - and pay very handsomely indeed.

I have no objection whatever to the Minister making political points in his replies. But I believe that, in making political points, he should do something better than tell members of the Opposition that only under a Liberal Party-Country Party Government has T.A.A. paid its way. That is sheer sophistry. It was only a question of timing. Trans-Australia Airlines was handed on to this Government by the Labour Government at a time when it just had to pay in any event. It had gone through its birth pains under the Labour Government. I suggest to the Minister that in future he should not talk nonsense of this character in this chamber. Let us get on with the job of discussing the estimates of the Department of Civil Aviation.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I want to talk to the Minister about birdbrains. I think bird-brains are better than no brains.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order!

Senator CANT:

– I have been in this chamber for six years and the Minister has clowned his way through all of that time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The Committee is discussing the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation-

The safety record does not cover everything; there are other things. If the Minister does not want me to cite these items - there is a whole list of them - I shall cite something else to him.

I should like an explanation of other matters, if the Minister is capable of giving one. Provision was made for the erection of four houses at Derby. The expenditure authorised was £32,763, an average of approximately £8,000 a house. This amount would be about right, I suppose, for houses in that area; I know that they cost a bit more further up. Also at Derby, the erection of six houses was authorised, at a cost of £48,325. Again, this works out at approximately £8,000 for the construction of each house. However, we find that five houses are to be erected, as part of new works at Derby, at a cost of £48,000. The price has gone up to £9,600 a house. The document does not explain, but I think that those five houses that are to be erected are part of the six that are provided for later in the document. It appears to me that there has not been such a huge increase in costs as approximately £1,600 a house. I should like the Minister to give me some information on that.

I should like the Minister to explain also why aircraft have to leave Perth at midnight to have passengers from Perth hang around Melbourne airport for three hours. I remind the Minister that in winter time Melbourne airport is not warmed until 7 a.m., and the coffee shop and other facilities are not open until that hour. Yet a flight is scheduled to bring passengers into the airport an hour earlier than the Electra flight used to bring them there. It was bad enough having to wait for two hours. Now we have to wait for three hours.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– First, I desire to raise my voice in protest against the method of conducting this part of the debate on the Estimates. I direct the Committee’s attention to the quite amicable discussion that we had this afternoon on the proposed expenditure for the Department of Shipping and Transport, during which Senator Anderson acted for the Minister in the other place. I give credit to Senator Anderson, who went out of his way at every stage to try to explain the Department’s attitude to the various items of expenditure. Now we are discussing the proposed expenditure of the Department of Civil Aviation and we have a Minister who enjoys indulging in political propaganda.

Senator Sim:

– Who started it?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Whoever starts it, the Minister has a responsibility to uphold the dignity of the Committee and try to supply information. It is for the Minister to explain the action of his Department. During an Estimates debate, propaganda may be expected from the Opposition side of the Chamber. Opposition senators are entitled to be critical of departments and to be told why particular expenditure has occurred. For the Minister to try to outdo the Opposition, and not to give an explanation but to indulge in politics to justify some action which is very dubious, is undignified and thwarts the purpose of the debate, which is to provide the explanations of matters that we raise.

Whether or not it is a matter of politics, there is no doubt, as Senator Kennelly said, that there is a general belief that AnsettA.N.A. is given favoured treatment by this Government. It is no reply for the Minister to say that Trans-Australia Airlines never made a profit under Labour but is now making a profit. That is unfair, in view of the date of inauguration of T.A.A. and its development since. The Minister has presented the annual report of T.A.A., which states that this airline is getting only 50.4 per cent, of the competitive Australian air routes. The airline’s complaint, which has yet to be answered, is that it is not getting its fair share of the uncontrolled routes, or the routes that are not competitive. It complains that an unfair advantage on these other routes is given to its competitor. These routes are left out of consideration in an assessment of whether or not there is any truth in the report that has been presented by T.A.A.

The position in South Australia, which has been referred to by Senator Kennelly, is not only that 95 per cent, of the fares from Adelaide to Woomera are paid by the Commonwealth Government but also that most of the flights to Woomera are charter flights which are paid for exclusively by the Commonwealth Government. All the intrastate services of South Australia are controlled by Ansett-A.N.A. at the present time and have been for a number of years. This is the situation, although Sir Thomas Playford, a former Liberal Premier of South Australia, appealed to the Federal Government to permit Trans-Australia Airlines to operate within South Australia in accordance with the Government’s policy of a two airlines operation. The appeal was rejected. When I raised the matter in the Senate it was said that we have to consider the question of subsidised air routes. However, we afterwards found that there were no subsidised air routes in South Australia.

In addition to exclusive intrastate rights to air routes in South Australia, AnsettA.N.A. gains the advantage of through bookings from country centres to capital cities beyond Adelaide. This is preferential treatment. If it is the Government’s policy to extend preferential treatment to one airline, it must at the same time accept condemnation for that policy. At one time only the harping of the Opposition was heard in criticism of the Government’s policy, but now that criticism is becoming universal. It is providing scope for jokes on radio and television programmes in which the Leader of the Government is introduced as Mr. Ansett.

It is time that, through rationalisation of services, some decency was extended to airline operations. I thought that Senator Bishop offered some powerful arguments in putting a case for a change in timetables. I do not believe that he has been properly answered. An excuse has been given that within the next 12 months the extensions to Adelaide airport necessary to cope with increased numbers of air travellers cannot be made. At least departure and arrival times could be staggered without taxing the existing facilities at Adelaide airport until extensions are effected. Today it is simply agonising to go through that airport at certain times.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How much did Ansett-A.N.A. make over that period?

Senator HENTY:

– I have not the figures for Ansett-A.N.A. With great pride, I have given the figures for which we are responsible. We are responsible for the conduct of T.A.A. and that airline has shown good profits. We have shown how we can make an airline efficient. What is done by those in charge of Ansett-A.N.A. is their business. They run the organisation.

I revert now to a statement by Senator Cavanagh to the effect that the Government should tell the airlines how to run their business. The honorable senator said the Government should tell the airlines what time their aircraft should leave and not leave, how many hostesses they should carry and so on. According to Senator Cavanagh, the Government should do this. But the airlines are business concerns. They are run by competent businessmen as has been proved. The staff of T.A.A. is proud of the fact that it can compete with private enterprise and make a profit. It does not want any of this Socialist nonsense of a one airline monopoly. The staff of T.A.A. wants to prove that its administration can run an airline. It has proved this and it does not want interference from governments.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Government provides the airports.

Senator HENTY:

– Members of the Opposition are the first to deny their own. In reply to Senator Cant I have a note from the Department of Works to the effect that it has spent all the funds appropriated to it last year for civil aviation works.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I rise to refer to the proposed vote for the administration of the Department of Civil Aviation and to comment on the reference by Senator Fitzgerald to the shortage of airline pilots. I commend to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) a suggestion I made to him recently on behalf of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots that every assistance should be given to the Federation to visit schools and encourage young men in the schools to take up flying as a career. The life of an air pilot is interesting. The pilots are paid good salaries and have prospects of advancement. The air pilots believe that if they could put these facts before boys at school, many more would choose flying as a career. This sort of thing is done by many other organisations and I ask the Minister to give every assistance to the pilots who are prepared to act upon their suggestion on a voluntary basis.

I think that in fairness I should correct a minor mis-statement made by Senator Cant about the departure time of Boeing aircraft from Perth at night. The time of departure has been advanced almost to 1 a.m. and the time of arrival at Melbourne is not 5 a.m. but after 6 a.m. which is only a few minutes earlier than the Electras used to arrive. I travel by Ansett-A.N.A. by choice, not because 1 believe TransAustralia Airlines aircraft are unsafe or that the service is inferior. But I should like to say that Senator Cavanagh greatly exaggerated the difficulties of the air hostesses. His statement was completely absurd. I have travelled by T.A.A. on one or two occasions. They had four hostesses and the girls were neither overworked nor lacked time to give the usual courtesies to passengers. Senator Cavanagh’s statement was absurd and amounted to sheer stupid propaganda.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Where were, they when you were kept at the airport over? night?

Senator SIM:

– That was due to fog and was not the fault of the airlines. The floor was quite comfortable and I was in good company with Senator Wheeldon. I want to reply to Senator Cant who criticised Ansett-A.N.A. for the services to the north west of Western Australia. He complained that Mr. Ansett had said that he would not provide Viscounts for this service. Mr. Ansett said no such thing. He said that in due course, after about two years, it might be possible to put them on the service. He did not promise them immediately. The difficulties suffered by MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd. in trying to cope with the traffic are not due to the failure of Mr. Ansett to provide aircraft. I know the Ansett organisation is doing its very best to find aircraft. If there is a failure in this respect it is due to the previous policy of MacRobertson Miller Airlines in not looking forward sufficiently and in failing to place orders for modern aircraft. It is quite unfair to place the blame on Ansett Transport Industries because of the difficulties experienced in the northern parts of Western Australia. A DC4 aircraft is now travelling weekly to northern parts to try to pick up the backlog of freights.

Again I say to the Minister that the shortage of airline pilots is becoming serious. I have no doubt the Department of Civil Aviation is fully aware of this; but now that the airline pilots have offered to go out themselves and recruit young men to this industry, the Department should give them every assistance.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I refer to the appropriation for the administration of the Department of Civil Aviation and in that connection I shall refer to a matter that has not been raised during the debate on the Estimates. In August the Senate disallowed a proposed Government amendment to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. That amendment was designed to frustrate an appeal to the Privy Council by Ipec-Air Pty. Ltd. against a decision of the High Court of Australia. The High Court refused an application to compel the Director-General of Civil Aviation to issue an import licence to the I.P.E.C. company for the importation of aircraft for freight traffic operations in Australia. On that occasion, the Senate gave rather emphatic expression to the nationwide revulsion against the Government’s crude tactics.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments advanced then in this chamber and outside in relation to that controversy. I believe the Government was rightly condemned for its abuse of power and its contempt for the rule of law. What I am concerned to put to the Minister is that since then no announcement has been made by the

Government as to what its attitude is to be to further applications either by the Ipec company or by other companies which, from what we hear, appear to have made applications. On 2nd September I placed on notice a series of questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation. These were designed to elicit information as to what applications were put before the Director-General of Civil Aviation since January 1963 for permission to import aircraft into Australia. I sought details as to who had made the application and when it was made; what number and what type of aircraft were the subject of the application; was the application granted or refused and the reasons given for granting or refusing it. I also wished to know what applications were pending and when it was expected decisions would be made.

My complaint to the Minister is that the Parliament and the public have been kept in the dark about the Government’s intentions. I submit we are entitled to know what the facts are. Is the Government waiting for the result of the appeal to the Privy Council, if that is the course that I.P.E.C. takes? What are the facts? What is going on? We are left with the right to place questions on the notice paper and the need to wait indefinitely for some indication from the Government as to what its policy is. I want to know why it takes so long to answer a simple series of questions and when we may expect to have some elucidation of the Government’s policy.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I have found the debate tonight most exhilarating. But I want to turn to another aspect of civil aviation and ask the Minister quietly how he is progressing with the matter of estimating air charges so as to obtain some degree of return on the capital investment that the Department has laid out in the foundational work of this industry. We ought to remind ourselves that, over the last century, many mistakes were made in railway development throughout Australia. We have moved now into the air age. I should think that the Government by now has made a statistical calculation of the present capital commitment and its projected capital commitment over a given period. I should think that it has made some estimate also of the revenue return that it is going to exact from the air travelling public per medium of the operators so as to put this industry on a completely economic basis. The development that has been undertaken in a pioneering way is- almost completed. We ought to start to establish now, on a completely economic basis, a return for that capital investment. I do not wish to take the Minister unawares. But if he has statements for presentation to the Committee, I for one would welcome a brief resume of the Government’s assessment of this industry in that respect.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– Madam Temporary Chairman, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Civil Aviation to Division No. 135 - Administrative. I wish to raise certain queries. May I say in passing that I heard Senator Sim say that he travelled by a certain airline. None of us denies him the right to travel the chance-it way. It is his right. What I was particularly interested in was the Minister’s statement regarding figures. A former government had established a completely new industry with which no-one in Australia was completely familiar. The Minister was not quite fair in what he said. He was fair to the extent that he mentioned that the losses incurred by the government airline were decreasing with each year. This is not unusual in a new business enterprise. Those losses are the forerunners of profits.

The Minister then claimed that in 1949- 50 a profit was made. That is correct. Noone denies that fact. But he was just a little remiss in what he said. I think this was purely an oversight on his part. The Government at that time was led by Mr. Menzies, as he then was, and it came into office on 10th December 1949. But the profit made by the Government airline was being earned prior to 10th December 1949. It was being earned from 1st July 1949. It was on its way when the Menzies Government came into office. Consequently, the credit for the profit for that year cannot be claimed by that Government. That whole business undertaking, as anyone knows, was on its way up. Let us be quite fair about the matter. In the previous year, the loss was only £94,000. Surely honorable senators would expect a profit in the following year. It was not the great business ability of the Liberal-Country Party Government which came into office on 10th December 1949 that caused the change. The Minister for Civil Aviation knows that.

Concerning the administrative set-up, I am not going to say that malpractices exist. I do not think there is any malpractice in the Department. I have the greatest respect for the public servants in the Department of Civil Aviation working alone or as members of the rationalisation committee controlling the air routes. But I ask the Minister: Who determines policy in the Department of Civil Aviation? We on this side of the Committee make mistakes. I am prepared to concede that, as honorable senators know. There would be no-one fairer on this side or on the other side of the Committee in that respect than I am. I wonder who determines this policy. Some of us are inclined to blame Mr. Ansett. I do not think he is responsible at all. He just happens to be the front runner for a group. Actually, six groups control 29 per cent, of the shares of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Mr. Ansett and his family control 643,000 shares. If we have a look at the other five groups, what do we find? W. R. Carpenter Holdings controls nearly 3 million shares. Boral Ltd.-Mt. Lyall - the Mount Lyall interests have now been disposed of - hold almost 3 million shares. A bank holds 793,000 shares. Australian Mutual Provident Society and Perpetual Trustees Co.. Ltd. hold 500,000 shares. Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Co. Ltd. and, I think, Huddart Parker Ltd. hold over 500,000 shares. These companies, with the Ansett family which has 643,000 shares, hold almost 29 per cent, of the shares of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. I would say it is unfair to Mr. Ansett for us to blame him as being the standover man. I think that he is just the front runner for this group of six, including himself. He does their work. I do not blame him. That is his job. Ansett Transport Industries attempts to do the job within the limit of its ability, and with the help of the LiberalCountry Party Government. This help is not inconsiderable. The company gets it whenever it wants it, peculiarly enough. Whether it be a rise in fares, or a further rationalisation of air services, the Ansett company receives what it wants.

The Minister said that the Government of Queensland gave authority to the Commonwealth Government to engage in intrastate airline operations in that State. The Government has a peculiar way of showing its appreciation of this move. I do not know whether the Government is to blame or whether the blame rests with the administrative officers who tender advice to the Minister. The Minister must accept responsibility for these matters. He has not held this portfolio long enough to know what is happening in his Department. I am not blaming him. I am blaming his predecessor. In a couple of years’ time, the present Minister will understand what is going on. What is happening in Queensland? One might say that the Longreach-Mount Isa air route was pioneered by T.A.A. When, with the expansion of Mount Isa, that air route became remunerative and some real profit was to be made from operating it, what did the Department of Civil Aviation do? It handed the operation of that service over to AnsettA.N.A.

Senator Cavanagh told the Committee what was done in South Australia. For years T.A.A. has been trying to get onto the Perth-Darwin run. Irrespective of what the Minister says about consideration being given to this matter now, we know what the answer will be. The only way a different answer might be given to the one we expect is that the Government is being challenged at the present time regarding this matter and it may whisper in the ear of the rationalisation committee: “ For Heaven’s sake, get us out of this jam and give T.A.A. a go on the Perth-Darwin run “.

The Minister also spoke of airline losses. Let us not forget the jam that Australian National Airways was in and the people to whom it owed money. We know those people. That was real rationalisation. It persuaded the Government to back up the Ansett-A.N.A. combination. A.N.A. could not have survived on its own, irrespective of what the Minister said tonight about the losses made by T.A.A., because they were decreasing every year as it learned the airline business. If the Minister had gone into the facts about A.N.A. - he will not do so - he would have drawn a real comparison between the two companies. If he is prepared to be honest he will draw that real comparison. I think the Minister is honest. No- one denies that he is. Perhaps he just does not know - so limited is his knowledge - that A.N.A. was in a real financial jam. The only way the Government had to let A.N.A. out of its trouble was to agree to the combination - Ansett-A.N.A. - and socalled rationalisation.

Do not forget this: Aviation is of vital interest to the Australian people because it is used to an increasing degree as a method of transport. Honorable senators can see this from the figures given each year of passenger and freight business. More and more people are travelling by air.

Perhaps the Government Printer, not the Minister or his administrative officers, is to blame for not getting the report to the Senate before today, when we resumed discussion of the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation. We have read the condemnation of the Government by Sir Giles Chippindall. I do not suppose he would be opposed to the Government. I think he would be particularly fair minded and would speak in all honesty, with the integrity so characteristic of him. His indignation was so strong that he felt he had to remonstrate with the Government and tell it how unfair it had been to T.A.A., the people’s own airline.

This Government says that it believes in free enterprise. But should it defend free enterprise at the expense of something the. people of Australia own and for which the Government is responsible? If free enterprise is worthwhile, let it survive under its own steam, under its own power, under its own efficiency and with its own know how. But the Government will not do that because, given a fair go, T.A.A. would drive Ansett-A.N.A. into the ground.

It is all very well for Senator Sim to say that he travels the chance-it way, but 70 per cent, of members of Parliament travel by T.A.A., the friendly way, the efficient way. The Government does not care very much about public servants. It issued directions to the Public Service that 50 per cent, of Public Service traffic was to go to the other airline, chance-it. That is what the Government did to give chance-it an equal share of the business. How can we expect T.A.A. to survive if it is handicapped at every turn. Every time a T.A.A. plane takes off something is loaded against it in favour of a chance-it plane. Why does the Government not permit open competition? I know that T.A.A. does not fear anything in open competition. I am sure the Minister’s officers will be. frank with him if he gives them a chance and does not hamstring them and tie their hands and their minds. I am sure they will tell him that if he allowed both airlines to operate, fairly and in open competition T.A.A. would survive.

T.A.A. had the majority of the passenger traffic. It was content to allow AnsettA.N.A. to pick up what the Government gave it. The Government gave AnsettA.N.A. 50 per cent, of the mail traffic and the freight that went with it, and T.A.A. was given up to 42 per cent, of the freight traffic, lt was quite content with that. But when the Government found that T.A.A. was getting miles ahead of Ansett-A.N.A. in passenger traffic, it pulled T.A.A. back and gave air routes that it had pioneered to Ansett-A.N.A. However, where AnsettA.N.A. had a monopoly of the service, the Government would not allow T.A.A. to enter that field. Surely the Minister has a sense of responsibility. I know he is only an individual in an incompetent Cabinet, but surely he has some say in Cabinet. He has held this portfolio long enough to learn a little about it and to recognise his responsibilities.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Minister pleads ignorance.

Senator DITTMER:

– I do not think he is ignorant, but he may be a little unfair on occasions. Why not do things properly? Why not say: “Yes, we believe in free enterprise “? But, as Senator Cohen has pointed out, the Minister has not replied to questions raised about the Interstate Parcel Express Company, a private enterprise company. Although he belongs to a Government which is wedded to free enterprise, he has been completely unfair to I.P.E.C. Sometimes I wonder whether the Government knows where it is going, whether it has a basic philosophy. Honorable senators opposite desire power, and by various misdemeanours and political malpractices they have been successful in maintaining power. I always assumed that they believed in unfettered free enterprise.

Senator Hannaford:

– Perhaps the honorable senator is very credulous.

Senator DITTMER:

– No. I may be innocent but I am not credulous. I am inclined to accept people’s words because of my basic honesty and inherent idealistic principles.

Senator Hannaford:

– What is the honorable senator talking about?

Senator DITTMER:

– I replied to the honorable senator’s statement. He should have been courteous enough to listen. I always thought that honorable senators on the Government side believed in unfettered free enterprise but I sometimes wonder to what depths they will sink, to what lengths they will go, to continue in power and to serve the masters to whom they are slaves. I recall what the Government did to I.P.E.C. Frankly, if I had been on the Government side I would have done the same thing but not in the same way. I would have been fair, I would have been frank. I would have been honest and I would have said: “ I believe that the people’s airline has the right to survive. We are not concerned with what you want to do. If you are efficient and can beat the nation’s airline, all credit to you.” There are no lengths to which this Government will not go and no depths to which it will not descend to fetter and shackle its own airline in the interests of an organisation controlled by five groups. Let us forget the sixth group, the Ansett family. Ansett happens to be the mouthpiece for the other five groups. I do not know how many representatives of the Government, with any sense of fairness-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- The purpose of this debate is to take note of the proposed expenditure for the Department of Civil Aviation. The debate gives the representatives of the States in this place the right to turn a searchlight on the Government - on its deeds and misdeeds, its achievements and lack of achievements, its credits and its debits, and on the hopes and the dashed aspirations of a democracy. The motion before us that we take note of the proposed expenditure allows us that right.

Senator Wood, who occupied the chair before you did, Madam Temporary Chairman, has urged the Committee to abide by the Standing Orders which cover the procedure for Estimates debates. We are all taking part in a farce. We have before us the schedule to a bill which is being debated in another place, but we cannot amend, carry nor defeat the motion before the chair.

Senator Wright:

– The Committee can amend it how it wishes.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– What ridiculous nonsense. We cannot amend a motion to take note of something. We are taking note of a schedule to a bill which is being debated in another place. That means absolutely nothing. We are taking part in a gab fest. Senator Wright, as an upholder of the rights of the Senate, should know that even better than I do.

Senator Scott:

– If this is so, why is the honorable senator wasting time in talking?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Because I have a few things to say and I have been waiting a long time to say them. The matter we are discussing is very important, but the Minister has been taking refuge continually in saying what the Labour Government did in 1946 and 1947 about Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Pty. Ltd. If Senator Henty lived in a fowlyard the rooster would chase after him day after day and when he turned and said: “ What are you doing that for? “, the rooster would say “ I.P.E.C., I.P.E.C., I.P.E.C.”. There is a canard to the effect that in the days of the previous Minister for Civil Aviation, when the words “ civil aviation “ were mentioned in aviation circles, the staff of Ansett-A.N.A. would turn to the west in deep obeisance because they knew that from that direction came the wherewithal and the reason for their existence; from there came government policy which was keeping them in existence.

Senator Henty uses profit as the yardstick. Trans-Australia Airlines is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth Government which provides a service to the people of this country. On its back like a barnacle is this other excrescence which has been aided and abetted by the Government since 1949. It is something that T.A.A. does not want. Senator Henty referred to trams leaving at the. same time. How stupid it would be to have two sets of tramlines running parallel and having trams on both sets leaving at the same time. The same thing applies to electricity supply. The cities in the Commonwealth have forests of poles disfiguring the landscape. How stupid it would be to have electricity being carried by wires on poles on both sides of the road. Yet in the field of civil aviation we have this duplication and the Government uses the taxpayers’ money to keep the airlines in existence. That is the stupidity of the policy. There is no way in which it can be justified. Senator Henty comes into the chamber and says: “The airline made a loss in 1947 and in 1948 “. I want to paraphrase a Gladstonian statement. I say that Senator Henty is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.

Senator Wright:

– I do not think it was Gladstone.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Disraeli then. I purposely made that mistake because I wanted Senator Wright, who is a student of these matters, to come in. I am pleased that he has corrected me.

I would like to draw attention to opinions which have been expressed on this matter outside the Parliament and outside this debate. I believe that an editorial published in a local newspaper in Launceston, which is where Senator Henty and I were born, gets down to the nub of things. For the purpose of the record, I shall quote the editorial because it is germane to the subject we are debating. It states -

The Commonwealth Government has created a commercial aviation system which should be a prime target for its own restrictive and monopolistic trade practices law if it ever gets around to passing this legislation. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) has produced some convincing answers to Ipec’s claim for the right to operate interstate air-express services, if not for the shocking misuse of regulations to negate Ipec’s appeal; but Government acquiescence in the airlines’ application for a 6 per cent, fare rise flies in the face of commercial realism and of Australian opinion.

Senator Wright:

– Is that an editorial?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is the editorial of the “Examiner” of Friday, 8th October 1965. It continues -

The national airline, which publishes Rs figures, is highly profitable. The private airline is lost in a maze of interlocking companies, but it undoubtedly contributed to the parent company’s large profit last year. Costs are rising, but so are patronage and profitability. Yet the Government is to agree to fare rises in a system from which it has carefully removed all real competition and enterprise.

The two airlines charge identical fares, fly almost identical routes with identical aircraft on identical timetables. The significant difference between them is that the private airline’s parent company has made a very costly adventure into commercial television.

We have an airline company in Australia trying to balance the books of the television station Channel 0. The editorial continues -

This has reduced over-all profitability, and the airline user is now expected to pay higher fares to counter the television losses. Nor can the competing national airline, unhindered by television, remain on the old fares and reap the business. The Government will not allow this.

Senator Wright:

– Will the honorable senator allow me to peruse the editorial?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I shall hand it to Senator Wright as soon as I have made my contribution to this debate. It continues -

Since 19S7, first-class fares have risen 24 per cent, and tourist fares have risen 36 per cent. (Indeed, some fares are more than 60 per cent, higher than Ansett’s pre-merger rates). Concurrently, the consumer price index has risen less than 14 per cent. Though fuel tax, airport charges and wages have all gone up recently, high utilisation of the big, economical new aircraft could cover these increased costs. The effect of the fare rises would then be merely to add more than a million pounds to the gross profits of each airline.

As it is, the national airline has been hobbled as a pacesetter, and its competitor is a huge, diversified complex which has no incentive to cut costs or increase efficiency because its profits, television and all, are guaranteed by the Commonwealth -

It is aided and abetted by every honorable senator who sits behind the Minister.

Senator Wright:

– Did the honorable senator say that that is the editorial of the “ Examiner “?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I said that it is, and I do not want to waste time repeating it. I shall hand it to the honorable senator to peruse. This argument which has been advanced for the protection of Ansett-A.N.A. is costing air travellers in Australia very dearly. One has only to look at the schedules of the airlines, the charges that are being made and the facilities that are being provided to see that this is so. The little amenities that were previously provided, such as the transport of people from the city terminal to the airport free of charge, and the provision of newspapers and Minties on aircraft are no longer available, because Ansett-A.N.A. has found that it is able to save a halfpenny, a penny or five shillings. The airlines now charge 5s. to take people in a coach from the city terminal to the airport. They jerk that out of the passengers. They jerk 3s. from them when it is a shorter journey. This racket, which is being subsidised by the Government, should be exposed to the public.

Senator Henty does not do himself any credit when he refers to what happened in 1947. A.N. A. was established from nothing. The Holyman brothers pioneered the air routes of Australia. Great credit must be given to them. Their names will live forever in the history of civil aviation in Australia.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator and his Government crucified them.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is completely wrong. They entered into ventures which were outside their scope. The Government should not continue with the stupidity of trying to justify in this Parliament something that is farcical - the idea that we can have a complex organisation such as an airline going into the television business and into the striptease business on Hayman Island, going all over the country with every little lurk and being interested in every quick quid organisation that can be built up and brought up into one pot, and then being able to come to the Government and say: “ Put up the fares of Trans-Australia Airlines so that we can put our fares up too and bring our profits up to 1 per cent.”. The figures produced to this Committee show that T.A.A. paid £500,000 in income tax. The Government also imposed extra taxation on diesel fuel when T.A.A. was obliged to use that fuel. An extra burden is being imposed on air travellers by indirect methods.

This tax imposition on those in the community who are obliged to travel by air is the very essence of injustice. Taxation should be spread equally, but we find that taxes are being imposed in areas where the ordinary wage or salary earner has to pay the lot. He has no escape clauses, no little lurks by which he can claim deductions, yet big companies are being given opportunities to run expense accounts and the like. This is the policy in practically every phase of governmental activity today, especially in the field we are now discussing. I believe that the Airlines Agreement is a scandal and should be examined by a royal commission. I believe that Mr. Ansett should be obliged by law to produce his balance sheets, alongside those of Trans-Australia Airlines, when these appropriations are being discussed. He has an open road into the Treasury and practically an unsigned cheque on the taxpayers’ account. He can nearly write his own cheque. He can always get the Minister for Civil Aviation to come into this chamber and say “ Look at what was done in 1947”-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I have listened with great interest to the speeches by honorable senators opposite, criticising the Government for what it has done for aviation in Australia. Let me remind Senator O’Byrne of the position when this Government came into office in 1949. Up to that time Trans-Australia Airlines was losing up to £600,000 a year under the control of a Labour government, despite the fact that it had been given the sole right to carry air mail and to carry civil servants from one State to another. That was the position when we became the Government.

Senator Cant:

– With what item is the honorable senator dealing?

Senator SCOTT:

– I must apologise to the Chair for not having announced that. I am dealing with Division No. 135 - Administrative. I was absolutely amazed by some of the statements made during this debate by Senator Dittmer. He said that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty) had held the Civil Aviation portfolio for only a short period and did not quite understand what was going on. If the honorable senator did not say that, it was what he implied, and I did not like it very much. If the Australian Labour Party ever came to office and I felt impelled to criticise the Minister for Civil Aviation of that day, I would not use the innuendos which were used in this debate by Senator Dittmer. I thought he was coming down pretty low and that was why I decided to speak when I had the opportunity to do so.

– I think it was £314,000.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly) -

page 1162

ADJOURNMENT

Department of Works

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Honorable Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to take only five minutes of the time of the Senate in order to put the record straight on a matter that I raised yesterday, namely discourteous treatment by the head of the Department of Works in South Australia. Yesterday I was speaking from memory. So the facts that I gave may not have been accurate. At this hour I only wish to read the letter that I sent to the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) and two replies that I received from him. They will show my complaint about the Department failing to supply information. On 13th August I wrote to the Minister for Works as follows -

I am taking the liberty of placing before you the case of Mr. R. Hardy of Salisbury North, South Australia, who claims wrongful dismissal from your Department in this State.

According to information supplied, Mr. Hardy was employed by your Department of Works at Salisbury as a labourer 21 years ago. After working for 6 months, he was employed as a truck driver, and later as a cement worker. Mr. Hardy, before employment with your Department, was a plastering improver, but contracted cement dermatitis and had to discontinue working with cement.

When he was put on the cement work by your Department, he complained and said he could not continue with the work because he was allergic to cement, and dermatitis would re-occur. The particular foreman desired that he continue because he was qualified for that work and it was difficult to obtain good cement hands. After continual protests, a rash broke out on Mr. Hardy’s hands, and he received a medical certificate stating the rash was an industrial dermatitis. He was put to labouring and then dismissed.

Mr. Hardy claims that having received notice for dismissal for unsatisfactory service he saw the Personnel Officer who told him that this was a mistake, and it would be changed to ill-health, and if a future vacancy occurred for a truck driver he could make application.

On Wednesday I raised this matter with Mr. Alexander, your Director here in Adelaide, who asked for time to look into the question. Later that clay he rang back to say the Department had a lot of complaints against Mr. Hardy and on no account would he be reconsidered for future employment. My reply was that Mr. Hardy appeared to be a quiet and conscientious type of man and his claim was only that he refused to do cement work, which was detrimental to his health and, therefore, in my opinion, such a refusal was justified. Whereupon Mr. Alexander replied that there are a lot of other things and he was not prepared to consider the matter again.

The abrupt and, I considered, discourteous attitude of your Director leaves some suspicion in my mind that the particular employee could have been a victim of a dispute with the individual foreman, and as it is apparent that an investigation by your Department will not be forthcoming. I ask for your assistance in obtaining a thorough inquiry into the statements of Mr. Hardy, and an investigation into the alleged other reasons for his dismissal, and of which Mr. Hardy has no knowledge and appear to have been thought up since his last interview with the Personnel Officer.

Thanking you in anticipation of a complete inquiry.

On 24th August Senator Gorton wrote to me as follows -

I acknowledge your letter of 13th August 1965 in which you voice what you describe as a suspicion in your mind that Mr. R. Hardy of Salisbury North, South Australia, might have been dismissed by the Department of Works because of a dispute he had with a foreman. I shall write to you again on this matter at a later date.

On 16th September the Minister wrote to me as follows -

I write again concerning your letter dated 13 th August and acknowledged by me on 24th August. The letter concerned Mr. R. Hardy who was previously employed by the Department of Works.

I have made inquiries in the case and am satisfied that Mr. Hardy was not discharged as a result of some personal dispute with a foreman.

Those letters show my whole complaint. The Minister takes the same attitude as the Department. He is satisfied, and he makes no effort to satisfy the member of Parliament who makes a complaint on behalf of a particular worker.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Tasmania · LP

– I believe that, if Senator Cavanagh intended to raise this matter tonight, in fairness to the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) he should have told the Minister, 1 do not know whether or not he did that. I am sure that the Minister would have been present if the honorable senator had done so. I know nothing of the incident to which the honorable senator has referred. The Minister has made inquiries and has given the honorable senator a courteous reply. I can see no fault in that. If the honorable senator had anything further to raise, I believe that he should have advised the Minister for Works so that the Minister could have been here to answer him. As I said, 1 am not aware whether he did that. I say to all honorable senators that, if they wish to raise a matter in the adjournment debate and want an answer from the relevant Minister, I believe that it is only normal common sense - not even courtesy - to let him know that they intend to do so, so that he can be present to supply an answer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.37 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 October 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19651021_senate_25_s29/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 October 1965

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator SIM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

AMENITIES FOR AUSTRALIAN SERVICEMEN ABROAD

Senator MCCLELLAND:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LILLICO:TASMANIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WEDGWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator LACEY:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator WRIGHT:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD REPORT

Senator MCCLELLAND:

Senator ANDERSON:LP

Senator McClelland:

Senator ANDERSON:

Senator McClelland:

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator DRURY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McKELLAR:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator COHEN:VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

Senator WRIGHT:

Senator ANDERSON:

QUESTION

LEGAL AID

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

COURT LIBRARIES

Senator GORTON:LP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator CAVANAGH:

Senator GORTON:LP

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator GAIR:QUEENSLAND

Senator GORTON:LP

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GORTON:LP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator WHEELDON:through Senator O’Byrne

Senator GORTON:LP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator GORTON:LP

Senator McKenna:

Senate
21 October 1965

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator WHEELDON:
through Senator O’Byrne

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator GORTON:
LP

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP