Senate
13 May 1966

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1966

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

page 1103

QUESTION

GUNNER O’NEILL

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Did he say, during the debate on the motion for the adjournment last night, while referring to the Gunner O’Neill case, that Major Tedder did the right thing? Did he mean by that statement that he approved of Gunner O’Neill being handcuffed for 20 days to a stake in a gun pit? Finally, when he spoke on this matter, was he expressing the views of the Government?

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

– I did say last night that I thought Major Tedder had done the right thing. I was not expressing the views of the Government.

page 1103

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT FERRY SERVICE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Can we expect an early decision to be reached on the matter of a duplication of the “ Princess of Tasmania “ Bass Strait ferry service?

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

– In view of the fact that today probably will be our last day of sitting for this sessional period, I will not ask the honorable senator to put the question on the notice paper. I will direct it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and, if possible, obtain an answer and have it directed to the honorable senator.

page 1103

QUESTION

PLASTIC HOUSES

page 1103

QUESTION

CHINESE NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. I refer to the explosion a ‘few days ago of a Chinese nuclear device, causing a spread of radioactivity outside the territory of China. What is the Government doing to protest against this latest outrage against humanity?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– The Government has made it abundantly clear internationally, in the United Nations, and in its own statements that it adheres to the nuclear disarmament treaty and is opposed to the proliferation of nuclear armaments, and to tests carried out by any country.

page 1103

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On 29th March last I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister why the Commonwealth Public Service Board refused to deduct from the salaries of its employees moneys which they nominate for payment to their respective credit unions as savings, particularly as State Government departments make such deductions. The Minister advised me that he would consult the relevant Minister. I again ask the Minister whether he will seek the information, as it affects many thousands of Commonwealth public servants.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

– I do not know whether the answer to the honorable senator’s question is among the long list of questions on notice to which answers will be furnished today.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– lt was not placed on the notice paper.

Senator HENTY:

– I shall certainly approach the appropriate Minister and ask for an answer to the honorable senator’s question. The answer will be posted to the honorable senator during the recess.

page 1104

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Since DC9 aircraft to be used shortly by Trans-Australian Airlines and Ansett-A.N.A. will operate largely on the high density eastern States complex, with a resultant higher work load for pilots, will the Minister take steps in keeping with submissions made by the Flight Engineers Association, supported by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, to ensure that a flight engineer is included in the crew complement of DC9 aircraft?”

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will direct the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Civil Aviation.

page 1104

QUESTION

SHRINK PROOF PROCESS FOR WOOL

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research seen a recent report that a new shrink proof process for wool has been perfected? Is he aware that it is considered by the wool manufacturing industry that the information was released prematurely and has thrown the industry in Australia into a state of confusion regarding the necessary type of changeover machinery required and the cost involved in processing the wool? Can the Minister say whether the process that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has developed of backwashing and coating each individual fibre with resin has also neutralised two of wool’s greatest natural characteristics - its ability to absorb moisture and to take dyes? In the release of the information, was any consideration given to what effect the new process is likely to have on the wool industry generally so far as it is required to compete with man made fibre products?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I have seen a statement on this matter. I do not know whether it is the statement to which the honorable senator has referred. It is the only statement of which I am aware, lt was not a statement issued by me. I am not aware of any disturbance amongst woollen goods manufacturers stemming from the fact that the shrinkproof process of which I have read would require the introduction of new machinery. I do not know whether Senator McClelland intended to state or merely to imply that the process neutralises two of the best characteristics of wool. I do not know whether that is true. I doubt it. I very much doubt whether Senator McClelland knows it. But if, in fact, the process does not have those deleterious effects, I should have thought that a proper shrink proof process for wool would have been one of the best things that could happen to the wool industry and to the use of wool throughout the world. I would hope that nothing derogatory to the process would be said unless it could be factually shown to be so. Otherwise it would be a great disservice to the wool growers of this country.

page 1104

QUESTION

IMPORTED MOTOR CARS

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Has the Minister seen a report that in the United States of America a large number of motor cars imported into that country have been found to have serious mechanical defects, and that American concern over car safety has been spearheaded by lawyer Ralph Nader, author of a book called “ Unsafe at any Speed “, which has upset United States car manufacturers? Among foreign cars he has criticised are Britain’s Rolls Royce, Germany’s Volkswagen and models from Russia and Czechoslovakia. It is also reported that eight foreign car manufacturers have promised to provide Congress with lists of defects discovered in their products. The cars involved include Datsun, Mercedes, Renault, M.G., Triumph and other makes well known on Australian roads. Has the Australian Government taken any steps to prevent the importation into Australia of cars of the brands mentioned which could have serious mechanical defects and would be hazardous on Australian roads? Has the Minister’s department read and studied the report that 8.5 million cars have been recalled to factories by American manufacturers for possible repairs in the past six years? Do his departmental officers examine all imported motor cars for possible mechanical defects?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Quite clearly, the answer to most of the questions asked by the honorable senator is: No. In the first place, the honorable senator’s question is based on something he read about some statements made in the United States of America. Heaven help us if we suggest revolutionary changes in the pattern of one of the most important industries in Australia on the basis of some report on findings which are purely speculative and not proven. I can say certainly and emphatically that no action has been taken by the Australian Government to interfere with or inhibit the motor vehicle industry or the importation of motor vehicles beyond applying the procedures which are laid down and are well known. As to the safety or otherwise of motor vehicles, I remind the honorable senator that in the Australian Transport Advisory Council we have an organisation which constantly examines all aspects of road safety, including unsafe vehicles, and reports to and advises the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of the sovereign States. I am quite satisfied that everything that can be done is being done at that level. We are conscious of the importance of the safety factor as applied to motor vehicles. I summarise our attitude by saying that there is no validity in or justification for interference with the importation of motor vehicles on the grounds mentioned by the honorable senator.

page 1105

QUESTION

NATIONAL DISASTER FUND

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I have already asked this question 15 times but I do not mind repeating it. In view of the effects of the drought - a national disaster from which the whole Australian economy is suffering, involving personal losses and hardships to individuals in the stricken areas - will the Minister bring before his colleagues, before the Budget is drafted, a scheme for a national disaster insurance fund to cover not only drought but also bush fires, floods, cyclones and other disasters which have afflicted various Australian States in the past and may do so again in the future?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– This is a matter of policy. The question of a national insurance fund to cover calamities has been constantly before the Government but it has tremendous complications. As yet, the Government has not seen fit to adopt such a proposal.

page 1105

QUESTION

WOOMERA

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Supply, refers to the future of Woomera, the Salisbury Weapons Research Establishment and the staffs concerned. There is a question on the notice paper regarding this matter. I ask: In view of the recently publicised uncertainty expressed by some scientists as to the future of these projects, particularly in relation to the Darwin proposal, is the Minister in a position to state the future prospects of the staffs at Woomera and Salisbury and also of the establishments?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– A variety of complexes is involved in the position at Woomera. We are doing work there in connection with a number of projects. We are in contact with other nations which are showing an interest in using the range at Woomera. Consequently, I am not at al] pessimistic about the -future use of the range at Woomera and the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury. As the honorable senator will know, we are firing the next European Launcher Development Organisation rocket from Woomera on about the 23rd of this month. Given the right wind and the right circumstances, it will be fired from Woomera on that date. It is difficult to say more at the moment, other than that I am not at all pessimistic about the future. Various nations, on examination, have found Woomera to be an excellent range. Under the agreement, the range ls available to any nation to test whatever it wishes to test, such as satellite launchers and other equipment for peaceful purposes. I believe that there is no better range in the world.

The honorable senator referred to Darwin. He will recall that recently a conference of E.L.D.O. was held in Paris. After three days it ended in an inconclusive state. It was adjourned until 9th and 10th June when final decisions will be made. I am not optimistic nor am I pessimistic regarding the outcome of the proposal concerning the range at Darwin. The Secretariat of E.L.D.O. is having three schemes technically examined at the present time. One is from Italy, one from France and onefrom Australia. Australia’s scheme has a lot of advantages. The site has an international airport close to it. It has a deep water port. These are established. Some of the other countries have yet to establish these facilities, if they are chosen. Australia’s site also has a modern city growing close to it. It has political security in that the people of Australia are quite happy about the work that is being done by the Weapons Research Establishment at Woomera and to be done at an equatorial launcher base. All of the matters I have mentioned are great advantages. At this stage that is as much as I can say to the honorable senator. I repeat that I am not at all pessimistic about the future. I hope that we will have other announcements to make shortly, and that as a result Woomera will be kept as busy as ever.

page 1106

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I would like to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Has the Government any independent source or sources of information in Vietnam to keep it informed immediately on matters of serious concern to this nation relating to day to day happenings in Vietnam?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I do not know whether the honorable senator’s question is directed towards intelligence sources. If it is, then it is not the sort of question that can be answered. If it is not directed towards intelligence sources, then, of course, we have amongst other fields our own representative in Vietnam, our ambassador.

Senator MURPHY:

– I address a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. If Australia has a representative in Vietnam who is supposed to inform the Government as to what is going on there why is it that we cannot obtain answers in this Parliament promptly about the occurrences in Vietnam? Even when news of these occurrences seems to be spread over the newspapers of the world why it is that, in this Parliament, we cannot obtain answers from the Minister representing the Minister concerned?

Senator GORTON:

– I would not agree with Senator Murphy when he says that he is never able to obtain answers promptly to questions he asks on external affairs. I would not agree also that other honorable senators opposite are unable to obtain answers promptly to questions they ask concerning external affairs. At the same time, it must be perfectly clear to Senator Murphy and to other honorable senators that questions without notice which have been asked without any indication previously that they are to be asked and which range over the large number of departments that are represented by Ministers in the Senate must, on some occasions, be put on the notice paper so that the Minister concerned can answer them himself. This would seem to me to be perfectly reasonable.

page 1106

QUESTION

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to address a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. It refers to a question which has been on the notice paper since 17th March last and to which I have referred on three subsequent occasions, the last occasion being last night. This question is -

Are the telephones of members of Parliament tapped by the Commonwealth Security Service?

My question is: Does the Government ever intend to answer this question or is this information so secret that it should not be divulged to the Senate?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– Senator Wheeldon addressed this question to the AttorneyGeneral. It is for the Attorney-General to decide when he will answer it. I will bring to his notice again the fact that the question is on the notice paper.

page 1106

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

(Question No. 645.)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What are the names of permanent public servants who, since1949, were candidates for election to either House of the Federal Parliament, and the names of the political parties with which these officers were associated?
  2. What action was taken to remove these officers from the positions they were occupying because of their decisions to stand for Parliament?
  3. Did any of these officers have access to confidential information, including Cabinet documents, because of the positions they held?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided mp with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

I to 3. Schedules giving the information sought regarding officers retiring to contest elections have not been maintained. However, a special compilation was undertaken and the schedule below gives the names of those officers who are known to have retired to become candidates for election as Members of a House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The schedule also contains the officer’s Department, designation, divisional status and salary classification as at the time of retirement.

page 1109

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

(Question No. 788.)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What are the circumstances in which, according to press reports, the Government made a “V.I.P. “ plane available to convey Mr. Calwell and a number of A.L.P. officials to a special conference of the Western Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party?
  2. Were any fares paid by or on behalf of these officials or were they transported at Commonwealth expense?
  3. What are the circumstances in which officials of a political party may receive this privilege from the Commonwealth Government?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question - 1 to 3. The Leader of the Opposition made a request to the Prime Minister, then Sir Robert Menzies, for the use of an aircraft to convey him and his wife and some members of his staff from Melbourne to Perth on Saturday, 20th November, and from Perth to Melbourne on Monday, 22nd November 1965. This was a request by the Leader of the Opposition and not by officials of a political party. The purpose of the honorable gentleman’s visit to Perth was to address the conference of the Australian Labour Party which was an arrangement he made at a time when he did not, and could not, expect the Parliament to be sitting on Friday, 19th November. As the honorable senator may recall, arrangements were made during the latter part of last year for the Parliament to sit on Fridays. In the circumstances, the Prime Minister authorised the approval of the request made by the Leader of the Opposition. Particulars of passengers carried are not available.

page 1109

QUESTION

DECLARATIONS OF WAR

(Question No. 817.)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Since the foundation of the Commonwealth of Australia, on what occasions has the Australian Government declared war?
  2. In each case, against whom was the declaration made, and what was the form of the declaration?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question - 1 and 2. Prior to 8th December 1941, there had been no separate declarations of war by Australia. Up to that time the view was acted on that when the Sovereign had declared war, Australia, as one of the Sovereign’s Dominions, was also at war without further declaration. Thereafter, the Governor-General made separate declarations of war against Finland, Hungary and Roumania on 8th December 1941; against Japan on 9th December 1941; against Bulgaria on 14th January 1942; and against Thailand on 10th March 1942. The operative part of each of the declarations of war was in the following form: -

“I, ALEXANDER GORE ARK-

WR1GHT, BARON GOWRIE, the GovernorGeneral aforesaid, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council and in the exercise of all powers me thereunto enabling, do hereby declare and proclaim that a state of war with (name of country) exists and has existed in the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories as from (date and lime).

OF ALL WHICH His Majesty’s loving subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.”

page 1109

QUESTION

TAPPING OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

(Question No. 825.)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

Are the telephones of any member of Parliament tapped by the Commonwealth security service?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer -

I do not propose to depart from the sound policy instituted by Mr. Chifley and consistently followed by Sir Robert Menzies and my predecessor Sir Garfield Barwick that details of the operation of the security service should not be disclosed. Accordingly, I will not either by confirmation or denial disclose what action has or has not been authorised under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act.

page 1109

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

(Question No. 834.)

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. As the consumer price index is not a reliable guide to the cost of living, is the Commonwealth Statistician making a survey of family expenditure? If so, on what basis is he making the survey and when will the results be available?
  2. If the Commonwealth Statistician is not making a survey, will he now proceed to make a survey of family expenditure in order to reveal to the Government and the Australian public how difficult many tens of thousands of families are finding it just to exist?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer -

  1. As the honorable senator no doubt understands, retail price indexes such as the consumer price index are designed to measure changes in price levels only. They are not designed to measure the “ cost of living “ or to measure changes in the “ cost of living “. In fact thereis no generally acceptable method for measuring the “ cost of living “ or changes in the “ cost of living “.
  2. As regards a household expenditure survey, the Bureau of Census and Statistics has had this matter in mind for some time. A great variety of valuable social and economic information could be obtained from such a survey. It will be appreciated that a worthwhile survey would constitute a major project involving a large investment of money and manpower. The Bureau recently set up a special household expenditure section whose immediate task was to assess the feasibility of this project. While some useful preliminary work has been carried out, further work in the near future will not be possible because a shortage of suitably qualified staff prevents the simultaneous servicing of all the pressing projects on which the Bureau is engaged at the moment. It is planned to recommence work on the household expenditure survey project early in 1967.

page 1110

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 852.)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Is ita fact that Charles F. Adams class destroyers cost the United States Government $34 million and the Australian Government $40 million? If so, can the Minister explain the reasons for this difference?
  2. Is it a fact that the two Tartar missile launchers on these ships cost $13 million each, and the ships themselves $14 million?
  3. Is ita fact that the Tartar weapon has an efficiency of only 5 per cent., or, in other words, of only 10 hits in 200 firings?
  4. What action is the Government taking to safeguard Australia’s interests in the matter of litigation in the United States against General Electric and Westinghouse Corporations, which have been arraingned on 900 counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States Government, in connexion with the supply and installation of Tartar missile equipment on Charles F. Adams class destroyers, and who have already pleaded guilty to some of these indictments?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Acting Minister for the Navy has furnished the following replies to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The figure of $40 million represents the cost not only of a fully outfitted ship, but also includes int he case of the Australian ships additional requirements such as reserves of ammunition and missiles and base spares for support of the ship in Australia. The price paid by the United States Navy for its Charles F. Adams class destroyers is not known, but the agreement with the United States Government for procurement of the Royal Australian Navy ships requires the Commonwealth to reimburse the United States with actual expenditure incurred on behalf of the Commonwealth.
  2. No. The Tartar launching system including a full outfit of missiles on each ship costs $8 million The full cost of each ship is as stated at answer (1).
  3. No. This statement is definitely incorrect. The “ kill “ percentage is high but of necessity the actual figures must remain classified. It might be added that during recent trials at the United States Navy’s Pacific missile range, H.M.A.S. “ Hobart “ secured a possible four “ kills “ in four firings of her Tartar missiles.
  4. As previously stated this litigation has not arisen in respect of equipment for ships of the Charles F. Adams class constructed or being constructed for the Royal Australian Navy. Purchase of these ships by the Royal Australian Navy is by government-to-government agreement, and the United States Navy is responsible for making and oversighting of contractual arrangements. Arrangements which apply to all United States armed forces procurement also apply to contracts associated with the construction of the Royal Australian Navy destroyers and afford similar safeguards to the Commonwealth.

page 1110

QUESTION

TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND

(Question No. 857.)

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister received advice that the New Zealand Government proposes to reduce its imports by 15 per cent. to cope with its balance of payments situation?
  2. To what extent will Australia’s trade with New Zealand be affected if the proposals become effective?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers -

  1. The New Zealand Government announced on 30th March that imports are to be reduced in 1966-67 because of a deteriorating balance of payments position.
  2. The likely overall effect of this reduction on Australia’s experts cannot be precisely calculated. The new restrictions permit a degree of flexibility in their administration and do not give a precise indication of the degree of cut to be made on all sections of imports. Moreover, one-third of New Zealand’s imports will continue to be exempt from import control and this group includes a wide range of products of interest to Australian exporters.

page 1110

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

(Question No. 859.)

Senator MORRIS:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. How many persons called up for national service have applied under sections 29a and 29b of the Act for exemption, on grounds of conscientious beliefs, from service in the armed forces either for combatant or non-combatant duty?
  2. Have any appeals been lodged against decisions made upon such applications?
Senator GORTON:
LP

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

  1. Between the time of the introduction of the present national service scheme and 18th April 1966, 261 applications had been lodged for total exemption and 69 applications for exemption from combatant duties by men registered for national service who were liable to call-up.
  2. Twenty-two appeals had been lodged up until 18th April 1966.

page 1111

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 868.)

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that very few radio navigational aids are provided by the Department of Civil Aviation in North Queensland and that none are provided north of Cooktown?

    1. Why arc people travelling north of Cooktown not entitled to the same safety measures as are provided for people south of Brisbane?
    2. When will such navigational aids be established and at which sites?
    3. Was the Australian Airline Pilots Association informed in 1963 that these aids would be provided by 1965?
Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers -

  1. Navigational aids have been provided to serve 14 aerodromes in Queensland north of the Tropic of Capricorn. It is true that no aids have yet been installed north of Cooktown, but provision is now being made for the installation of certain aids.
  2. Passengers travelling north of Cooktown are not subjected to lesser safety standards than those south of Brisbane. The absence of navigational aids does not mean lower standards of safety, though regularity of service may be affected. Aircraft operating in areas which are not served by radio aids are required to be navigated by visual references to land marks. It follows that better weather conditions are required in order that this may be achieved. The services north of Cooktown are operated in accordance with these visual flight rules.
  3. It is proposed to establish navigational aids and night landing facilities at both Weipa and Horn Island and it is hoped to have these installed and in operation during 1967.
  4. The Australian Airline Pilots Association were advised of the intention to have aids provided in the area north of Cooktown. Programmes for the installation of navigational aids must, however, be kept flexible and continually under review, and the installation of the aids must take place in accordance with the priority of the requirement for them, within the limit of the potential available to the Department to do so. In this case it was necessary to use this potential for the installation of aids which had developed higher priorities, when related to the civil aviation network as a whole. Tenders have, however, recently been called for buildings for navigational aids and their power supplies at Weipa and Horn Island, and the installation of the actual aids will be carried out on completion of these buildings.

page 1111

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

(Question No. 869.)

Senator COHEN:

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

  1. What birthday dates have been drawn in each of the several call-up ballots for national service?
  2. When was each such date drawn?
  3. In respect of each such birthday date, how many persons liable for service have been called up for service?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. For reasons that have been explained on the occasion of each ballot and in a reply furnished today to a question on notice by Senator Dittmer, the birth dates drawn in ballots arc not published. To date ballots have been conducted on 10th March and 10th September 1965 and 11th March 1966.

  1. The statistics sought arc not maintained. (Question No. 872.)
Senator DITTMER:

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

What is the reason for the secrecy regarding the date of birth of those liable to be called up for national service?

Senator GORTON:

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

The birth dates drawn in the ballot following each national service registration are not published for the following reasons -

the ballot is only one of the procedures that determines who should be called up and who not, e.g. men may be exempt, deferred on a variety of grounds, not fit for service, etc;

each registrant has the right to be informed personally and officially, and not publicly, of his own position;

there is no more reason for publishing information about those deferred as a result of the ballot than for publishing the other reasons why men are not called up;

some very embarrasing personal situations would be created for men, in their relations with others, if the reasons for their not being called up were made known; and

publication of birth dates would aid those disposed to avoid national service and add enormously to the problems of administration of the national service scheme.

It is to be noted that the present practice is precisely the same as that adopted in relation to ballots conducted under the previous national service scheme.

page 1112

QUESTION

MILK FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN

(Question No. 873.)

Senator BENN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Will the Minister be reviewing the scale of social service benefits before 30th June next?
  2. If so, will he examine the subsidy paid to the States to provide free to every school child, under the age of 13 years, up to one-third of a pint of milk on each school day and, also, the Commonwealth’s share of the cost of special equipment required for the scheme?
  3. For the purpose of extending a financial benefit to dairy farmers and of promoting the physical growth and good health of school children, will the Minister consider increasing the quantity of milk provided daily from one-third of a pint to one pint a day, i.e. a half pint in the morning and a half pint in the afternoon?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers -

  1. In accordance with the customary practice the whole field of social services will be reviewed in connection with the preparation of the Budget.
  2. Under the States Grants (Milk for School Children) Act 1950, arrangements have been made for the Commonwealth to meet the cost of the purchase and supply of milk to children under 13 years of age attending public or private schools, kindergartens, creches, nursery schools and aboriginal missions. The Commonwealth also meets 50 per cent. of the cost of approved capital and/or incidental expenditure. No change is envisaged in these arrangements. Commonwealth expenditure on the scheme in 1964-65 was $8,084,636 including $25,344 for capital and/or incidental expenditure.
  3. The question of the quantity of milk to be supplied to each school child under the scheme was carefully considered prior to the scheme’s introduction. The supply of one third of a pint on each school day makes a valuable contribution towards improving the health of the children participating. It is not envisaged that there will be any increase in the quantity being supplied.

page 1112

QUESTION

TRADE WITH NORTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 883.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

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

  1. Is Britain trading with North Vietnam?
  2. Is Australia trading with North Vietnam? If not, when did trading cease and what were the products exported to North Vietnam?
  3. Is there any evidence that Australian goods are reaching North Vietnam?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The answersto the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Yes, but in non-strategic items only.
  2. No. Please see the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question on Notice No. 1630 of 22nd April asked in another place by Mr. Beaton.
  3. We have no information to indicate that Australian goods are reaching North Vietnam.

page 1112

QUESTION

AGE AND INVALID PENSIONERS

(Question No. 887.)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. In view of the approaching Budget session, will the Minister give favorable consideration to providing an additional benefit for aged and invalid pensioners who are unable to travel, by allocating to the States a sum of money for the various State libraries to enable them to introduce a “ book-mobile “ type of service in urban areas to such pensioners?
  2. In any event, will the Minister initiate discussions with the States to ascertain the cost, scope and desirability of such a proposal?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. The provision of welfare services of the nature referred to by the honorable senator is the responsibility of State and local government authorities. Grants to the States are a matter for discussion and decision at the normal meetings between the Commonwealth and the States held for this purpose.

page 1112

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY

(Question No. 888.)

Senator COHEN:

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

Referring to reports of an incident on the Yarra Bank in Melbourne on Sunday, 1st May 1966, when members of the Australian National Socialist Party appeared in Nazi uniforms in a demonstration against the May Day parade, has any investigation been undertaken by the Commonwealth to ascertain whether any breach of the law has been committed by this Nazi group?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer -

The activities of national Socialist groups have been and are being kept under observation by the appropriate Commonwealth authorities. There is no evidence so far of any breach of Commonwealth law.

page 1113

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

(Question No. 890.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. Did the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board show the national station ABQN Dubbo in New South Wales to be on Channel 3?
  2. On what date was the latest annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board tabled in Parliament?
  3. Was a list of television stations as at the 30th September 1965 produced by the Board, and did the list show that the Dubbo station referred to had been changed to Channel 5?
  4. Was any specific announcement of the change ever made? If so, when and by whom?
  5. Have any other stations had their channels altered or are any alterations contemplated in the future ?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers -

  1. It showed Channel 3 as being assigned to the station. The station is not yet in operation.
  2. 26th October 1965.
  3. Yes. The list should have indicated that Channel 3 was assigned to the station but consideration was being given to the allocation of Channel 5.
  4. Yes. In a Press statement issued by the Postmaster-Generalon 18th February 1966. The matter had previously been publicised in December 1965 in a trade journal following official information provided to it.
  5. Channel allocations have been changed in other csaes as follows -

page 1113

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 891.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What research has been undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or any other authority into the possibility of showing colour television in Australia?
  2. When is it anticipated that colour television will be available in Australia?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers -

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has made a study of the colour television situation abroad, including investigations overseas and representation at international conferences on the subject. The Board has obtained the views of industry in Australia on technical standards appropriate for Australia; further investigations are still to be carried out before it will be possible to determine final standards. It has also carried out experimental investigations on the quality of colour transmissions when received in black and white on monochrome receivers.
  2. It is not practicable to give any estimate of when colour television may be available in Australia. This would be a matter for decision by the Government at the appropriate time. As I have said before, I do not think there is any early prospect of this type of television service in this country as everything suggests the desirability of a cautious approach to the matter.

page 1113

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

(Question No. 892.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. How many policemen or probationary policemen have been called up for national service training?
  2. How many teachers or trainee teachers have been called up for national service training?
  3. How many national service trainees were married at the time of their induction into the Army?
  4. Are Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities required to make up any difference between service and civilian pay when employees are called up for national service?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers - 1, 2 and 3. Statistics are not maintained which would permit answers to be provided.

  1. No.

page 1114

QUESTION

SERVICEMEN MISSING IN BORNEO

(Question No. 896.)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

  1. Does the Minister have any information concerning the presumed deaths in Borneo of Lieutenant Hudson of Western Australia, and Private Moncrieff, of New South Wales, both of the S.A.S. Squadron, who were recently reported missing, believed dead? 2.Is it now known how they met their deaths?
  2. What was the nature of the operation in which they were engaged?
  3. Did their deaths occur inside Malaysian or Indonesian territory?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honorable senator’s questions - 1, 2, 3 and 4. As announced by Army Headquarters on 2nd April, Lieutenant Hudson and Private Moncrieff were presumed to have died in a remote area of the Bunjo Range in Sarawak. They were on a routine border patrol. Indonesian Army authorities have since announced the finding of the bodies of two British soldiers in a river in Borneo which rises on the border and flows into Indonesian Borneo. In response to inquiries from the Australian Embassy Indonesian authorities have said that they are endeavouring to establish whether the two bodies were those of Lieutenant Hudson and Private Moncrieff. A detailed report is not yet available.

page 1114

QUESTION

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL FUNDS

(Question No. 898.)

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

Have negotiations been held with medical and hospital funds with a view to providing payments for the confinements of insured single women, and deletion of the ten months’ waiting period for married women; if so, with what result?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply -

Negotiations on these matters have not been held with the registered medical and hospital funds. With regard to the two points raised the position is as follows: -

  1. Single persons paying the single rates of contributions are generally eligible for fund benefits in respect of confinements provided that they satisfy the normal wailing period of 9 months or 10 months according to the rules.
  2. Whilst the rules of registered hospital and medical benefits organisations vary, the rules of most organisations require that, to be eligible for fund benefits in respect of confinements, a person must have been a contributor to the fund for a period of 9 months prior to confinement. In some organisationsa waiting period of 10 months applies. For Commonwealth benefit purposes, the usual two months waiting period after joining an organisation applies in confinement cases, and benefits are payable irrespective of the contributor’s marital status or whether contributions are being paid at the family or single rate.

page 1114

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(Question No. 900.)

Senator MURPHY:

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

Is it a fact that the Government is frustrating the Trade Practices Act 1965 by neglecting to appoint the Commissioner, the members and other officers of the Trade Practices Tribunal necessary for its effective operation?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Attorney. General has supplied the following answer -

No, the necessary appointments will be made, and the Trade Practices Act will be brought into operation, at the earliest practicable date.

page 1114

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

(Question No. 911.)

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

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Has there been any delay in granting permission to Trans-Australia Airlines to purchase six DC9 aircraft for which Parliament has already approved the necessary moneys?
  2. If there is a delay, what is the reason for it?
  3. If there is no delay, when can the public expect this improved aircraft to commence operation for Trans-Australia Airlines?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. Permission was granted to T.A.A. on 8th November 1965 to purchase three DC9 aircraft. A subsequent application by T.A.A. for additional DC9 aircraft has been received and is under consideration.

  1. November 1966.

page 1114

QUESTION

LIGHT AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 918.)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Have existing Department of Civil Aviation regulations gravely restricted the development of activity in the light aircraft field in Australia?
  2. Is it a fact that aircraft movements at Perth are extremely low by world standards and that light aircraft, which are now discouraged from using Perth Airport, could be easily accommodated?
  3. Why was it necessary to construct and maintain Jandakot airport in Western Australia which cost over $1 million of public money when the existing facilities at Perth were more convenient and adequate to cope with the existing and possible demand?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers -

  1. No, there has been a tremendous growth in the light aircraft field in Australia in recent years. The rate of this growth in Western Australia has exceeded that in other States.
  2. No, traffic at Perth airport is currently approximately 30,000 movements per year. Traffic at Jandakot is approximately 94,000 movements per year and growing fast. AH the present light aircraft operations at Jandakot could not be easily accommodated at Perth airport but light aircraft are permitted to use Perth airport subject to certain safety requirements.
  3. Jandakot was constructed as the main centre for light aircraft near Perth because the concurrent operation at Perth airport of large airline aircraft, and light aircraft, some of which would be flown by student pilots, would be against the interests of safety. Jandakot has been designed to suit the best needs of light aircraft operations as distinct from those of large airline aircraft.

page 1115

NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCES

Withholding of Assent

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– by leave - The Northern Territory (Administration) Act requires that where assent to an ordinance is withheld the ordinance and a statement of the reasons for withholding assent shall be laid before each House of Parliament. I wish to inform the Senate of the considerations leading to the withholding of assent to the Local Government Ordinance 1965 and the Agricultural Development Leases Ordinance 1965.

The Local Government Ordinance 1965 sought to provide that provisions be inserted in the principal Local Government Ordinance to require that the Commonwealth pay for garbage and night soil services provided by the Darwin City Council to tenants of Commonwealth houses. It has been the Government’s policy since before the establishment of local government in Darwin in 1957 that tenants of Commonwealth owned houses in the Northern

Territory shall themselves meet the charges for these services. This was one of the factors taken into consideration when rental charges for Commonwealth owned houses in the Northern Territory were fixed. The Local Government Ordinance 1954-1964 now provides that these tenants shall pay the charges for these services to the local government Council where the Council provides the service. In other town areas of the Territory where there is no local government and the Commonwealth provides garbage and night soil services, the tenants of the Commonwealth houses are charged fees for these services in addition to the normal lease rentals of the houses.

The Legislative Council does not have the responsibility for raising revenue for the Territory or for the expenditure of that revenue. The only way in which the direct financial liability which the present ordinance sought to impose on the Commonwealth could be met would be by the Parliament appropriating moneys for this purpose. The Government does not accept that, having regard to the arrangements between the Commonwealth and its tenants in the Northern Territory, this is a liability which should be met by the Commonwealth. Nor does it accept that, in principle, the Legislative Council should seek to impose an obligation on Parliament to appropriate funds.

The other ordinance to which the Governor-General has withheld assent sought to amend the Agricultural Development Leases Ordinance 1956-1963, so that the Minister for Territories could grant leases under that ordinance only upon the recommendation of the Administrator in Council and for such purposes of agricultural development as are specified in the recommendation. Under the existing legislation the Minister is empowered to grant leases of Crown land for the development and subdivision of agricultural land on such terms and conditions as he considers appropriate. The Administrator’s Council is an advisory body to the Administrator. As such, it plays an important role in Territory and there is no restriction as to the matters on which the Administrator can seek the advice of the Administrator’s Council.

At the present stage, however, the Commonwealth is, and must remain, responsible for the economic development of the

Territory. Whilst the advice of the Administrator’s Council will be sought in appropriate cases, the Government considers that legislation which would limit the Minister’s powers so that he may grant agricultural development leases only in accordance with the advice of that Council is incompatible with the discharge of the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in the Northern Territory.

I now lay before the Senate the Local Government Ordinance 1965 and the Agricultural Development Leases Ordinance 1965 of the Northern Territory, together with statements of reasons for withholding assent to those ordinances.

page 1116

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of

Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

. -I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks authority for the borrowing in the United States of America for defence purposes of amounts up to a total of $US450 million. Of this, an amount of $US350 million relates to the arrangements which were concluded in Washington on 9th February 1965 and referred to in a statement in the Senate on 23rd March 1965 by the then Minister for Defence. The United States authorities have now agreed to finance this amount at 4) per cent. interest with repayment over seven years. As a formal “ borrowing “ by the Commonwealth will be involved, Commonwealth legislation is required to authorise the borrowing. Since that time there have been changes in the composition of the items and in their prices, and a further credit of $US20 million for these purchases has also been arranged with the United States authorities. During the course of these discussions the United States authorities also agreed in accordance with the arrangements for the Fl 1 1 A purchase to provide a credit of$US80 million to meet the increased costs of those aircraft.

The terms of these additional loans, totalling$US100 million are still under discussion in Washington. However, the Bill has been introduced at this stage in advance of the final settlement of these terms, as drawings from these loans should commence on 1st July next. The terms will be announced as soon as practicable. The credits will assist the Commonwealth from both the budgetary and balance of payments points of view. The Bill is necessary to give full force and effect to the detailed agreements which have yet to be signed, the first of which, when signed, will take effect from 1st July next. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1116

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (BEEF CATTLE ROADS) BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time. Honorable senators will recall that in his last Budget Speech the then Treasurer indicated that, although the beef road schemes to which the Commonwealth is contributing were coming to an end, the Government intended to continue participating in this important developmental work. The Government had, at the time, received from the Northern Division of the Department of National Development a comprehensive report on a possible future programme of beef roads, and that report is still under examination. When we have completed this examination, we expect to hold discussions with the States concerned about various aspects of the future programme. However, it is important that current beef road works should proceed without interruption, pending the outcome of the Government’s study and discussions with the States concerning a future programme.

In the case of Western Australia, the existing scheme of assistance, embodied in the Western Australian Grant (Beef Cattle Roads Act 1962, is due to expire on 30th June next. The Government therefore proposes, as an interim measure pending a decision on a future programme, that further financial assistance be granted to the State so that it may continue with its beef roads programme during the financial year 1966-67.

The purpose of the Bill before the Senate is to provide this further financial assistance. The Bill will amend the Western Australia Grant (Beef Cattle Roads) Act 1962 to extend its operation for one more year to 30th June 1967. The maximum Commonwealth grant payable to the State in respect of 1966-67 will be $1,500,000, which is the figure that has applied in each of the past three years.

The road works for which the financial assistance will be available have been agreed in discussions between Western Australian and Commonwealth authorities. However, provisions is made for variation of the proposed programme if this should prove to be desirable.

The works on which expenditure in 1966- 67 is proposed comprise sections of the Great Northern Highway between Broome and Wyndham, the Duncan Highway between Wyndham and Halls Creek via Nicholson, and the Derby to Mount House Road.

Under the Bill, the provision of Commonwealth grants in 1966-67 for beef cattle roads in Western Australia will be subject to precisely the same conditions as those applying under the legislation which is about to expire.

I take this opportunity to express the Government’s pleasure at the success that has attended our participation to date in financing works so important to the development of northern Australia and of an industry which is growing in importance as an earner of foreign exchange. We are hopeful that even greater benefits will be manifested in the future.

I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1117

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT ASSISTANCE) BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

.- I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment in the current financial year of up to $26 million to the States of New South Wales and Queensland for expenditure on drought measures. Honorable senators will recall that some time ago the Commonwealth gave an undertaking to assist the States in this way. In particular we agreed, in effect, to underwrite State expenditure on all drought measures they found necessary, including loans provided by them for restocking purposes. To ensure that the Slates would not be impeded in undertaking such measures by any shortage of cash, we have made finance available to them on an interim basis pending the passage of this legislation.

At this stage, we cannot know precisely how much we will need to pay to the two States in this financial year to cover their outlays on drought measures. The State Governments themselves, however, have estimated that their expenditures this financial year will amount to approximately $25 million, made up of $16.5 million for New South Wales and $8.5 million for Queensland. To provide for the possibility that these estimates may be exceeded, the Bill before the Senate provides for payment of up to $17 million to New South Wales and up to $9 million to Queensland. The precise amounts to be paid to the two States will, of course, depend on the trend of their actual expenditures and on their actual requirements.

The fact that the Bill specifies certain amounts for payment in 1965-66 does not mean that the Government has placed any limit on the assistance to be made available to the two States for drought relief purposes. We have made it clear that we will continue to assist the States to finance their drought measures as far as necessary and for as long as necessary. Accordingly, the Bill provides for the payment of such further amounts of assistance as Parliament shall, from time to time, appropriate. Clearly, further assistance will be needed next year although at this stage we cannot predict how much will be required. We will, I expect, be making provision for payment of further assistance in the annual Appropriation Bill.

The Bill does not set out the precise terms and conditions for the Commonwealth assistance but leaves them to be determined by the Commonwealth Treasurer. This will provide flexibility to deal with any circumstances that might arise. As regards the measures currently being undertaken by the States, however, the terms of assistance have been agreed between the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the two States concerned. In general, the Commonwealth assistance will cover expenditure by the States on drought relief measures and also on certain drought rehabilitation measures. The assistance falls into the following five categories -

The assistance provided by the Commonwealth to the States of New South Wales and Queensland will take the form of outright grants except in cases where the funds are used by the States for making repayable loans. In terms of the States’ estimates of their requirements in 1965-66, nearly $10 million will take the form of outright grants and just over $15 million will take the form of repayable advances. The Commonwealth will make these advances available on an interest-free basis, repayable over a period of 10 years but without any repayments in the first” two years. The States will be charging interest at concessional rates on their loans but they will be meeting the administrative costs and, within reasonable limits, any losses which may arise. If, however, such losses prove to be beyond the financial resources of the States at the time, the Commonwealth has undertaken again to come to their aid.

I believe that the scheme of Commonwealth assistance which has been agreed with the States is enabling the States to relieve the immediate effects of the drought to the extent that this is practicable. This assistance is certainly the most generous ever provided by a Commonwealth Government in this sort of situation. It has, of course, been complemented by what is being done through the monetary system.In that area, of course, the trading banks, strongly supported by the Reserve Bank, have been doing an excellent job in providing farmers with assistance. As to restocking, which will largely be a matter for the trading banks, the new arrangement for the Farm Development Loan Fund can be expected to make a valuable contribution.

Unfortunately, in north-west New South Wales and to some extent in south-west Queensland, the drought still persists. In other areas, some relief rains have fallen in recent months; but, unless further rains fall soon, the position could again become serious. For our part, we will continue to do all we can to alleviate the effects of the drought to the greatest extent possible. From the outset, we have viewed the drought as a national problem; we will continue to view it as such. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 1119

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the franchise to persons under 21 years of age who are, or who have been, on special service outside Australia as members of the defence force. “ Special service “ in this Bill takes the same meaning as that term in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act and means in relation to a person, service during a period when he is outside Australia and he or his unit is allotted for special duty in a special area.

The proposed legislation will entitle under 21 year old members of the Defence Force, who are British subjects, to vote during the period they are outside Australia on special duty in an area declared to be a special area under the provisions of section 4 of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act. An under 21 year old person who, at any time, was on special service will retain his right to vote after discharge from the defence force, while he is living in Australia. In effect, the new legislation will give the franchise to all under 21 year old members of the defence force serving in South Vietnam and the Borneo States of Malaysia and to those members stationed on the Malayan peninsula and in Singapore on special service. It will not extend the franchise to under 21 year old members of the defence force on service outside Australia, who are not on special service. It might be noted that a member of the defence force under 21 years of age was not entitled to vote during the1939-l945 war until the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act was amended in 1943 extending the franchise to members of the forces, and to discharged members of the forces, under the age of 21 years who were serving or who had served outside Australia. The existing legislation which gives the right to vote to members of the defence force on service outside Australia, who are not less than 21 years of age, will remain unaltered.

A member of the defence force entitled to vote under the existing or amended provisions of section 39a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act will be requited to make an application to a returning officer, to an assistant returning officer or to some other person appointed to issue postal votes. Assistant returning officers will be appointed for this purpose within all large service units at places outside Australia. The assistant returning officers concerned will be equipped with ballot papers and other necessary voting material and electors will, subject to service conditions, be able to cast their votes at any time after the names of the candidates have been notified and up to the close of the poll. As persons deemed to be electors by virtue of the special provisions relating to members of the defence force will not be enrolled, it will be impracticable to take proceedings against them if they do not vote at an election. Accordingly, clause 8 of this Bill excludes those persons from the compulsory voting provisions of the Commonwealth electoral law. The Bill also provides for a number of consequential amendments. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 1119

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1965-66

First Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1008), on motion by SenatorHenty -

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I will delay the Senate for only a few minutes. When this debate was adjourned last night I was inviting the attention of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) who represents the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme) in the Senate to give some consideration to improving the telephone services between Western Australia and the eastern States. The lack of a proper telephone service between the west coast and east coast was highlighted during the recent postal strike. Ordinary telegrams were held up fortwo days and urgent telegrams were delayed for five hours. It was impossible to place a trunk line telephone call from Western

Australia to the eastern States without a delay of four or five hours. They were exceptional circumstances caused by a strike, but in normal circumstances telephone calls from Western Australia to the eastern States are subject to a delay of two or three hours. This delay is superimposed upon the time lag of two hours by which Western Australia is behind the eastern States. If a lunchtime intervenes, people in Western Australia making trunk line calls to the east are subjected to an overall delay of between five and six hours. This affects commercial people and others who have urgent business which they must complete in one or two hours. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue.

I am aware that a blockage in these communications exists between Melbourne and Adelaide. It is quite easy to get a connection from Perth to Adelaide but, because of lack of service lines between Adelaide and Melbourne, it is impossible to get a connection further along the line. The Postmaster-General has stated that possibly this difficulty will be overcome in 1968. The inference is that commercial interests and private persons in Western Australia who want to communicate with other States urgently will have to put up with this inconvenience for another two years. This highlights the fact that telephone users can communicate between Melbourne and Canberra and between Sydney and Canberra by dialling direct. The calls do not have to be handled by trunk line operators and there is a delay in connection only if the number being called is engaged. This service is available to people in Canberra who could fly to Melbourne in one hour and 20 minutes or to Sydney in 40 minutes. They could conduct their business and be back in their offices in the same day. This emphasises the difficulties under which people in Western Australia operate. I ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral to take this matter up with the Postmaster-General so that he can consider whether the service can be improved before 1968.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY (Tasmania- Minister

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill and of the associated Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is to obtain parliamentary authority for expenditure for which provision was not made in the Appropriation Bills (No. 1 and No. 2) 1965-66. The total appropriations sought in this Bill amount to $67,688,000. The various items included in this Bill can be considered in detail in Committee and I propose at this stage to refer only to some of the major provisions.

Further appropriations totalling $7.3 million are required for departmental salaries mainly because of the increases in salary rates arising from the national wage cases. The additional requirement for departmental administrative expenses is $6.6 million. Additional appropriations amounting to $14.4 million for departmental other services include $8 million for ship construction (which is expected to be offset by a corresponding increase in receipts from the sale of ships), $1.4 million for expenditure under the Aged Persons Homes Act and $1.1 million for maintenance of migrants in hostels and embarkation and passage costs.

An additional amount of $26.3 million is sought in the appropriations of the Service Departments to carry out the current defence programme but as a result of short falls in expenditure under other appropriations mainly in respect of deferred payments, the estimated total expenditure on Defence Services for the year is not expected to exceed the Budget provision of $771.8 million. Under Business Undertakings an additional amount of $12 million is sought, including $10.9 million for the Postmaster-General’s Department mainly to cover increases in salaries and wages. Additional appropriations totalling $1.1 million are sought for the Territories, including $790,000 for the Northern Territory and $259,000 for the Australian Capital Territory. The major requirements for the Northern Territory are $285,000 for salaries and $140,000 for drought relief - that is for freight subsidy. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I am interested in the reference to increased expenditure for the Australian Capital ^Territory. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to indicate the main items covered by that expenditure. Of course, it will not in any way be concerned, I take it, with the expenditure of the National Capital Development Commission. I am interested to know why this increased expenditure is being incurred and for what purposes it is being provided.

I would also be obliged if the Minister, when replying, could give us some information that would form the basis for intelligent consideration of the Government’s proposal to apply tax provisions, by way of stamp duty, in the Australian Capital Territory, which is a very welcome step so far as 1 am concerned. I would be pleased if the Minister could give me the information for which I have asked.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

.- If the honorable senator turns to Division No. 853 in the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1965-66 he will see the various items that are included in the expenditure of $169,700. Would the honorable senator like me to run through them?

Senator Wright:

– 1 simply wondered whether there were any special items which called for comment. I have not had an opportunity to peruse the Bill.

Senator HENTY:

– I do not think that there is any special item for which untoward expenditure is to be incurred. Tt is due mainly to increases in wages and the employment of additional casual staff.

Senator Wright:

– The item that catches my eye is “Additional staff- $156,443 “. Whose staff is that? If the Minister does not have the information at hand he may be good enough to supply it to me later.

Senator HENTY:

– 1 can give it to the honorable senator now. He referred to stamp duty in the Australian Capital Territory. In reply to a question by Senator Sir Walter Cooper yesterday concerning this matter, I stated that the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) had advised that the duty will not be introduced before 1st June of this year. He did not indicate the range.

Senator Wright:

– This is why 1 asked whether the Minister could give us the information.

Senator HENTY:

– I have no further information at the moment. I will note the question and get the Treasurer to communicate directly with the honorable senator on that point. Division No. 853 refers to Australian Capital Territory Services. Reference is made to new positions created and positions reclassified. An appropriation of $156,443 is provided for new positions created. The appropriation for positions reclassified is $19,306. The amount of $1 1,860 arises from the increases granted in the 1965 national wages case. There were savings in relation to delays in filling positions, and the filling of permanent positions by permanent employees. The difference was the amount that the honorable senator sought.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am most obliged to the Minister but I must be permitted the observation that the terms in which this item is explained to the Committtee convey very little. I make that observation simply to have an officer prepare for us a memorandum of new positions created. We are left wondering to what particular departments additional staff has been appointed. I say at once that I would not expect the Minister to be provided with that detail in a debate of this kind. I am most grateful to him for the information he has provided.

I make the comment so that, if any of the officers concerned are present, it will indicate to them that the term “ additional positions created “ gives us no idea, from the political point of view, of the justification and need for them, and who reported that these positions were required and how the occasions have arisen. We do not want this information in relation to each officer. The information could be provided in relation to three main categories.

Senator Henty:

– I have asked for that information, and it will be provided in the form of a memorandum.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am most obliged to Senator Henty. I wish to raise one other question. This is the matter of Taxation Boards of Review which are referred to in

Division No. 579 of the Schedule. I notice a supplementary item amounting to only $800. I remind the Committee that when we had what I consider to be the most obnoxious income tax legislation before us over the last 18 months, I made reference to the fact that the only appeal that was provided from the very wide discretions vested in the Commissioner of Taxation was to Taxation Boards of Review. These Boards, as we know, are administrative tribunals. The Chairman is usually, I believe, a former officer of the Taxation Branch, one member is appointed from the legal profession and one member from the accountancy profession. These are the Boards to which taxpayers may go for a review of discretions that were provided in the legislation to which I referred.

When we last referred to this matter, 1 drew attention to the fact - I am relying on my memory for the exact words - that the average time lag that occurred between the lodging of one’s objection and the hearing of one’s case by a Taxation Board of Review was approximately two years. I remember that the Minister said at the time that he thought there was some validity in the comment that such a long delay was not good enough, and that a taxpayer could expect a more expeditious hearing of his case. I recall too, that the Commissioner of Taxation in his annual report explained this position by the fact that time was taken when days had been allotted for the hearing of a case and, at the last moment, that case was settled.

I trust that, in making these remarks, I am not causing any concern to the Chair. I am just referring to a matter which is at the very base of my concern regarding this income tax legislation - the fundamental principle. As honorable senators know, I stil! object to it and the matter is receiving most earnest consideration. But that is the wider field, I just raise the matter of Taxation Boards of Review. If it is a fact, as the Commissioner explains, that the delay is caused in some measure by those circumstances. I earnestly urge the Branch to consider listing a number of cases for hearing and if one or two of them are settled the Board will proceed to hear another case.

That is only a passing matter. I think that the important matter is the numerical strength of the Boards and the number of them. If we are to have - I hope that we are not - a plethora of discretions the only means of review that is available to the taxpayers will be the Boards of Review, although there will be no rule of law by which they can review cases. One of the sweetnesses of justice is timely attention to grievances. If, in addition to an adverse exercise of discretion, delay of this order is to be experienced and is to grow much longer by the extension of discretion, it is most important that we have information as to the accumulation of business before the Boards of Review and whether the Government has given any consideration to the constitution of additional Boards of Review.

So far as I know, Boards of Review, by their decisions, have evoked great admiration of litigants. Nothing that I have said should be regarded in any way as not reflecting credit upon the individual decisions. But that statement does not alter my criticism of the principle nor my grievance about the delay.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– The item to which the honorable senator referred for the purpose of his comments relates to the increase of H per cent, in salary margins. I concur in his statement that, when we cannot use the rule of law, wherever possible we should act speedily. Tt would be interesting to know how many cases arc at present before Taxation Boards of Review and the length of time they have been there. I see no reason why that information could not be given to us. lt is as well to have a check on these things to see what we can do to assist such cases to be heard as speedily as possible.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a third time.

page 1122

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1965-66

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 12th Mav (vide page 1009), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1123

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1966-67

First Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1009), on motion by Senator Henty - That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the associated Supply Bill (No. 2) is to appropriate moneys to carry on the necessary normal services of the Government during the first five months of the financial year 1966-67. The total amount sought in this bill is $878,981,000 comprising -

In general, these amounts represent approximately five-twelfths of the 1965-66 appropriation and make no provision for new services. However, the amount of $376,069,000 for defence services makes provision for the continuation of the current defence programme and large contractual payments due in the first five months of the financial year.

An amount of $20,000,000 is sought for an advance to the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year, and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I refer to the Schedule and in particular Part 2 - Business Undertakings. I direct the attention of the Minister for Supply (Sena tor Henty) to the provision for $1,074,000 that is made in Division No. 825 - Real Estate Management, under the general heading “ Postmaster-General’s Department “. I regret to say that I do not understand what kind of expenditure is envisaged in this item. I should like to know whether it will be new expenditure or whether it will be a continuation of an item to which we have become accustomed. I should like to know what is involved generally.

Of course, in regard to a great number of these items reference to detail is not expected. I want to know how this item finds a place in the proposed provision for the Post Office. I thought that the Department of the Interior was responsible for the management of property on behalf of the various departments. If that is not so in regard to the Post Office, then 1 should like to be supplied with such information as is available. Reference to real estate managements seems to indicate that somebody is dealing in real estate. Having regard to the terrific surge in this direction in the Australian Capital Territory at the present time,I wondered in what way the Post Office had got its fingers into the gravy.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

.- The Post Office manages its own properties. The item in question covers salaries and allowances for looking after the properties of the Post Office, administrative expenses associated therewith, and the renting and leasing of premises. This is not a new item; it is a continuing one. IfI have not made myself clear to the honorable senator, he has only to say the word and I shall seek a little more information for him.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a third time.

page 1123

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1966-67

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1009), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– This is the Supply Bill (No. 2), which gives authority for the continuation of expenditure under the special Appropriation Act, I believe, and it is therefore a little different from the Supply Bill that has just been passed, which relates to a continuation of items of expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. But extraordinary annual services do not have the same unexplained continuity as the ordinary annual services. Let me take one illustration. I refer to Division No. 910 - Capital Works and Services, Department of External Affairs. Sub-division1 - Buildings, Works, Plant and Equipment, contains an item “ 09, United States of America $180,000”. Can the Minister indicate in some form what sort of expenditure is going on under that item?

I refer now to Division No. 966 - Advance to the Treasurer. There is a general advance of $20 million, but the figures are set out in such a way that I do not understand them. Uninstructed by anyone more expert, I would read the figures as indicating an appropriation to the Treasurer of an unspecified sum of $20 million by way of continuation. This is an item upon which attention is constantly focussed. If the Parliament is to retain any semblance of scrutiny over the expenditure of our revenues, this can be done only if the actual purpose of the expenditure is specified in the Bill. Therefore, all general items excite attention. In this respect, I recall that we had some debate within the last two years in relation to the practice of making a general Advance to the Treasurer for contingent items that might occur without particulars being specified in the appropriation. I understand that that amounted to $20 million in the last Bill. Here, a figure of $21,102,000 is set out, from which is deducted $20 million, being the Advance to the Treasurer, and the final figure is $1,012,000. I regret that I do not understand that form of presentation. I think that we are being asked now to appropriate $1,012,000 only, but I should be obliged to have some information on the two items that I have mentioned.

Senator HENTY (Tasmania- Minister under the capital works programme, which is continuing all the time.I think the honorable senator referred to a building overseas.

Senator Wright:

– In the United States.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– Yes. The second matter relates to Advance to the Treasurer. This proposed appropriation is submitted to the Parliament at the end of every financial year and experience has shown that about $20 million is needed to meet various items. This amount has always been appropriated and at the end of the financial year it is reported to the Parliament. The total appropriation proposed for the Department of the Treasury under this Bill is $1,012,000. This relates to expenditure on plant and equipment for the Government Printing Office, the Royal Australian Mint, and the Bureau of Census and Statistics, totalling $512,000 under Division No. 961, and $500,000 as a contribution towards the costs of development of Exmouth township, Western Australia, under Division No. 963. The total amount that we are appropriating now in respect of this Department is $1,012,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Will the Minister be good enough to explain whether $20 million as a general Advance to the Treasurer is sought for the period covered by this Bill, which is from the present time to the end of October, or whether the $20 million is an item in respect of the full 1 2 months?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

.- The honorable senator will find this set out in the Schedule on page 2 of the Bill. The proposed appropriation in respect of the Department of the Treasury is $1,012,000 and for Advance to the Treasurer, $20 million.

Senator Wright:

– Is that for a four months period or a twelve months period?

Senator HENTY:

– A 12 months period.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a third time.

page 1125

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1116).

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

.- The Bill seeks authority for the raising and expending of a sum of money for defence purposes, and specifically for the borrowing by Australia in the United States for Australian defence purposes of amounts up to a total of SUS450 million. The Opposition does not oppose the measure but I take advantage of this opportunity to question seriously some of the arrangements which have been negotiated or which are in the course of negotiation in relation to some of the equipment on which it is proposed to spend the amounts borrowed. In his second reading speech the Minister said -

An amount of SUS350 million relates -to the arrangements which were concluded-

I emphasise the word “ concluded “ - in Washington on 9th February 1965 and referred to in a statement in the Senate on 23rd March 1965 by the then Minister for Defence.

Not only do I want to query some of the items on which the expenditure is being incurred but also I want to question one or two of the expressions used by the Minister in his second reading speech. First, as I have pointed out, the Minister said that arrangements were concluded in February 1965. From mere common usage of English expressions, one would assume that the word “ concluded “ would connote some form of finalisation or something being effected. These arrangements were supposed to have been made in February 1965.

Senator Wright:

– Have we a schedule of the items composing this expenditure?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I do not have one. As I have said, this statement relates to something that happened in February 1965, some 16 months ago. Now, for the first time, we have a Bill introduced to give effect to discussions which were held in Washington what I would term as a long time ago. Apparently the arrangements to which the Minister referred were not in fact concluded. I refer to clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Clause 4 states -

Approval is given to the making and carrying out by the Commonwealth of an agreement or agreements for or in relation to the borrowing by the Commonwealth of moneys in the currency of the United States of America, not exceeding in the whole $450 million in that currency, for defence purposes.

Clause 5 provides -

An agreement made in pursuance of this Act may provide for the issue and delivery of promissory notes or other securities by or on behalf of the Commonwealth in respect of any liability of the Commonwealth under such an agreement.

We would like to know what agreement or agreements have been entered into or are to be entered into if the arrangements of February 1965 were not in fact conclusive. The Minister has told us in his speech that there have been changes in the composition of the items and in their prices. We certainly know that prices have changed. On 10th February 1965 a joint communique was issued in Washington by the then Australian Minister for Defence, the late Senator Paltridge, and the United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. R. S. McNamara. This was the subject of an article in the “ Sydney Morning Herald” of 11th February 1965. Among other things the article, referring to the communique, stated -

It said Australia would buy from the United States over the next three years “ various defence articles and services” at a cost of about £156 million.

In round figures this would be about SUS320 million. But now we are told that there have been changes in the composition of the items and in the prices. According to the Minister’s speech, the loan of a further SUS20 million is to be arranged in connection with these purchases, but we know nothing about the change in the composition of the items. I think it is fair to ask whether more or fewer items are involved. We are certainly entitled to know this but so far we have not been told. The cost of SUS320 million 15 months ago has .now jumped to about SUS332 million on these particular items alone, without one word having been said about it.

The late Senator Paltridge, in a statement made in this chamber on 23rd March 1965 following his return to Australia from Washington, said -

My objective was to obtain an overall package deal with the United States Government . . . at a total estimated cost of SUS350 million.

The amount now provided for in the Bill has reached $US450 million. In other words, in a period of 15 months the sum has jumped by SUS100 million, and still we do not know nor have we been told what was involved in this overall package deal. To use a good old Australian expression, this seems a bit rough. It certainly calls for some detailed explanation by the Government. Having regard to the original estimate and the amount covered by this Bill, I venture the opinion that the uncertainty about the cost of the Sydney Opera House is nothing in comparison with the uncertainty about the costs involved here.

Now let me return to the Minister’s second reading speech. I cannot help feeling that there is an attempt by the Government to hoodwink us. One expression the Minister used was this -

The United States authorities have now agreed to finance this amount at 4) per cent, interest with repayment over seven years.

Surely the use of the little word “ now “ implies that there has been some alteration of what was originally arranged, that as a result of this Government’s bargaining there has been an alteration in the interest rate and period of repayment agreed upon originally. Let us recall what the late Senator Paltridge said in this Parliament in relation to this matter on 23rd March.

Senator Wright:

– He said then that the loan would be at the rate of 4$ per cent.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– That is right. That is what I am pointing out. The Government says -

The United States authorities have now agreed to finance this amount at 4J per cent, interest.

I suggest that gives the impression that as a result of bargaining Australia has obtained a better deal. The late Senator Paltridge said that repayments would extend over seven years and -

Bach of these will be repaid by 14 half-yearly instalments covering capital and interest. The interest charged on the outstanding balances against Australia would be at the rate of 4) per cent, per annum.

That was in March 1965. As I said earlier, I believe the Government has made an attempt to hoodwink us by the use of the word “ now “ in the Minister’s second reading speech. The relevant portion which I have already read is in these terms -

The United States authorities have now agreed to finance this amount at 4) per cent, interest.

In fact, there has been no change in the terms negotiated and agreed upon in February 1965. If any attempt is made to give the impression that we have struck a better bargain, I believe that it is a pretty poor show. Apparently the 4$ per cent, to which reference has been made relates only to the $US350 million agreed upon in the first instance and not necessarily to the additional borrowing of $US100 million’, because the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech that the terms of the additional loans totalling SUS100 million are still under discussion in Washington. The defence equipment that is being purchased under the terms of these arrangements might be good defence equipment. I hope very sincerely that it is. But, from what I can see, so far members of the Government certainly are not proving that they are good negotiators and can arrive at terms suitable to Australia.

It just is not good enough for the Government to say: “ We are spending SUS450 million on the purchase of additional defence equipment “, thereby implying that after this equipment has come to Australia our defences will be in shipshape order. The Australian people expect to obtain real value for their money. If the Government is spending SUS450 million, it is wise for honorable senators to have a look at the type of equipment that is being purchased and to compare it with some of the ever-pressing needs of Australia. The cost of three Charles F. Adams class destroyers is included in this total amount of SUS450 million. But in an article in the “ Australian Financial Review “ of 25th March-

Senator Wright:

– What is the honorable senator’s basis for that statement?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The original communique.

Senator Henty:

– Those three destroyers are not connected with this Bill.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– 1 assumed from the original communique that was issued that they were. It was agreed that Australia would buy from the United States various defence articles and services at a cost of about £156 million. Certain items were mentioned, and then the communique said that Mr. McNamara had reviewed the £58 million programme in which contracts had been made with the Defoe Shipbuilding Company of Bay City, Michigan, for three Charles F. Adams class guided missile destroyers. The Minister now tells me that the £58 million is not involved in this initial arrangement.

If this is so, then I refer to the original communique which stated that Australia would purchase equipment at a cost of £156 million initially. Then the communique set out certain items including Lockheed Hercules transport aircraft, Lockheed Orion anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine Grumman Tracker aircraft and a wide variety of armed equipment for the Australian Military Forces. The total expenditure involved in those items amounted to about £145 million. In other words, items to the value of £10 million or £11 million seem to be unaccounted for in the original communique. Now, in respect of this measure, we are told that another $US20 million are required. Surely this matter calls for some detailed explanation by the Government.

There seems to be a staggering increase in respect of the purchase of the 24 Fill aircraft. According to the Minister’s second reading speech, since the original arrangements were entered into in November 1963 there has been an increase of SUS80 million in the price that was negotiated just over two years ago.

Senator Wright:

– Are those aircraft connected with this Bill?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– They are referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech. He said -

During the course of these discussions the United States authorities also agreed in accordance with the arrangements for the FI IIA purchase to provide a credit of SUS80 million to meet the increased costs of those aircraft.

So the $US80 million is part of the additional SUS100 million which is still under discussion in Washington. The increase in the cost of the Sydney Opera House, which has received so much publicity in recent years, certainly could not be compared with the astronomical increase in the cost of these aircraft. Originally we were told that the cost would be of the order of SUS110 million. I think it was suggested at that time that that was only a tentative estimate because the cost would depend on, among other things, the number of orders received for this aircraft.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The architect should be sacked.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I do not know about that - perhaps it should be this Government - but I certainly believe that these matters are worthy of investigation and that a detailed explanation is needed. We know that since that time the British Government has decided to purchase a substantial number of these aircraft. One would have thought that the more aircraft produced the lower the unit cost of production and, therefore, the cheaper the price. However, on a cursory perusal of the matter, I find that the reverse seems to be the case, as far as Australia is concerned at any rate, to the extent of an additional $US80 million on terms yet to be arranged. As I understand the Minister’s second reading speech, at this stage the terms are still being discussed in Washington.

I now wish to refer briefly to the Ausralian electronics industry. Senator Paltridge, in his statement to the Senate on 23rd March last year, mentioned that the items to be purchased in this package deal included radio and radar equipment for the Army and radar and communications equipment for the Royal Australian Air Force. I should like to know whether the items that are being purchased in this category must necessarily be purchased from the Americans and whether they can or cannot be supplied by the Australian electronics industry. The present Minister for Defence (Mr. Fairhall), when he was Minister for Supply, went on record as saying that the Australian electronics industry had a highly geared and efficient basis. I should like to know whether, before this package deal including electronic equipment was negotiated, inquiries were made about the ability of Australian manufacturers to supply this equipment. The Australian electronics industry played a very important part in supplying equipment to the Allied forces in the Second World War. Certainly it is an industry that should be encouraged by this Government to build up its potential. It is an industry of great national importance.

On 31st August 1955 an article appeared in The “Australian Financial Review” headed “Electronics Vital to Our Defence”. Among other things, the article said that in a report in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of 5th August 1965, it was said that the Government was negotiating with a French company for the supply of new radar links for air routes costing £1.5 million. It was recalled that the Radio Physics Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, under the direction of a Dr. Bowen, constructed and installed at Sydney airport in 1950 air navigation radar equipment in prototype form for manufacture in Australia. On 8th March last the Prime Minister, in a statement made in another place, said that negotiations were being entered into regarding Australia’s participation in the supply of equipment and materials for the armed forces, but up to date, obviously this major Australian industry seems to have hold of the wrong end of the stick.

I wish now to deal with the Minister’s assertion that the credits established under this Bill will assist the Commonwealth from both a budgetary and balance of payments point of view. I certainly am not an economist. I do not profess to be. But, as I read Senator Paltridge’s statement, it was originally intended to repay the loan of SUS350 million over 7 years in 14 half yearly instalments at an interest rate of 4i per cent. Again, I emphasise that terms are yet to be arranged for the additional loan of $US100 million. I suggest that while, in the first year of the loan, we might receive an advantage from a balance of payments point of view, surely over the next seven years the repayment of principal and interest will mean that in those years it could well have an adverse affect on the Australian balance of payments situation.

Senator Wright:

– Senator Paltridge said that this will considerably lessen the foreign exchange burden over several critical years.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– He said that, and the Minister in his second reading speech has said that the credit will assist the Commonwealth from both a budgetary and balance of payments point of view. 1 am suggesting that when the initial loan is made available to us it will assist the budgetary situation or the balance of payments point of view, but that repayment of the principal and interest over the extended period could well have an adverse effect on the balance of payments situation. I am not saying that it will, but it could have that effect.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honorable senator refer to the fact that the item has to be incurred?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Yes.

Senator Wright:

– But if the repayments are spread-

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Naturally that would ease the burden. Nonetheless, that is over a period of three years, as Senator Paltridge suggested.

Senator Wright:

– No. He referred to seven years immediately after that.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I just put it forward as a suggestion to get some comment from the Minister on this very important matter. 1 cannot help but feel that the Australian people are faring badly under the terms and arrangements that either have been agreed upon or are still under discussion. In my opinion, the Government certainly has not shown itself to have had much business acumen on these matters. We do not know what particular items are involved in connection with the increased expenditure - whether there are more or less items. It seems to me that Australia has fared badly in the bargaining process between the two nations to date. Many matters are crying out for detailed explanations. I assure the Government that the Opposition will scrutinise with particularity the estimates of the Service departments during the forthcoming Budget sessional period.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to make one or two comments with regard to this Bill. This morning, I heard the second reading speech by the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) who represents the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) in this chamber. I have perused the terms of the Bill. It will be noticed at once that it contains some unusual provisions which seem to have the effect and purpose of merely offsetting liabilities and of calling loans the credits that we are to obtain in respect of purchases for which those liabilities are incurred. That is the substance of what is stated in the Bill and the Minister’s speech, as I understand them. I simply put the thought before the chamber and if I am in error, I will be obliged for any corrections of that viewpoint.

Clause 6 of the Bill states -

The proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of this Act may be issued and applied for defence purposes.

I would have thought that the Bill covers a definite proposal - that the expenditure is committed to defence purposes. If that is so, I wonder why the word “ may “ has been used instead of the imperative “ shall “.

There are elements about the proposition introduced here in the last two days of the sessional period that prompt me to ask why, earlier in this sessional period, we could not have had for our consideration a Bill to finance the loan at least of the amount of $US350 million that is referred to in Senator Paltridge’s statement. It may be that the negotiation of financial terms in respect of the increased cost of the FI IIA aircraft had not been concluded, and that the Minister was hoping to have those terms completed before bringing in a Bill. I can understand that if the Minister had a Bill for financing purchases of defence equipment from the United States, he would desire to bring in a Bill that would comprehend both items. But it is a little unfortunate having regard to what I think should be the sense of responsibility of this Parliament for defence at present that it is proposed that this Bill should go through the Senate with only a passing reference on the last day of the sessional period.

I do not know that I agree with Senator McClelland to any degree in his criticism of the word “ now “, although it would have been some recognition of the interest that the Senate takes in this measure if those who drafted the Minister’s speech had been more explicit. Incidentally, I am sure that when Senator McClelland referred in the terms he did to “ the Minister “, he did not mean the Minister in charge of the Bill in this chamber. It is well known that the speech was drafted departmentally for a Minister in another place. I do not share the view of Senator McClelland that there is any real weight in the reference to “ now “, although I would have wished that those who drafted the speech had said that Senator Paltridge had been able to arrange an interest rate of 41 per cent, in respect of the commitment of $US350,000 that he negotiated, that the Bill was giving effect to the arrangement at that rate of interest and that, as I understand it, the rate of interest to be paid on the additional $US100 million has not yet been finalised.

I express my regret that a Bill of this importance should come before us at this stage in the parliamentary session. Senator McClelland has brought out satisfactorily in the discussion the question of price, and I am indebted to him for that. At first, I was completely confused in that connection because the Minister simply referred in the second reading speech to a speech made on 23rd March 1965 by the then Minister for Defence. Turning to the speech made on 23rd March 1965, I found that the reference there was to a total estimated cost of SUS350 million over three years. I could not reconcile that with the amount stated in the Bill until Senator McClelland directed my mind to this passage in the second reading speech made by the Minister for Supply this morning - the United States authorities also agreed in accordance with the arrangements for the FI IIA purchase to provide a credit of $US80 million to meet the increased costs of those aircraft.

Perhaps the Minister in his reply will say whether my understanding on this matter is correct. I refer to it only to bring that to his attention.

My next point is that it is unfortunate that this very truncated and abbreviated speech relating to a rather large loan of SUS450 million does not include a schedule covering the specifications of the items involved. I am not competent in any way to say whether the prices of these aircraft, torpedoes, helicopters and other weapons are reasonable or not. It would have been helpful if we had been given a schedule showing the categories of items and a gross price for each category. I would not think that this would involve the slightest element of security significance. In matters of expenditure to bring our defence equipment up to the strength required by the present situation the urgency is so great and so apparent to the Parliament that there is great pressure on the Administration to relax the normal control of expenditure. I speak in general terms because the generality of the reference to the items in the Minister’s second reading speech requires it. In the speech of the Minister for Defence in March 1965 all the main items for the Navy, the Army and the Air Force were set out, but there was very little other than a completely general reference to what is covered by this purchase. I would be obliged to the Minister if he would indicate whether there would be any untoward effect on the efficacy of the defence effort if my suggestion were adopted. 1 regret that the speech delivered this morning did not even repeat the one vital paragraph in Senator Paltridge’s very general reference to the component items of this defence programme. We had to go back to that speech, and we found the reference right at the end of a very full report on the late Minister’s trip to South East Asia and the United States of America early in 1965.

I come now to a part of my speech which gives me more pleasure. I want to say that all of us who knew Senator Sir Shane Paltridge in this House had unqualified admiration for his ability, integrity and energy of purpose. In his speech of March 1965, I find this passage -

The terms of payment which 1 was able to negotiate with the help of officers of my Department and the Treasury are most favourable.

Senator Paltridge had an unusual gift and capacity for assessing the advantages of a deal on a financial basis. I have greater confidence in the present proposal because he said in his speech last year that the terms of payment which he negotiated were most favourable. He added -

Instead of having to pay for the equipment roughly in line with deliveries, we can spread payments over an extended period, and this will considerably lessen the foreign exchange burden over several critical years.

Senator McKenna:

– Senator Paltridge gave us very much more information on the arrangements than we are offered now in this Bill.

Sena:or WRIGHT.- Indeed he did. 1 was going to add that Senator Paltridge went on to explain that the interest rate was 4i per cent., the time was seven years and the rate of repayment was half yearly. It gives me great pleasure at this time, which is not a formal occasion, to express our unqualified confidence in and admiration for Senator Paltridge’s ability in these matters and his energy in forwarding this programme. This gives me confidence in assenting to the measure that the Minister has introduced this morning.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I should like to reply to the best of my ability on some of the matters that have been raised in the debate. At the beginning of his speech, Senator McClelland pointed out that we have used the words “ concluded “ in relation to the arrangements covered by the Bill. The negotiations by Senator Paltridge covered arrangements in principle. We have now concluded the negotiations on these arrangements. 1 would not like the honorable senator to think that we are trying to hoodwink anybody. 1 think that is the explanation of the words “ the United States authorities also agreed in accordance with the arrangements “. They were excellent arrangements. I thank Senator Wright for his comments on the work that Senator Sir Shane Paltridge carried out. I thoroughly agree with what he said. Senator Sir Shane Paltridge had the gift of understanding financial details. When something of advantage was offered to him, he grabbed it in principle at once, to the great benefit of Australia.

Senator McClelland also referred to the electronic equipment that is to be purchased for the various Services. I would not like him to think that we have not got this matter well in mind. I am speaking for my own Department, which purchases much of this equipment for the Services. But in this particular case, there is such a small quantity of equipment required for each of the Services that it would be entirely uneconomic to manufacture it in Australia. I point out to the honorable senator that there are five types of aircraft for which we have to purchase a small quantity of electronic equipment overseas. They are the FI 11 A, the Orion, the Hercules, the Skyhawk and the Tracker aircraft. A small amount of different types of equipment is required for each of those aircraft. It would be uneconomic to manufacture it in Australia. However, as I said, we have this matter well in mind.

I shall give the honorable senator details of an arrangement we have just finalised. After tenders were called, an English firm decided to come to Australia to manufacture a certain amount of equipment for the Army. We bad tried to get as much of it as practicable manufactured in Australia. In the end our negotiations led to the firm in England, which was the successful tenderer, saying: “ We will come out to Australia and make the lot”. This is the type of arrangement which the Department of Supply makes wherever possible. I thank the honorable senator for raising this matter. We are fully aware of the necessity to manufacture this equipment in Australia wherever possible, but in this case, unfortunately, it was uneconomic to do so because of the small amount involved.

Senator McClelland:

– What is the total amount involved in connection with this equipment?

Senator HENTY:

– I am sorry, but I have not got that information. The amount is included in the $US450 million. The work includes the manufacture of 100 little black boxes for one particular type of aircraft. I do not think that it will cost a great deal of money. Only 100 pieces of this equipment are required from the thousands that are manufactured by the factory. It would be uneconomic to tool up and manufacture them in Australia. That is the position.

Regarding the price of aircraft, we can speak with some authority on this matter from the experience gained from the research on and the development of aircraft. Let me give one instance. In Australia we have handled the research and development of the Ikara missile. Australia has been engaged in this work right from the beginning. The Navy said: “ We would like to have something if we can get it.” The research and development organisation asked: “Can we provide it? Can we build it? “ From the time when the Navy made the request, the entire project has been handled by Australia. We set out what we thought was a fair and genuine estimate of what the work would cost. Research and development officers work alongside the manufacturers and designers of aircraft. They are testing equipment all the time. They say: “ We have designed a little part which will do something additional - give the aircraft more thrust or something like that. It will improve it.” So we add that to the aircraft at a little extra expense. The tooling that was made for the old part goes west and new tooling is set up.

Recently in France I saw considerably improved engines being manufactured for the Mirage aircraft. I forget the mark num ber of the aircraft at the moment, but six or seven additional improvements have been made at added cost to the engine which we are buying. Every manufacturer of aircraft and aircraft engines wishes to produce the best equipment. That is why in many cases it is impossible to make a sound estimate of cost. I know that this makes difficulties for the Parliament. I, in common with other members of Parliament, like to see set down in black and white how much a particular thing will cost. But this cannot be done when people are improving equipment all the time and we want the latest equipment available. If we want the latest, we have to pay for it.

Senator McClelland:

– But the cost in this instance has increased by over 70 per cent, in less than two years.

Senator HENTY:

– I know that. I do not think we know yet how far the cost will escalate. It is difficult to estimate in this particular field.

Senator Wright:

– Could the Minister say who scrutinises the increases in cost? What authority or agency or officer keeps on the ball in regard to upsurging costs?

Senator HENTY:

– 1 understand that the Royal Australian Air Force has an officer stationed in the factory in America. His job is to scrutinise the work and approve or otherwise of any additional cost that occurs. Senator Wright referred to clause 6 of the Bill. He asked why the word “ may “ is used instead of the word “ shall “. It may be that some of the terms and conditions offered to us will not be acceptable. Therefore, we will not borrow the money. The use of the word “ shall “ would compel us to borrow the money. The word “ may “ is used because we may not borrow it.

Senator Wright:

– The clause does not say that the proceeds of any loan shall be issued and applied for the purpose of this arrangement. It says that they may be issued and applied for defence purposes. I should have thought that Parliament would want an assurance that the whole of this loan will be applied for defence purposes.

Senator HENTY:

– It will be if all the money is borrowed.

Senator Wright:

– The clause refers only to the proceeds of any loan raised.

Senator HENTY:

– 1 have discussed this matter with my officers, and that is the explanation they have given me. The honorable senator has asked for some details of what the loan will cover. I refer to the annual defence report which has been presented to the Parliament. In that report the Minister for Defence said -

The main items included in the $350 million deal are, for the Navy, fourteen tracker antisubmarine aircraft, torpedoes, missiles and ammunition; for the Army, amphibians and tracked carriers, fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, radio and radar equipment; and, for the Air Force, twelve Hercules medium transport aircraft; ten Orion maritime reconnaissance aircraft, equipment, weapons and missiles for the FI IIA aircraft, radar and communications equipment. The arrangement does not cover the three guided missile destroyers or the Fill aircraft; these are included in earlier financial arrangements agreed with the United States Government.

If there is any matter that I have not dealt with 1 would appreciate it if the honorable senator concerned would let me know.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I would like to raise this question of clause 6 again. As I understood it, the explanation by the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) was that the whole of the loan money, may not be raised and that we would not like to be under an obligation to commit the whole of this amount to the actual arrangements. But clause 6 says -

The proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of this Act may be issued and applied for defence purposes.

So, it is the actual raisings that are the subject of the clause. The purpose of the clause relates not to these particular commitments, but defence. I would have thought that a clause would be appropriate which requires, as an assurance to us, that all the proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of this Bill shall be applied for defence purposes. If we raise more than is required finally for the actual commitments, the surplus should be used, not for commercial, diplomatic or general external purposes, but for defence purposes. I would appreciate a comment that would clarify that point for me-

Senator McKenna:

– Clause 4 makes it clear that the whole amount is for defence purposes.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– Perhaps Senator Wright’s point might be better expressed if it were in the terms: The proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of this Act shall not be issued and applied for other than defence purposes.

Senator Wright:

– That expresses it in another way.

Senator MURPHY:

– The enactment then would enable the moneys to be applied for defence purposes. If any of the money was not applied for defence purposes, then it should not be applied for other purposes. If the word “ shall “ were substituted this would impose on the Government an obligation to spend the money even though it changed its mind as to the necessity for such expenditure.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I am advised that this money could not be used for anything but defence purposes unless another Bill to that effect was passed. The purpose of this Bill is to make moneys available for defence purposes. If money were to be spent other than for defence purposes, another Bill would need to be presented to the Parliament seeking authority to expend the money in another way.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. Chairman, I am rather interested in the provisions of clause 6. I notice that under clause 4 approval is given to the making and carrying out by the Commonwealth of an agreement or agreements in relation to the borrowing of moneys not exceeding $US450 million for defence purposes. That is mandatory. I would say to the Minister that it is essential that the whole of the money should be so applied. If that is the case, it seems rather strange that clause 6 should be in this Bill. The clause reads -

The proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of this Act may be issued and applied for defence purposes.

What occurred to me was that the money might well be borrowed and be applied for the purpose in America that we have been told about. But there may be a surplus. I was looking at clause 6 as meaning that, if moneys were borrowed and the whole of them were not required for the particular purpose in America, nevertheless they could be applied to defence purposes other than those relating to the transactions in America I do not know whether this is the interpretation put on the clause by the Department but it seems to me to be a plausible one.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I would not like to see the word “ shall “ substituted for “ may “ in clause 6. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna); this money definitely has to be spent on certain things. All the money may not be spent. Again, it may be spent. But if we substitute “ shall “ for “ may “, the clause definitely will mean that if we raise $100 million we must spend $100 million. Under the clause in its present form, if we do not spend all the money on the specified purposes, the balance cannot be applied for other purposes. Why should we have in the Bill a provision that we shall spend the lot? If we keep the word “ may “ the Government will be protected in the sense that it will not have to spend all the money. If we use the word “ shall “ there is a definite instruction that the lot has to be spent. 1 like the word “ may “, and, in my view, the clause is completely appropriate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– Mr. Chairman, the matter may be cleared up if it is indicated that the clause ought to read as though the word “ only “ were implied after the word “ applied “-

The proceeds of any loan raised under the authority of this Act may be issued and applied only for defence purposes.

Senator Henty:

– In effect, that is what it means.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motton by Senator Henty) read a third time.

page 1133

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (BEEF CATTLE ROADS) BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1117).

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Mr. President, I indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose this Bill. I indicate also that, in Committee, I will move two amendments. This Bill is the fourth measure that has been before this Parliament connected with beef roads. We are proud that this Government has seen fit to carry on the scheme that was initiated by the previous Labour Government. In 1949, the then Labour Government made an unconditional grant to the Western Australian Government of $1,715,000 for the purpose of beef roads, the upgrading of roads, and other works associated with the movement of cattle in that State. In 1961-62 the present Government made a grant of $1 million to assist with the development of beef roads. This grant was for beef roads only and not for associated works. In the period 1962-66 the Government made a grant of $5,900,000, making a total of $8,615,000.

The fact that this Government has applied conditions to the granting of this money has meant that none of it, and none of the supplementary money that has been provided by the State, can be spent on anything else that would be of assistance to the beef cattle industry. The money must be spent on roads and nothing else. It is appreciated that the measure now before the Senate is an interim one. It provides for a grant of $1,500,000, which is the sum that has been spent in each of the past three years under the 1962 Act. We believe that the present policy is rather shortsighted and that there should be a continuing policy. For my purposes, it is not of much use for the Government to say that it is making an examination of the project in order to evaluate its benefits. The Cabinet has had before it since June last a comprehensive report from the Northern Division of the Department of National Development. That report has been available for 11 months. The Government has had ample time to study the report and to evaluate the benefits that have flowed from the money that has been spent, and to have introduced a measure that would give some stability to this form of development. It seems that the scheme will go along piecemeal.

I do not want to talk about what happened to the report, lt seems to me that it may never be released and may never be acted upon, and that from year to year the Government will continue to make a small grant. This will inhibit the pastoralists. If the pastoral industry is to develop, more must be done than to provide beef roads. The properties must be developed, water must be found, fences must be erected, and attention must be given to pastures and different breeds of cattle. If the pastoralist does not know whether this type of development, which I hope to be able to say has proved to be valuable to the cattle industry, will be the subject of a firm, far reaching policy, then he will be reluctant to raise and to expend large sums of money on the development of property over which he has no long term tenure.

The attachment of conditions to the grant tends to inhibit the State in the preparation of its budgetary measures. The State is eager to proceed with development works in these areas. Nevertheless, when conditional grants are made, in some way - it might only be a small way - the Commonwealth Government controls the method of disbursement of funds by the State. The State might believe that the money that is available to it, most of which comes by way of grants and reimbursements from the Commonwealth, could be expended with more benefit to the State and the people in the State if it could be used other than for supplementing sums that had to be spent in a particular area. The State of Western Australia, very many areas of which are in need of development, is not permitted under the conditional grant scheme to exercise the width of approach that 1 have mentioned.

It has been claimed that the report to which I referred earlier is secret; but if we want to look at that part of it which is under greatest public criticism, we may find it in the “ Australian Financial Review “ of 10th May and in the issue of 6th May. The “ Australian Financial Review “ states, however, that the conditions in which it was made available to the Press prevented a proper evaluation of it being made.

Senator Hannaford:

– So they made an improper evaluation?

Senator CANT:

– It is not an improper survey; it is an incomplete survey. I would not attach to the Press, as much as I dislike it, the term used by the honorable senator.

Senator Henty:

– I thought somebody helped himself to one of these reports.

Senator CANT:

– He might have done so.

Senator Henty:

– That is another rumour?

Senator CANT:

– That is right. It is unsubstantiated. This report should not be put in the “ Too hard “ basket. The Government should face up to its responsibility in regard to this form of development, particularly in view of the value of this industry to the Australian economy and in view of the immense expenditure on defence overseas at this point of time. It is arguable whether we should expend this money on defence overseas. Such expenditure must have an effect upon our balance of payments. The cattle industry can make a large contribution to our balance of payments situation. Therefore, it is entitled to the greatest consideration.

A brief look at beef export income between 1949-50 and 1964-65 should convince us of the truth of what I have said. In 1949-50 the value of beef exports was $12.4 million. In 1964-65 it was $192 million. That is a tremendous rise. I do not claim that all of the increase is related to the provision of beef roads. There have been other developments. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has made a large contribution to the evaluation of soils, fodder and breeds of cattle. This has assisted the industry to increase its output. Nevertheless, the provision of beef roads has assisted to a very large degree. Property owners have been enabled to transport beef to the abattoirs and saleyards much more quickly, to transport store cattle to fattening areas, to turn off younger beef, and to turn off older beasts which could not walk the distance to the abattoirs. This is the kind of beef that America wants. She wants manufacturing beef; she does not want fat beef. Indeed, if one went to the abattoirs, one would see men cutting the fat off the meat before it was packaged to be sent to the American market. Subsequently the fat is converted into lard and it finishes up in Hanoi.

Export prices increased from $6.88 in 1949-50 to $18.83 in 1963-64, per 100 lb. This has had its effect on the income from the industry. The price increase amounts to 200 per cent., whereas the value of exports has increased by approximately 1,550 per cent. This gives some indication of the value of the industry. If we take notice of the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, it appears that there is little chance that this industry will not be available to us over many years. The American market has shrunk because of restrictions placed on American importers. Despite the fact that they had entered into an agreement with Australia on import quotas, legislation which was subsequently passed reduced the quotas under the agreement. Although that market shrank, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community markets improved. We have been able to export a greater amount of beef to Europe and the United Kingdom.

We have facing us continually the fact that the underdeveloped nations are improving their standard of living, strengthening their economic position, becoming meat eaters and providing a market for our products. There is little doubt that over a number of years a wide open market will be available to Australia. It will not be difficult to sell the beef that we produce. If we accept the fact that there is an expanding market for the export of beef, we must ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to foster the industry. This might seem to be somewhat out of the beef roads context, but it is all part of the problem of development and expansion of the beef industry. Are we considering the full effect that expansion of this industry can have on our balance of payments? I think that in approving piecemeal measures of this nature we are not doing that. Since 1962, or even since 1961, when the Government made its first grant of $1 million to evaluate this industry, we have had an opportunity to make proper and complete surveys of it so that we would now know whether it was time to make long range plans, but we still find ourselves going at it piecemeal.

Are we satisfied that those engaged in the industry are doing sufficient to foster and make full use of the resources available to them? This is an important question. If public funds are to be expended on development works to assist an industry, surely we can expect that the industry will do something to assist itself. Large areas of public lands under leases are held in trust for the people. We are entitled to ask that the leaseholders make the greatest possible use of the land. Some kinds of development may not be within their financial capacity; others may not be within their physical capacity. Nevertheless, conditions should be applied, within reason, to ensure that these people develop the properties that they hold in trust for us. State and Federal Governments have at appropriate times increased the periods of the leases. I hope I am not speaking out of bounds when I say that I think leases in the Northern Territory run until 2005. Leases in Western Australia run until 2015.

Senator Wright:

– Is that system of land holding to be changed or will it continue?

Senator CANT:

– I can say only that the leases in Western Australia existed prior to 1928, when the State Government saw fit to renew them for 50 years. They were not due to expire until 1932, and this renewal took them to 1982. In 1965, the State Government renewed the leases for 50 years, not from 1982 but from 1965, so they will now expire or come up for renewal in 2015. They are somewhat in the nature of perpetual leases. Whether or not the leases were renewed would depend, I suppose, on developments. I hope to have something to say about whether or not they should be renewed, but at least it can be said that Western Australian leaseholders have secure tenure and have had it for over 1 00 years.

Senator Hannaford:

– Are the leases conditional upon certain improvements being undertaken?

Senator CANT:

– They never have been, but in 1965 a condition was applied requiring the leaseholder to spend on the property twice the amount of rental that he paid. I do not know how much is paid per acre or per square mile for the leases. This document alleges - it has not been disputed anywhere - that if this principle is applied over the 50 years of a lease, the leaseholder will spend 25 cents an acre on the development of the property. I do not think this is a very difficult condition for anyone to be able to meet. The report published in the Press suggests that these should be conditional perpetual leases or conditional freeholds. There are many objections to freehold tenure being given over this land. Nevertheless, I suppose, if one accepts part of the report one must accept the good parts and the bad parts. The Government should consider, at least in its own Territory in the north, the recommendation that tenure should be by conditional perpetual lease or conditional freehold.

In general, the Western Australian people have had perpetual leases. There would need to be some major development in the State and in the particular area to require the Government to terminate those leases. I hope later to suggest that the leases should be smaller than they are and that there should be some subdivision. Nevertheless the bulk of the land right across northern Australia, with the exception of land containing mineral deposits, will, for a large number of years, be best used for pastoral purposes.

In this context I cannot see that in the year 2015 there will be any change of policy away from leasehold properties. Some pastoralists might want to buy their properties and the Government might say to them: “ After all these years and after all the improvements that you have put on these properties we will give you the freehold.” But this is all something for the future. In the foreseeable future, the land there will be best used for pastoral purposes. Perhaps some form of agriculture will be introduced on the banks of the rivers or where irrigation projects can be developed, but this will affect only a very small portion of the land available for use.

Can it be said generally that there have been improvements to the properties and that management methods have been improved? Anyone who has been to these areas with an open mind must come to the conclusion that management methods have not been improved and there has not been a great deal of improvement to properties. A study of reports submitted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will reveal that the turnoff from these properties is very low because the properties have not been developed. Brandings are very low because there is open range grazing. There is no fencing. Frequently we hear talk about the size of these holdings and the large amount of land that is required to support one beast. The calculation is made by dividing the size of the pastoral property by the number of known beasts on it. However, at least one-half of each property is not used for grazing purposes because watering points in the outer areas have not been developed. In the main, the river frontages are used by the stock on the property.

Senator Wright:

– Is the honorable senator criticising this from a practical point of view or from a general point of view?

Senator CANT:

– From a practical point of view. I think the pastoral interests which have this land in trust for the people should be paying more attention to the development of the available water resources on the properties.

Senator Wright:

– But no doubt the State Department of Agriculture submitted all these factors to an analysis. Surely it would require the maximum production out of the properties.

Senator CANT:

– If the honorable senator had studied the reports which have been produced over the years he would know that no-one has applied conditions of maximum production in respect of any of these properties, whether they be in Queensland, the Northern Territory or Western Australia. There has been a system of open range river front grazing on these properties. It is only in the wet season when water is lying about that the stock will wander away from the river frontages but it must be remembered that in the wet season the stock cannot wander very far anyway in this kind of country because it becomes so boggy.

We look at these properties and ask ourselves: Have the stock owners, the pastoralists, the lease holders done very much to improve the pastures? Have they done very much towards clearing the scrub on the land or ringbarking the trees so as to allow improved pastures to be developed and fertilisers to be used? We must come to the conclusion, after examination, that there has not been a great deal of activity in these directions. The pastoral industry in Australia has been developed on British breeds of stock which, in the main, are not suitable for tropical areas. Despite the advice of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, not much has been done to choose the right breed of cattle for this area. I know that some stations have introduced the Zebu stock, but in the main, types of beasts suitable for the area have not been chosen or developed.

Has sufficient attention been given to the control of external and internal parasites and diseases? Even though a mass of material on this subject is available, not a great deal has been done. Very few properties have their own dipping facilities or even dip their stock. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has published some very good advice on the control of tick, which is about the worst parasite in the area, yet the pastoralists are not using that advice as they should be. What attention has been given to the maintenance of perennial pastures and the prevention of soil erosion? We are coming now to a sore point. As I mentioned during the recent debate on the Ord River project, the catchment area is so severely eroded that it may never be rehabilitated. Soil erosion is bad across the northern part of Australia, not only in the Ord catchment area.

Senator Hannaford:

– It would not be through the action of man that the area is eroded. It is a natural phenomenon, is it not?

Senator CANT:

– It did not occur over the thousands of years that man was not on it.

Senator Hannaford:

– I think it has been occurring all that time.

Senator CANT:

– It did not occur for the thousands of years when the land was not over-stocked. This is the problem. There is over-stocking in certain areas to get a quick turnoff. Grass roots are pulled out of the ground and nothing is left to hold the soil. What is not pulled out is trampled in, and as soon as a drop of rain falls there are gutters of erosion.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator CANT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with the protection of land and pastures and the prevention of soil erosion. All of the matters that I mentioned must be considered when public money is being expended in order to develop industries. There are many other questions that must be answered. When leases are renewed, certain conditions should be attached to their renewal. I have tried to condense what I have read in the Press, particularly in the “Australian Financial Review “ and the “ Australian “, on this matter. Under present conditions a large proportion of the northern cattle country has a high risk factor and, in the absence of adequate transport facilities, periodic large scale losses In times of drought are inevitable. Under these conditions also there is often a reluctance on the part of many property owners to improve their properties beyond the barest minimum.

For these reasons, a significant proportion of the northern areas is held in very large leases, many of which are under the control of company interests. Once the serious difficulties associated with remoteness can be overcome, the advantages of the large property diminish rapidly. It is considered that the large properties in the northern areas, particularly those located in areas that rely almost entirely on native labour, will be faced with mounting problems in the fields of management and hired labour. Large properties that depend almost exclusively on a pool of hired labour, in general, cannot be run as efficiently as the well managed smaller unit. Small property units mean not pocket handkerchief sized properties, but units that will provide a good income under a wide range of conditions. There are few, if any, areas in northern Australia in which well developed properties with herds of 4,000 to 5,000 mixed cattle run by experienced cattlemen and their families could not earn a comfortable income.

The underlying theme is that, if the Government wishes to obtain the maximum benefit from its investment in road development programmes, it will need to be assured that a programme of action is implemented, embracing the following conditions: First, the provision of a secure tenure; secondly, that cattle producers have access to long term finance; and thirdly, the progressive sub-division of the large properties into efficient units, with the emphasis on the settlement of experienced cattlemen and their families. In the cattle industry of northern Australia, the need for permanent tenure once property sizes are determined is applicable to almost every area. Given a secure tenure, the requirement of financial assistance through the normal banking and pastoral institutions should generally be easier.

The provisions regarding the sub-division of the large properties apply principally to northern and western Queensland, the northern half of the Northern Territory and most of the Kimberleys district. Strong arguments could be advanced for developing cattle country along lines similar to those being adopted in the brigalow and Esperance areas. In implementing a policy of sub-division of large holdings, it is considered that certain general principles should be followed. There are increasingly large areas of previously excellent cattle country which are now nothing more than dust bowls and which in some instances cause serious erosion hazards.

The prime responsibility for the condition of this land must be borne by the cattle interests whose policy of constantly flogging the land under a system of indiscriminate open range grazing has caused the almost complete ruination of some of the north’s most valuable land resources. On properties whose present management allows the widespread degradation of pastures and soil erosion, resumption rights should be exercised without delay. This is particularly relevant to arid and semi-arid areas, where conservation of natural resources must be the over-riding objective. In higher rainfall areas, where the economic case for subdivision is stronger, due consideration should be given to the level of development attained by existing lessees.

In implementing a policy of sub-division, the highest rate of overall development will be achieved if the least developed properties are resumed first. It is essential that any method of sub-division be based on sound scientific, economic and local practical knowledge, taking into account the association of land classes and their potential, the prevalence of erosion, the availability of water and natural boundaries. The Federal Government should not provide funds for any beef roads programme until it is satisfied that the States possess or will implement policies which will ensure that the maximum possible benefits will be derived in the areas in which very heavy public financial our.lays on transport development are involved.

I said at the beginning of my speech that we would not oppose this Bill. But we say that it is the duty of the Government, if it is providing public funds for the development of the beef cattle industry, to impose some conditions on the people who have control of the properties concerned. It is the duty of the Government to do that in the interests of the people of Australia. I believe that the policy that should be adopted in respect of the construction of beef roads is contained in the principles that I have just outlined. That is particularly true of the Kimberleys district, where the development of the Ord River scheme should supply a concentrated fattening area. It should enable store cattle to be brought in from the large pastoral properties and fattened close to the abattoirs, so that they have all new meat on them and there is no rubbing off, bruising or anything of that nature as a result of journeys by road trains. This would be of great benefit to the industry. If the large properties were broken up and an adequate road system were developed, the pastoral properties could be used to develop store cattle and the fattening process could be completed close to the meat works at Wyndham.

With those remarks, I conclude my speech, first, because we are running short of time and, secondly, because I believe that I have put before the Senate a point of view that should receive some recognition. The Government should adopt a long term policy in respect of the development of beef roads in the north; but the policy should be subject to the condition that the heritage of the people is properly protected.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– In my speech in the second reading debate I foreshadowed two amendments - one to section 5 and the other to section 7. They both deal with the same principle. I ask for leave to have the Committee take the two amendments together and have one division on them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– There being no objectionleave is granted.

Senator CANT:

– I move-

That the following new clauses be inserted in the Bill- “ 3a. Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘Treasurer’ and inserting in its stead the words ‘ Minister for National Development ‘.”. “ 4a. Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the word ‘Treasurer’ (first occurring) and inserting in its stead the words ‘ Minister for National Development ‘.”.

The purpose of the amendment proposed to section 5 of the Principal Act is to delete reference to the Treasurer as far as the approval of work is concerned. The purpose of the amendment to section 7 is to delete reference to the Treasurer in relation to standards of work. The Opposition considers that the Department of the Treasury does not possess technical officers trained in the pastoral industry able to evaluate where a road should go. Treasury officers are not trained in this respect in the sense that they are unfamiliar with the terrain of the country involved. If it is proposed that a road should go from point A to point B these officers are not capable, because of their lack of technical knowledge, of knowing whether that road will provide maximum use in an efficient manner if it follows the route suggested. It is admitted that the Treasury officers will take the advice of the State Department concerned, but after all in this Parliament we are the protectors of the finances of the people and it is we who have to be satisfied that a road that is approved will give the maximum service. The Minister for National Development has a technical staff able to evaluate these things.

Section 7 of the original Act provides for the standards of roads. The decision on standards is an engineering function and the Department of the Treasury does not have on its staff engineers able to evaluate the standards of road. The officers of the Treasury cannot determine whether the type of road to be constructed will provide the service required. They cannot determine whether the materials proposed to be used are the correct materials or whether the roads should be sealed or unsealed. All these questions arise in connection with the standard of roads. The Department of the Treasury does not have the technical officers to determine these standards or to determine the routes which roads should follow. The Minister for National Development, on the other hand, does have at his disposal trained engineers. He is much more capable of advising the Treasury whether money should be made available for the construction of roads to traverse a certain area. He is much more able to advise the

Treasury on the types of materials to be used, the grades that should be provided and whether a road should be sealed or unsealed. It might be necessary to decide whether certain sections of a road should be sealed. This is important in heavy rainfall areas where considerable erosion can take place. If a section of a road is sealed it could well make the road much more serviceable.

The maintenance of roads also has to be considered. It is estimated that the maintenance cost of a sealed road in northern Australia is £250 per mile per annum. The maintenance cost of an unsealed road is, perhaps, £400 or $800 per mile per annum. These are matters that the Department of the Treasury is just not capable of evaluating.

Senator Wright:

– Have not all of the Acts which provide special grants to the States for development been under the administration of the Treasurer?

Senator CANT:

– They have been, but the Opposition suggests that in this instance the Treasury should not be the arbiter in regard to the technical details involved in this class of work.

Senator Wright:

– I have listened to the honorable senator’s criticism. Is it not more appropriate for these items to be considered by the Minister for Works, then for the Minister for National Development to decide on the general project and for the Treasurer to have the financial control?

Senator CANT:

– It is a matter of opinion whether officers of the Department of Works or of the Department of National Development decide on these technical matters. Both of these Departments have technical officers able to perform these duties whereas the Department of the Treasury has not these technical officers and is not capable of making the proper assessment that is required. In order to tidy up this legislation the Opposition suggests to the Government that these amendments should be accepted.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– The amendments proposed by the Opposition are not acceptable to the Government. Senator Cant fails to understand the process that is employed in the building of these beef roads. They are built by the State Governments. State Governments have Departments of Works with competent engineers and other technical officers. To accept the amendments would mean an intrusion on the part of the Commonwealth Government into the field of State rights. The Commonwealth Government has no work force in these areas. If these amendments were accepted the Commonwealth would be intruding into the affairs of Western Australia and saying to the State Government in effect: “ Irrespective of the fact that you have a works force and that you have been building roads in Western Australia for many years, we are now going to intrude into this field.” Just consider what the cost of establishing a Commonwealth work force in this area would be. But that is just by the way. The matter at present is in the competent hands of the Western Australian Government which builds these roads. It is for the State Government to decide whether the roads are to be sealed, what levels they are to be at, what undulations they are to cover and so on. The Commonwealth Treasury finds the money in consultation with thi Western Australian Government and the Minister approves of the road, once the State Government has given its approval for the work. The Department of National Development and the Department of Primary Industry are both consulted by the Treasurer before he gives his approval for the money to be expended. I can assure the honorable senator that the Treasury is competent to assess the amount of money to be made available for a road and to state the expenditure. The State Government, which builds the road - and the Western Australian Government has built many roads - is quite competent to do the work. The Department of Primary Industry and the Department of National Development are available for consultation if the Department of the Treasury or the Western Australian Government cannot arrive at a suitable figure.

I quite understand what the honorable senator is trying to say. I know his thoughts on this matter. I am sorry, however, that what he says is incorrect and that the Government cannot accept the amendments. The Principal Act under which this money is made available makes the Treasurer the responsible authority. The Bill we are considering merely extends for a year the operation of the Principal Act. It would be crass stupidity to change the principle in the existing Act by amending an interim measure which is merely to extend the operation of the existing Act for a year. If the honorable senator wishes to raise this matter again when another act is introduced after the present act expires, he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, I would think that the least point of his argument would be that a mere extension of an act would change the principle of the original act which really governs financial assistance to Western Australia for beef cattle roads.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I wish to make this point very briefly. I agree that the Treasury makes the money available. However, I direct the attention of honorable senators to section 5, which states, in part -

  1. . and the treasurer may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, approve any such work in relation to that year.

The Treasurer has to be satisfied that the road is suitable for approval. We had before us for consideration only a little while ago extra expenditure on the standard gauge railway in Western Australia. It was first assessed at £42 million and subsequently has been estimated to cost ‘ £58 million. This was approved. It might be said that it was approved as an interim estimate. Nevertheless, it was approved. Because the technical officers were not available to the Commonwealth Government, it operated on the advice of Western Australia; but we have a responsibility in this Parliament to know whether we are spending the money as it should be spent properly. Section 7 states, in part -

  1. . if . . . expenditure is incurred by the State in carrying out that work otherwise than in accordance with those standards, the Treasurer may direct that payments under this Act shall not be made in respect of that expenditure.

What do officers of the Treasury have available to them to assess this sort of project? I will press the matter to a division. I will raise it on the next occasion the matter comes before the Parliament. I ask the Minister to bring the matter to the notice of his Cabinet colleagues before the next bill is drafted.

Question put -

That the amendments (Senator Cant’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a third time.

page 1141

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT ASSISTANCE) BILL 1966

Debate resumed (vide page 1118).

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– We inhabit a land which suffers from recurring natural disasters. From the time before the emergence of man on the earth, a large part of Australia has been subject to frequent but irregular floods and droughts. Before the coming of the white man, the Aborigines adapted themselves to these conditions and lived in harmony with this environment. They did so by refraining from permanent pastoral activities and from any but the most intermittent and temporary agriculture, and by pursuing a nomadic existence. That way of life could support only a small population. We seek to support a large population to utilise land not naturally suitable for large scale agricultural or pastoral activity. To do it, we have sought to transform nature by irrigation, pasture improvement and other means. The extent of our technological ability limits our capacity to control nature, so that every few years we suffer from large scale droughts or from floods. These cause not only individual suffering but also economic consequences to the nation itself, to the segments of the nation - the States - and the local councils.

This is a Bill to alleviate some of the effects of the recent and continuing drought which has extended over a large area of New South Wales and Queensland. It has been described by a person well acquainted with the area, Mr. William Sidney Brennan, as being more serious and widespread than droughts of the past. Mr. Brennan gave evidence before a committee of inquiry of the New South Wales Parliament on 9th February this year and this was his conclusion founded on a very long experience.

We welcome this Bill but we are somewhat critical of it. While providing for the payment of moneys to the State it does not deal in detail with the method by which those moneys are to be distributed. The provision of the funds is to be made under section 96 of the Constitution, which provides that the Commonwealth may make grants to the States upon such terms and conditions as the Commonwealth thinks fit. In making the grant the Commonwealth Parliament is not specifying the conditions governing it, other than in general terms, saying merely that the conditions shall be such as the Treasurer may lay down. This is no specification of conditions by the Parliament at all. It is not a question of what the Parliament thinks fit but of what the Treasurer thinks fit. We of the Opposition do not think this satisfactory. However, because of the amelioration provided by the Bill we do not oppose it, and on behalf of the Opposition I move -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “but the Senate is of opinion that the Bill should state in more precise terms the manner in which it is intended that the assistance will be distributed “.

The drought has been an extremely severe one and it is still persisting. There is no need for me to speak in detail of the extent of it and the way in which it has affected so many people on the land. It has also affected people other than those actively engaged in farming - the people in the towns, the business people, those employed by local councils, those in the cities who provide all sorts of goods and services for country people. Once a drought of this magnitude persists to the extent that the present drought has persisted the effects of it are felt throughout the whole of the community. It becomes a matter of national concern, as the Government realises and as was stated in the second reading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), who said -

From the outset we have viewed tho drought as a national problem. We will continue to view it as such.

Our criticism is that if the Government viewed the drought from the outset as a national problem it did not do much about it on a national scale. Now that the drought has to some extent abated the Commonwealth proposes to provide some money for the States, only $25 million in all and the major part of it for New South Wales, to meet the deficits in the financial arrangements of the States caused by the drought. This is not sufficient. It is not sufficient that the Commonwealth should leave it to the various segments of the Commonwealth to deal with what is a national problem. For too long we have proceeded upon the basis that when a great national disaster occurs, representations must be made to the Commonwealth, and that after those representations have been considered and the problem has perhaps disappeared the Commonwealth will then provide some money so that the States or other institutions may make loans to the victims. That is how the Commonwealth has conceived its role - that it should appear after the event as the financier to do something about the matter. This is not good enough, because people are ruined before the Commonwealth makes money available and the money filters through to the persons directly affected. How can people who have been hard hit by the drought, who have lost stock and cannot keep up payments to the banks, hang on with only a hope that money will somehow filter through to them and they will be able to meet their commitments? The banks are not always prepared to wait. The families of the farmers affected are not always prepared to wait while this uncertainty prevails.

This is the kind of situation that develops frequently, not only during a drought but also after a flood or some other natural disaster. We should set up some continuing and permanent machinery to deal with these problems. The drought that we are now experiencing is by no means a novel occurrence. Droughts and floods are recurring events in this continent. We know that such natural disasters occur in other parts of the world and that other countries have established machinery to deal with them. The Disaster Relief Act of the United States of America, which was approved on 30th September 1950, provides for movement into the area of disaster by federal agencies. If I may refer to the opening provisions, that enactment sets out -

That it is the intent of Congress to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to States and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate suffering and damage resulting from major disasters, to repair essential public facilities in major disasters and to foster the development of such State and local organisations and plans to cope with major disasters as may be necessary . . . “Major disaster” means any flood, drought, fire, hurricane, earthquake or other catastrophe.

Federal agencies are hereby authorised . . . to provide assistance (a) by utilising or lending, with or without compensation therefor, to States and local governments, their equipment, supplies, facilities, personnel and other resources . . . (b) by distributing, through the American National Red Cross or otherwise, medicine, food and other consumable supplies.

There are myriad ways in which the United States Government has provided for these disasters. It has recognised them as recurring events and has seen the need for machinery to be established to deal with them. We should have such machinery in this country.

Senator Tangney has put so many questions on this subject to the Minister that she was able to say this morning: “ This is the fifteenth time I have put a question about a national disaster fund.” Why should we wait until one of these events develops into a tremendous disaster before we move into action? Why should we not be ready to move in at the outset? It is not as though these events come as surprises to us. We know that over the next half century there will be many droughts in this country and many floods. We can expect that there will be other natural occurrences which will call ultimately for assistance from the Commonwealth Government. Why should we not set up permanent and continuing machinery to deal with them? Why should we always deal with them on the temporary basis on which this Bill has been framed?

We have the constitutional power to set up the machinery. Section 96 of the Constitution is available to us. We have also the insurance power that we can use to see that victims of disasters of this kind are relieved. We could arrange for relief to be given from an insurance fund so that we would not have to depend on the raising of money by way of loans. We need not perpetuate this intricate system of giving assistance to the States and letting the money gradually filter through to those affected. One method springs readily to mind of setting up permanent machinery, other than and additional to the kind that has been established in the United States and which I have already mentioned.

This Bill has been subjected to a detailed analysis in the other chamber, particularly in relation to the absence of specific provisions setting out the manner in which the moneys are to be made available to the persons who are suffering difficulties. It is not right that the Bill should pass through the Parliament in its present form. We do not know what interest charges will be permissible. We do not know how the money will be allocated. We should know all these things because the Government has adopted the attitude that it would wait until the situation had cleared and until it knew what it was going to do before it made some provision. It has waited but apparently it still has not made up its mind that any particular relief would be afforded to the persons concerned.

It is not enough that we should make provision for the States and then leave the matter entirely to them. It is true, as the Government is constantly saying, that the States have power to move in these fields. It is not true, as the Government puts it, that on an occasion such as this we would be intruding into the fields of the States. If we have power to give this money and lay down provisions as to its disposal, it is no intrusion to set down specifically how the relief should be administered. It is most important that we do this in such circumstances. If we are going to recognise that this is a national problem - and the Government has said that it recognises the problem as such - we should deal with it on a national basis. Why should a farmer in New South Wales be dealt with differently from one in Queensland? Why should we allow the States to deal with a national matter? If it is national in character, let the National Parliament set the conditions under which relief should be afforded. If it is a State matter, we should not be interfering; but it is a national matter and should be dealt with nationally. The Government is failing to do that.

In view of the time and the circumstances, since we are in the final hours of the sessional period, and as the matter has been subjected to analysis in the other chamber, I do not wish to go through all these matters again. The Senate is pressed for time and I shall content myself with saying that we must get away from the approach that is inherent in this Bill. We must set up permanent and continuing machinery so that relief may be adequate and speedy. It is not a matter merely of the individual citizens concerned. If a disaster is allowed to produce economic consequences such as this one has without speedy relief, the effect is not merely on the individual but spreads through the community. It affects not merely the whole economy but also the operation of the agricultural and pastoral industry over a long period of time. We cannot prevent droughts or floods but we can do a tremendous amount to prevent the consequences, economic and social, of these occurrences. My plea now is in confirmation of what has been put repeatedly by Senator Tangney. That is that we must have permanent and continuing machinery. Therefore, I have moved the amendment that has been circulated and I commend it to honorable senators.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I would not rise on this occasion but for the importance I attach to this matter of public interest and because I think it would be unfortunate if it could be inferred that Senator Murphy’s remarks were received with inattention because of the pending termination of the sitting. I was interested to hear Senator Murphy’s reference to. the American legislation on this matter but I am not persuaded at all that in this matter Federal machinery of a continuous nature would be more effective to give relief and improvement in conditions than the method now operating in Australia. 1 remind myself that the departments of agriculture and the departments of forestry in the States have evolved very valuable services for the relief of agriculture and the prevention and control of fire. I pay tribute to the New South Wales Government for proposals to initiate a most important programme, not for relief against drought but for the conservation of water to prevent and reduce the incidence of drought. This matter was brought to my attention three week-ends ago.

I believe we would make a grave mistake if, by insufficient attention to this matter, we were to adopt the view that simply because we promote a Federal agency, it would be more effective than employing, as we now do, State agencies of long experience which are really closer to the people who are the sufferers from these disasters. The State Governments have their police forces, their forestry departments, their hospital services and their irrigation works and this is a field in which cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States prima facie gives a more effective result. I rise to put these views before the Senate in deference to the comments of Senator Murphy which I think should not go unheeded. The project implicit in this Bill is an important one and I am not persuaded at all that Senator Murphy’s proposal for a Federal agency would be an improvement over the long experienced State agencies through which we work at present.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

.- I rise to support the Bill and oppose the amendment. The Bill is designed to carry out an undertaking given to the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland last year that they should go ahead with drought relief measures with the understanding that if the financing of the measures was beyond them, the Commonwealth Government would underwrite their commitments. We are doing that and we are not, as suggested by Senator Murphy, leaving it to the States to go to the relief of drought sufferers. The money is to be spent through the States with Commonwealth backing. 1 direct attention to the second reading speech of the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) in which he pointed out that this assistance was certainly the most generous ever provided by a Commonwealth Government in this sort of situation. That is quite correct. In addition, credit is being released through the banking system in other ways to sufferers from the drought. The Government has announced long term loans and other provisions of that sort. I point out also that the Commonwealth has promised that this finance will be continued to the States so long as it is .necessary while the drought continues and as long as is necessary afterwards for rehabilitation.

I remind honorable senators that the drought is far from over in many areas; in fact, it is more likely to be extended. The big sugar industry in Queensland has had only half the normal rainfall and is suffering as a result. The return from the coming crop is a little uncertain because of the lower rainfall.

Senator Murphy has said that no details have been provided of how this money will be spent. The Minister’s second reading speech shows that the assistance falls into certain categories and it gives details of the estimated requirements. Admittedly these are estimates, but the break up of the assistance is pretty clear. I draw attention particularly to the assistance that will be provided to the sugar industry, lt is estimated that requirements for this purpose in 1965-66 will amount to a total of $1.75 million. This relief will be of particular assistance to sugar growers who have got into financial difficulties with mills owing to having to pay a levy to the mills.

The Government’s proposal has been very well received. It will be of tremendous benefit to a great many people. I hope that the amendment will be defeated and that the Bill will be carried. I hope that those people who are so sorely in need of rain will get it soon, enabling rehabilitation to be started in a big way. Once these people are back on their feet with the aid of this legislation, and once the drought is over, they will not need further assistance. I support the Bill.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - The Government cannot accept the Opposition’s amendment and will vote against it. By its amendment the Opposition contends that the Bill should be stated in more precise terms. I think the terms of the Bill are precise. We are refunding to the State Governments of Queensland and New South Wales, on production of an auditor’s certificate, some of the money that they have spent on drought relief. Could anything be more precise? I listened to Senator Murphy with a great deal of interest. We live under a Federal system. I have noticed a tendency on the part of the Opposition lately to advocate that we should take more power to the central government here in Canberra. I am still the old fashioned type who believes that the State Governments are, as Senator Wright said, in the best position to judge who are being hurt. They have the control of Forestry Departments and Police Departments, with their large work forces. They are in the best position to alleviate distress. They control the railways. The States grant rebates on rail freights to farmers who must import feed and water. The States are being reimbursed for those rebates. Who knows better than the States what relief is being given in areas where farmers need fodder and water?

Senator Wright and Senator Lawrie have more than adequately replied to the Opposition’s arguments. I have spoken for about as long as Senator Cant spoke and, taking a leaf out of his book, I will sit down.

Question resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– I wish to say only a few words in relation to all of the provisions of the Bill. Our criticism is that the Bill does not state precisely how the assistance will be distributed, particularly to individuals. Clause 6 is totally inadequate. It leaves payment to the Treasurer. The clause reads - (1.) Payment of an amount (including an advance) to a State under this Act is subject to such conditions, if any, as the Treasurer determines.

Nothing that has been said on behalf of the Opposition in relation to this Bill would suggest that State and local government authorities, as well as other agencies, would do other than co-operate to the full in utilising all of their resources for drought relief purposes, just as is done in the United States under the legislation to which I referred. What is necessary here is some continuing machinery, not a temporary provision such as is indicated by clause 6, where conditions governing payment under this Bill are left entirely to the determination) of the Treasurer.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a third time.

page 1145

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1119).

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- The purpose of the Bill, as the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) stated, is to extend the franchise to persons under 21 years of age who are or who have been on special service outside Australia as members of the Defence Force. “ Special service” outside Australia takes the same meaning as the term in the definition in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act and means, in relation to a person, service during a period when he is outside Australia and he or his unit is allotted for special duty in a special area. It is necessary only to state that in order to appreciate that the Bill has a limited purpose, and, in the view of the Opposition, a far too limited purpose. Indeed, the Bill may be said to be the direct but disappointing and, I would suggest, pathetic response of this Government to the widespread vigorous and determined opposition in the Australian community to the Government’s proposals to conscript 20 year old voteless youths for service overseas, especially in Vietnam. That is the context in which the Bill comes before the Parliament. It was not introduced 12 or 18 months ago when the first servicemen were going to Vietnam. It was not introduced in relation to men who were serving overseas in Malaysia. It was introduced only because in recent months the Government has been acutely aware of the strength of public opposition to its conscription proposals. So we have, at least 12 months after the original announcement of Australian troops being sent to Vietnam, this very limited extension of the franchise.

It is important to say what the Bill does and what it does not do. Although the Opposition does not wish to deny such measure of benefit as the Bill does give to servicemen overseas, we believe that the Government has, in this Bill, granted only the smallest possible extension of the right to vote. It has given the right to vote to the smallest identifiable segment of the armed forces to which that vote could be given. I think that is the Government’s response to a situation that demanded something much more comprehensive than this Bill provides for.

It is clear that at the present stage servicemen over the age of 21 years are permitted to vote, in the same way as every other elector of the Commonwealth. This Bill proposes to give a vote to men under the age of 21 years who are in special service areas and on special service. Here are some of the things that it does not cover. It does not cover servicemen serving outside Australia if they are not in special areas. In other words, there may be men who have served for years overseas, but if they do not go into one of the special areas that are defined under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act they are not eligible to vote. The Bill does not cover any members of the armed forces inside Australia. It certainly does not cover that great mass of 20 year olds who, by virtue of the national service legislation, have become eligible for call up. If they manage to win a lottery, or to lose in a lottery, depending upon the point of view one likes on the matter, they may eventually be drafted into the services and some of them will go overseas.

Senator Henty:

– They may even become a senator if they get No. 1.

Senator COHEN:

– That is a very interesting proposition. I do not quite know what it has to do with this Bill. I agree with the Minister that there are other types of lotteries in the community besides this one. Whether they apply to a senator or not is a matter of conjecture. I have said that this Bill has very limited application. The Opposition believes that the approach of the Government in this legislation is niggardly and grudging. It gives away no more than the barest minimum. Without going into all the detail of the total numbers eligible for call up, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony), when dealing with this matter in another place, said it was estimated that approximately 600 men would receive the right to vote as a result of this Bill, and no more. One finds it difficult to believe that as many as 600 would receive the right to vote in the immediate future.

In September 1965 the Minister for the Interior, when dealing with an Opposition amendment which sought to give a vote to all youths of 18 years and over who enlisted in the services said -

Any person who is conscripted now would be unfortunate to be sent overseas before he reached the age of 21 years. By the time he had been trained and sent overseas he would be entitled to vote. The circumstances now are considerably different from the circumstances during the war years.

He was referring to the situation in the Second World War. The plain fact is that from the point of view of the Government this is a very limited concession. It is quite unlikely that at the present time there would be many members of the Services who would be eligible to vote.

We do not see it this way. We take two points of view broadly on this legislation. We say, first, that any person in the call-up age group should be entitled to vote, whether he is in the Services, whether he is overseas in the Services or in Australia in the Services, or whether he is merely potentially liable to be called up because of his liability to register under the National Service Act. At the present time that age is 20 years. It is the 20 year olds who are designated to be liable for national service at home or abroad. We would like to see the legislation framed in such a way that it would cover people m the call-up age group, whatever that call-up age group was. If, in the fullness of time, it was dropped to 19 years or 18 years, as it was in time of war, anybody who had a liability to register and was In that call-up age group should be permitted to vote. We would not shrink from the proposition that that ought to include women as well as men. Indeed, we would advocate that in practical terms at the present time the right to vote should be universal at 20 years of age. That is the current call-up age.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is another matter.

Senator COHEN:

– It may be another matter, but I do not feel that the Government’s response is really doing anything more than making a political attempt to cope with mass public feeling about voteless conscripts. I think it is an appropriate time to refer to a leading article which was published in yesterday’s Melbourne “ Age “. It puts in succinct form the argument and principle that we are advancing on this question. It lays bare the hollowness of the Government’s decision on this matter. The article states -

As outlined in legislative form, the Federal Government’s proposal to enfranchise under-age servicemen on overseas service is even less principled than first reports had suggested. The right to vote is to be extended only to young men who are, or have been, on “ special duty “ in a declared “ special area “ (presumably fighting men in a combat zone.) They will not be enrolled and voting will not be compulsory.

I want to deal with that aspect a little later in my remarks. The article continues -

The legislation is apparently the Government’s response to gibes that it was conscripting “ voteless youths “ to fight in Vietnam. If it were logical, the Government would give volunteers a voluntary vote and conscripts a compulsory vote. This would demonstrate the absurdity of its reasoning. Even the Aborigines are treated less casually: they need not enrol, but once enrolled, they must vote.

The democratic franchise is a right shared equally by all adult citizens. It is not a privilege that can be earned by some and not by others. In Australia, it is also an obligation. Those who are entitled to vote are also required to vote. The franchise is not a favour to be conferred for meritorious service or to be accepted or spurned according to individual inclination.

I am very interested to see a senator on the Government side paying such attention to the remarks, if not of myself, at least of the Melbourne “ Age “. The article continues -

It is regrettable that the Government intends to abandon these principles in an attempt to sweeten the bitter necessity to send young Australians to fight in the jungles and paddy-fields of South East

Asia. If the voting age is to be lowered - as well it might be lowered - then it should be extended without exception and without options. Equality at the ballot box is as basic a principle as equality before the law.

Senator Ridley:

– Is that the “ Tribune “?

Senator COHEN:

– No, that is the Melbourne “ Age “, a newspaper noted for its independent approach to the big problems of the day.

Senator Cormack:

– The only equality it did not acknowledge is the equality of danger.

Senator COHEN:

– The article is dealing with the essential element of an electoral system - the right to vote. It puts the position as clearly as I think any of us could put it. The vote is not even a compulsory vote. It is the right to vote. It means that the opportunity is provided to a serviceman, if he is overseas in a battle area, to cast a vote if he has the inclination so to do. It goes no further than that. What a pitiful undertaking the Government has embarked upon with this legislation. Why has the Government not grasped the nettle and said: “ We will do what many independent minded people in the community have for a long time been pressing governments - State and Federal - to do.” That is, to accomplish two things at once. To kill two birds with the one stone and to do justice in the present circumstances by extending the franchise to all 20 year olds. That would have the effect of extending the franchise to all those who come within the broad ambit of the national service plan.

It has always been a contention of principle on the part of the Australian Labour Party that he who is old enough to fight for his country is old enough to vote. That, as a principle, seems to me to be inescapable and irrefutable. It is not only the Labour Party, of course, which lays stress on this kind of proposition. Recently in New South Wales the State AttorneyGeneral, who is a member not of a Labour government but of a Liberal government, said that he believed the voting age in New South Wales should be lowered to 20 years. He believed that such a move ought also to include the legal right to full citizenship rights. He said that it seemed incongruous that a person under 21 years of age could be called up for military service, could be taxed and could be made criminally responsible but should have to get a guarantor if he wanted to buy land on hire purchase.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is sound reasoning.

Senator COHEN:

– Yes. We are saying that all 20 year olds are now in what I would call the target area for conscription for Vietnam.

Senator Henty:

– Do we call up 20 year old girls?

Senator COHEN:

– Not at the moment, as far as I know, but if the Government did that it would not want to extend the voting right to all persons in an age group and then limit it to males. In the wartime electoral legislation it was the view of the Labour Party that all persons in the armed forces should, irrespective of age, be entitled to vote. That very sound purpose was frustrated by the predecessor of the present Liberal Party when in Opposition. In .1943 when the Labour Government introduced legislation to grant the franchise to all servicemen and servicewomen wherever serving and irrespective of age the majority Opposition in this chamber rejected the legislation in favour of an amendment which gave an extremely limited right to vote to anybody under 21 years of age in the services. The Labour Government of the day was forced to accept the amendment because of the then Opposition’s majority in this chamber. The legislation thus was in limited form and it was allowed to lapse after the war. lt is in almost identical form that this Government has introduced its legislation today. It is emasculated - it is puny in its scope.

Senator Henty:

– Why did not the Labour Party go on with its legislation when it had the numbers in both Houses.

Senator COHEN:

– By the time we had the numbers the war was practically over and no election was due until 1946. It is a poor response - if I may say so, a pathetic response - for the Minister to ask why we did not go on with the legislation 20 years ago. One has only to read the speeches - and they were extremely enlightening - in this Senate by distinguished members of the anti-Labour Opposition parties of that period to realise that the attitude of mind was to resist the amplitude of the Labour provisions. The late Senator McLeay, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate at that time, in the debate on 24th June 1943 said -

Generally, the purpose of my amendment is to provide that the extension of the franchise shall be limited to members of the fighting forces who have served outside Australia, or who have returned to Australia, regardless of age. I am at a loss to understand why the Labour Party has decided that regardless of age or sex all members of the fighting services should have a vote. Why the Labour Party, of all parties, should be prepared to confer the vote on smartly uniformed minors in the various women’s auxiliary services, but not on overalled girls of equal age and giving equal service in munitions factories, is as incomprehensible as it is unfair. The Opposition will not agree to allow that discrimination which would perhaps result in there being in the one family an 18 year old girl who would have the right as a member of the Australian Women’s Army Service to vote, whereas her sister, 12 months her senior, would not have that right.

That comment was reasonable in its way, but the Labour Government at that time was dealing with a situation where the nation was at war and what the Labour Government was anxious to do was give justice and democratic equality to all the young men and women in the fighting Services irrespective of age. The Government of the day felt itself unable to accept the Opposition’s amendment. Senator McBride of South Australia went so far as to suggest that he was rather suspicious of the influences behind the Labour Party. He really felt that the Party was subjected to some sinister influences. In fact, he used that dreadful nine letter word which is often used today for smear purposes, and I will not trouble the Senate by repeating the word itself. The Leader of the Government in the Senate said he was quite unable to accept the amendment and the Government was defeated on the amendment. The amendment had the effect of frustrating the other purposes of the Bill. Senator Ashley, the Postmaster-General, put the position in these words -

When a man, whether conscript or volunteer, accepts the task of defending his country, he accepts the greatest possible national responsibility. If he is prepared to fight and die for his country, he should be entitled, irrespective of his age, to vote for those who govern it.

We say that all young people who are in what I have called the target area, who are liable to be called up, should have the vote. If they go through the process of the national service lottery they are liable to be called up, liable to serve in the Army and liable to be sent away to Vietnam or other places, and they will, of course, run the risk of dying for their country. We say it is a matter of elementary justice that they should be given the right to vote even if the consequence is an extension of that right over even a wider area than those who are in the forces at the time. Whoever is liable to become a victim of the present system of recruitment - the compulsory recruitment of 20 year olds into the Army - should have the right to vote. I have prepared an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill and so that the Senate may be invited to pass judgment on the view I have just expressed I move -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “ but the Senate is of opinion that the vote should be given to all persons in the callup age group “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I rule that the amendment is out of order on the ground that it is not strictly relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

page 1149

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- Mr. President, with regret I find myself in the position of having to move -

That the ruling be dissented from.

I have the greatest respect for you, Sir, as all honorable senators have, but I submit that your ruling is too narrow. It limits unnecessarily-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It will be necessary for Senator Cohen to put his motion of dissent in writing.

Senator COHEN:

– I have it in writing. (Senator Cohen having submitted in writing his objection to the President’s ruling) -

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to -

That the matter be disposed of forthwith.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- Mr. President, I submit that your ruling places too narrow a scope on this debate and that within the title of the Bill which the Senate is discussing it is proper for this amendment to be put and debated. The title of the Bill that we are discussing states that this is a Bill-

To make Provision for Voting at Parliamentary Elections by Persons under the age of Twenty-one years who are, or have been, on Special Service outside Australia as Members of the Defence Force.

The Bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1965 in several respects. I put the Opposition’s case to you on this basis: The Bill deals with one class of persons under the age of 21 years. The Bill proceeds then to define those within that age group who will be dealt with specifically by its provisions. It is our case on this point that we want to see the vote extended beyond those proposed to be covered by the Bill. But our amendment relates also to persons under the age of 21 years. We say that unless we are permitted to debate under this Bill this broader question then we are unnecessarily circumscribed in the attack that we may make on the Government’s legislation.

We are at issue with the Government on a point of very grave principles. A very limited extension of the franchise is proposed under the Bill now before us. We want to open up that question in a way that will permit us to demonstrate the pathetic inadequacy of the Government’s approach. We want to show by presenting an alternative proposition that a more liberal approach to this extremely important matter of public interest can be sustained. It is in that sense, Mr. President, that I invite honorable senators to disagree with your ruling. We urge the Senate to give us the opportunity to debate this issue. If we are unable to move our amendment, we will be limited to criticism in a very narrow arena. I think I have put my argument as clearly as I can. As you will appreciate, Mr. President, I do not put it in any sense offensively to you. The Opposition cannot accept the ruling that you have given. We invite the Senate to disagree with it.

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

– I appreciate the closing remarks made by Senator Cohen. I know that he is quite sincere when he says that the Opposition wishes to broaden the scope of this debate. But I am quite sure that the honorable senator would feel very unhappy indeed if he had to approach a case outside this House with as little ammunition as he has used in trying to support the case that he has put before the Senate this afternoon. The title states that this is a Bill for an Act -

To make Provision for Voting at Parliamentary Elections by Persons under the age of Twenty-one years who are, or have been, on Special Service outside Australia as Members of the Defence Force.

That is plain enough for anyone, I would think. The amendment moved by the Opposition is -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “but the Senate is of opinion that the vote should be given to all persons in the call-up age group.”

This a totally different thing altogether. There is no doubt, Mr. President, that you are quite right in your ruling. Standing Order 195 provides -

No other Amendment may be moved to such Question except in the form of a resolution strictly relevant to the Bill.

That Standing Order does not merely use the word “ relevant “. It uses the words “ strictly relevant “. I know that the honorable senator would be the first to concede the point that I just made if we were outside this House. A number of rulings have been made on this point in the past. There is need for me to quote one only. I refer to the ruling by President Lynch which reads -

A proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading of a bill must be strictly relevant to the subject-matter of the bill.

There is no doubt that your ruling is correct, Mr. President. I think that it is a common sense ruling, too.

Question put -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister

McMullin.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1150

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the following words be added to the motion: - “but the Senate is of opinion that the vote should be given to all persons in the Defence Force who have attained the age of eighteen years “.

I want to speak briefly in support of the amendment I have moved. I think I have sufficiently indicated in the course of my earlier remarks that we in the Opposition regard the provision in the Bill as narrow, limited and, as I said, a very unsatisfactory response to Australian public opinion, which resents the present conscription proposals of the Government. I want to keep within the terms of the Bill and I am sensitive to the fact that the Senate has upheld your ruling, Mr. President, on my previous amendment. We believe that all members of the defence forces should have the right to vote. For all practical purposes, the minimum age for service is 18 years. If boys of 18 are old enough to serve in the armed forces, whether inside Australia or outside Australia, they are old enough to vote. If they serve inside Australia, they are liable to be sent outside Australia. They take the oath or affirmation of allegiance and they are drafted into the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. They are regarded as being old enough to fight and, if necessary, to die for their country, and they should have the right to vote.

This is a very simple proposition. It may be assailed from many quarters, but there is no absolute truth in any one system affording entitlement to vote. We believe that our proposition is consistent with principle and consistent with the views of the great majority of the people. In a country where we have an intensive national service scheme of compulsory training, including liability to serve overseas, the people would like to see these young men treated as adults. A person is old enough to marry at 18; why should he not be old enough to vote at 18? I think we must all recognise that there is a good case for lowering the voting age for another reason, and it is this:I think all honorable senators recognise that in the last few decades the spread of education in the community has been very considerable. It may not be all that we would like it to be, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. The young people of today have a better education than those of past generations had. The average young person knows a good deal about the way the country is governed and its political and public institutions. We firmly believe that the average young person who attains 18 years is sufficiently mature as a citizen to have the right to vote. We are of the opinion that the argument for extending the franchise to all members of the Services is unanswerable. That is the purpose of my amendment.

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

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. I direct the attention of the Senate to what the Bill proposes to do. It will give the right to vote to all servicemen who serve outside Australia in special areas that have been declared. We do not confine this right to any age group. Anyone who serves in a special area will have the right to vote, not only while in that area but also when returning to Australia after having served in the area. If the amendment were accepted, all persons in the defence forces of Australia, boys and girls, between the ages of 18 and 21 years, would be given a vote. Senator Cohen said that members of the defence forces who were prepared to risk their lives were entitled to a vote. I put it to him that, if we were in a state of total war, the possibility of a member of the defence forces meeting his death would be very much greater than it is in the present situation. But in the event of total war, the risk of death would be great not only for young members of the defence forces but also, I would imagine, for members of the civilian population. We think that the Bill presented to the Senate is a very good one. We think it is doing a service to those who will serve outside Australia and risk their lives in the designated areas. For these reasons we reject the amendment.

Question put -

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

– in reply - I should like to thank the Senate for the speedy passage it has given to the Bill at the second reading stage. The Government rejects the suggestion that giving the right to vote to the servicemen in question is just a political stunt. It is not a political stunt. I do not propose to spend any more time on that matter. It will be noted that there is no provision in the Bill for compulsory voting. The obvious reason is that it would be quite impossible to ensure that such a provision was complied with. I point out as a matter of interest that there will be approximately 10,000 persons under the age of 21 years in the defence forces in and outside Australia.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I want to raise one point.I understand that the Bill provides-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator is not in his own place. He will not be allowed to proceed.

Senator COHEN (Victoria) [3.431. - Mr. Chairman, may I have some elucidation of a matter which my colleague, Senator Cant, was about to mention. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to satisfy us on this point. Clause 3 provides -

Section 39a of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsections: - “(3.) Where-

a person who is less than twenty-one years of age -

is a member of the Defence Force and is, or has at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this sub-section) been, on special service;

I am not concerned with that paragraph just now - or -

  1. being a person whose real place of living is in Australia, has ceased to be a member of the Defence Force. . .
Senator Wright:

– Where did they get the expression “ real “?

Senator COHEN:

– The honorable senator might direct that question to the Minister. The Minister might have some difficulty in explaining it, but that is not my responsibility. I am dealing with a matter that was brought to my attention by Senator Cant. It relates to persons who cease to be members of the defence forces and who presumably are back in Australia. Is there any reason why their vote should continue to be optional and why they should not be compelled to vote? In other words, should they not bear the responsibilities as well as enjoy the privileges of the franchise?

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I point out that the Bill does not provide for compulsory voting or compulsory enrolment. These people will not be compelled to enrol or to vote while they are overseas, but when they return to Australia they will still have the franchise. Have they then to enrol, and will they then be compelled to vote? Can they continue until they are 90 years of age without being compelled to enrol and to vote?

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

– A question was asked on the sideline about what was meant by the word “real”. Section 39 (3.) of the Principal Act contains this proviso -

Provided that an elector shall not be entitled to vote as an elector of the Division in respect of which he is enrolled unless his real place of living was at some time within three months immediately preceding polling day within that Division. In this proviso the words “ real place of living “ include the place of living to which a person temporarily living elsewhere has a fixed intention of returning for the purpose of continuing to live thereat.

That should clear up that matter. Senator Cant probably missed the explanation that I gave when I referred to the fact that voting would not be compulsory. The honorable senator asked whether, after returning from a special area or special service, a person could live to 90 years of age and still not have to enrol. When a person returns home and upon his reaching the age of 21 years, the ordinary enrolment provisions will apply.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The term “ real place of living “ is defined in proposed sub-section (4.) of section 39a. of the Principal Act, but I do not know what the definition means.

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

– Proposed sub-section (4.) of section 39a reads -

In the last preceding sub-section - “ real place of living “ has the same meaning as in the proviso to sub-section (3.) of the last preceding section;

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where is the proviso?

Senator McKELLAR:

– A moment or two ago I read what the Act says about the real place of living.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar) read a third time.

page 1152

HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL 1966

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1153

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Henry) agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1153

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to - That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1153

RETIREMENT OF MR. W. I. EMERTON

The PRESIDENT:

– I should like to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Emerton, Secretary of the Joint House Department, will attain the age of 65 years and will retire from the parliamentary service during the next recess. I am making use of this opportunity to make a few remarks about Mr. Emerton and his association with the Parliament. Mr. Emerton entered the service of the Commonwealth in 1917 and was appointed to the Taxation Branch of the Treasury in Sydney. He remained there until he transferred to Melbourne. When the Parliament transferred to Canberra from Melbourne in 1927, Mr. Emerton applied for the position of Clerk and Accountant of the Joint House Department, and, being the successful applicant, took up duty in the Parliament on 24th October 1927. Whilst he cannot claim to be one of the now select band who came with the Parliament from Melbourne, he was certainly one of the early pioneers of Canberra and of the Parliamentary Service.

In 1931, Mr. Emerton received a promotion to the Senate staff, occupying first a junior position and later rising through the echelon to become Usher of the Black Rod in 1942. Ultimately, in 1950, he was appointed as Second Clerk Assistant. During the war years he rendered valuable service as secretary of the War Expenditure Committee. In 1 954 he took the opportunity to return to the Joint House Department, this time as its permanent head, and he has been there since 1954.

Mr. Emerton has rendered very loyal service to the Parliament in the various fields in which he has worked, particularly in more recent years since he took over the responsibility of the Joint House Department. This Department has grown beyond recognition. I know only too well, because of my close association with it, together with Mr. Speaker, as one of the heads just how active the Department has become. We all remember with great pleasure the various State functions which have been held here and which have come directly under Mr. Emerton’s control. We know the efficient way in which those functions have been organised. The whole atmosphere of the work in Parliament House is a great credit to Mr. Emerton and his staff. It is to pay tribute to a man who has served a lifetime in the Parliament that I make these remarks this afternoon. On his retirement, Mr. Emerton intends to live in the Gosford district. We wish him a very happy retirement and we hope that in Gosford he will have an opportunity to engage in the various sporting activities in which he is so interested.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– Mr. President, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the Government, to support you in the comments that you have made about Mr. Emerton, who is soon to retire, at the age of 65 years, from the service of this Parliament. We all wish him the best of health in his retirement. I note with keen interest that he intends to live in Gosford and to do some fishing there. This is very interesting. I think fishing is a magnificent pastime. I hope that at some time I will be able to join him at Gosford, where I believe the fishing is very good.

Mr. Emerton has been an excellent officer. I note with interest that he began his career with the Taxation Branch of the Treasury. Perhaps this accounts for his keen mind and his practical approach to matters affecting the Parliament. He has always been of great service to us. We all wish him well. We trust that in his retirement he will enjoy good health and that he will have many years in which to enjoy the well earned rest that now comes to him as a reward for the very great service that he has rendered to the Parliament.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. President, on behalf of the Opposition I cordially endorse your remarks and those of the Leader of the Government (Senator Henty). Mr. Emerton has given a full working lifetime of useful and honorable public service to the people of Australia. He was a member of the distinguished staff trained by the late Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Edwards, which staff included our former Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Loof, and our present Clerk, Mr. Odgers. Mr. Edwards left an indelible mark on them all, as is shown by their competent and dedicated service.

We in the Parliament are specially indebted to Mr. Emerton for his service as permanent head of the Joint House Department during the last 12 years. I personally have a very pleasant recollection of my association with him, extending over 22 years. Everyone of us will miss his manly, jovial and friendly presence. I have a permanent reminder of him in my garden, where one of the choicest plants is a guelder rose bush which had its origin in his garden at Canberra. Members of the Opposition regret that Mr. Emerton has to leave us, but we are delighted that he retires in the best of health. We wish him and his charming wife, who is well known to most of us, health, happiness, prosperity and longevity in their retirement.

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

– Mr. President, I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Emerton for only seven years. I did not have the opportunity to know him when he was an officer in this chamber. I should like to join with you, Sir, and with other speakers in the expressions of goodwill to and appreciation of Mr. Emerton. We shall all miss his affability, his courtesy and his readiness to oblige. I feel that we will be very fortunate indeed if the functions which will be held in this place from now on are of the standard which was attained during the time of Mr. Emerton. I hope that he will prove to be more successful as a fisherman than I am. No doubt he will have a lot of fun trying. I express to him our best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

page 1154

QUESTION

DEFENCE

(Question No. 842.)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

How many (a) officers and (b) enlisted personnel were required to bring all regular units of each of the three defence services up to full establishment as at 28th February, 1966?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer -

Deficiencies against the authorised establishments of regular units at 28th February, 1966 were:

Officers Navy 219

Army 637

Air 314

  1. Other Ranks Navy 974

Army 4,353

Air 1,125

The establishments of the Services, to which these deficiencies relate, were those for the units raised at that stage of the planned build-up of the Defence forces. It will be appreciated that further units will be raised as the Defence Programme develops.

page 1154

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE REGISTRATION CARDS

(Question No. 850.)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen the report in “The Advertiser “ of 26th March 1966, that a senior official of the Department of Labour and National Service said that the Department had commenced investigating the destruction of National Service registration cards, and that youths who could not produce their cards on request would be liable to a fine of$100, and that those fit for service would probably have their deferment cancelled and be called up immediately?
  2. Does the report correctly indicate the intentions of the Government, particularly in respect to what appears to be a reprisal action concerning accepted grounds for deferment; if not, will the Minister take appropriate action to clarify the position?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. Section 31 (1) of the National Service Act confers the power both to grant and cancel deferments. If a person deliberately and flagrantly flouts the law under which he has been given privileged treatment through deferment he could hardly complain if his deferment was cancelled.

page 1154

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 906.)

Senator HANNAFORD:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a report from Bonn, West Germany, dated 26th April 1966, and published in the Australian press, to the effect that, despite a steady flow of about 3,000 West German migrants each year, Australia’s net gain from that source is only a few hundred a year?
  2. Is it a fact, as alleged in the report, which was issued by the West German Statistics Office in Wiesbaden, that this unsatisfactory net gain of migrants from West Germany to Australia has existed for several years, and, for the years, 1962 and 1963, Australia suffered a net loss of people through returnees exceeding migrants?
  3. In view of the great cost to the Australian taxpayer of the immigration assisted passage scheme, under which the great bulk of German migrants come to Australia and, also, in view of the fact that many Germans appear to be availing themselves of this scheme as a convenient and cheap means of having a tourist sojourn in Australia, will the Minister give a close scrutiny to German migration for the purpose of correcting this unsatisfactory situation?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers -

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth Statistician’s figures for German Settler Movements from 1959 to 1965, reproduced below, shows a substantial net gain each year, including the years 1962 and 1963.

I understand that as from 1959 German official migration statistics were compiled on the basis of householder registrations. Every person who intends to reside in Germany for longer than three months must register irrespective of nationality. (Prior to 1959 they were compiled on the basis of entry into or departure from Germany.)

The apparent discrepancy between the Commonwealth Statisicians’s figures and West German Government statistics arises because the Australian departure figures show German settlers departing, whereas the German arrival figures include all arrivals from Australia, i.e. not only former settlers arriving from Australia, but also all short-term visitors arriving for a period over three months, irrespective of their nationalities, whose last place of long term or permanent residence was Australia.

  1. The answers to 1 and 2 and the fact that assisted migrants who return within two years of arrival are required to refund the amount of Government assistance towards their passage costs, do not suggest that many German migrants are using the Assisted Passage Scheme as a convenient and cheap means of having a holiday in Australia.

Nevertheless, I am aware of the general problem of settlers returning and I have asked the Immigration Advisory Council to study all aspects of it. The subject is a most comprehensive one and the study therefore may take some time.

Senate adjourned at 3.58 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 May 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1966/19660513_senate_25_s31/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant