Senate
12 October 1966

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1966

Thu PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 951

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Will the Minister advise the Parliament whether commercial aircraft which remain overnight at provincial and country airports are guarded to the extent which rules out the possibility of mechanical sabotage?

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

– I ask the honorable senator to place the question on the notice paper so that I may get an answer for him from the Minister. It is a fairly wide, sweeping question. Whilst I can give a short answer to the effect that all normal precautions are taken, I think the honorable senator wants a more detailed reply.

page 951

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR PARTY

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Leader of the Opposition has announced that he will seek a personal interview with the United States President to explain Labour’s policy on Vietnam? In the light of the knowledge that the Australian Labour Party has several staled policies on Australian defence, and particularly the altered policy of the Party which calls for periodical review of defence treaties and alliances, would not Australia be better served by Labour’s making its policy clear prior to this visit?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition has indeed made the statement alleged as to seeking a special interview with the President of the United States of America. He may well have done so; I am just not quite certain about it. In reply to the second part of the question, I think it would be of great advantage if as soon as possible the Labour Party could select which of the various policies it has advanced is to be the one which it will propose at the election.

page 951

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COUNTRY PARTY

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– Can the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate inform me whether the Australian Country Party has any policy of its own on anything, apart from being an appendage of the Liberal Party?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Australian Country Party is a member of the Coalition Government of this country, and Country Party Ministers are members of the Cabinet of this country and of the Ministry of this country. As parliamentary members, as Cabinet members and as members of the Ministry, members of the Country Party join with the Liberal Party in the policy announced to the people of Australia as the policy of a composite Government, and that policy, at least, is quite clear and unequivocal.

page 951

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General indicate to the Senate the practicability of a telephone dialling system to operate between the larger centres in Tasmania and the mainland States, similar to that which operates between this city and Sydney and Melbourne? If it is proposed to extend this system in Australia because of frequent long delays, will Tasmania be given high priority?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 recall having supplied an answer a short time ago in relation to possible delays in certain parts of Tasmania. I think Senator O’Byrne directed some questions to me about the matter. 1 shall refer to the PostmasterGeneral the question that was asked by Senator Lillico. I think it would be true to say that the needs of Tasmania, as an integral part of the Commonwealth, are always properly and fairly looked at.

page 951

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate where he obtained the information [hat he mentioned when replying to Senator Webster’s question about the so called various attitudes of the Australian Labour Party on the subject of Vietnam. Did he get it from Press statements, or did he base it on other documents? I wish to ask him a further question, because I have been concerned about the types of questions that have been asked and have been accepted by Ministers. Does the Minister believe that Senator Webster’s question was of the type that he should answer in his capacity as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate? Would it not have been better for him to have ignored the question?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The statement that I made in reply to the question was based not on Press comments but on various statements about what the Australian Labour Party would do which have been made in this House and the other place by various members of the Labour Party and which are on record in “ Hansard “.

Senator Willesee:

– If they were made at various places, they were not Mr. Calwell’s. The question referred to statements by Mr. Calwell.

Senator GORTON:

– The Leader of the Opposition claims that the statements were not made by Mr. Calwell.

Senator Willesee:

– The Minister referred to statements made both here and in another place.

Senator GORTON:

– I accept the fact that not all the statements I referred to were made by Mr. Calwell. They were made also by members of the Australian Labour Party’s Foreign Affairs Committee and others. But if I am to be asked whether Mr. Calwell himself has varied his statements about the policy of the Labour Party visavis Vietnam, then I would say that 1 believe that he has made various statements on various occasions. I believe it would be quite wrong to endeavour to impose any form of censorship on questions asked in this place unless they are clearly of the gutter political type. I do not believe that the one in question was of that kind.

page 952

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I remind the Minister that during the last sessional period we passed a consolidated bankruptcy statute which represented the outcome of committee labours extending over a period of ten years. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that the statute has not yet been proclaimed. Is proclamation of the statute being delayed because of the preparation of rules? Will the Minister bear to the AttorneyGeneral a message asking him to consider the injustice that the continuing operation of the old statute is causing to people who can be made bankrupt merely for a debt of £50 and to creditors whose estates can be confiscated by the undue preference that is given to the Commissioner of Taxation under the old statute as against the remedial statute that we passed in the last sessional period? Will he ask that consideration be given to bringing the statute into operation?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I am not aware whether the statute has yet been proclaimed, but I infer from the question that Senator Wright is aware that it has not been proclaimed. I shall bring the honorable senator’s questions to the notice of the AttorneyGeneral, who no doubt will take them into consideration together with the possible requirement to consider whether the statute would be operative if rules had not been worked out.

page 952

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY ADULT EDUCATION

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research. In view of the fact that the Government’s ministerial statement on tertiary education indicated that the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Australian Universities Commission on university adult education, but would require the matter to be examined, why is it that Sir Leslie Martin has told the Adelaide University that the Government has in fact accepted his Committee’s recommendation on university adult education? Would the Minister inform the Sen-ate which of the two conflicting statements is correct?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I do not know what Sir Leslie Martin has told the Adelaide University, nor. did the honorable senator tell me what is the basis of the allegation that Sir Leslie Martin had told something to the Adelaide University. Of course, there can be no question but that the Government’s views and the Government’s proposed actions on this matter are in accordance with the statement made bv a member of the Government on behalf of the Government in this House. The relevant statement is available to the honorable senator who has asked the question.

page 953

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to you. Mr. President, because I am not satisfied with the reply given by the Acting Leader of the Government to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Do you think, Sir, that the question asked by Senator Webster, which provoked a similar question by Senator Kennelly, is within the ambit of the Standing Orders of the Senate, and that it contributes to the general good conduct of the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– Quite obviously, I found in the question nothing in conflict wilh Standing Orders, otherwise I would not have allowed it. As to the second part of the honorable senator’s question, I do not express opinions.

page 953

QUESTION

DEFENCE: RECRUITING

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence obtain for the Senate the cost of advertising through Press, radio and television during August last for recruits to the Army and the Navy? ls it a fact that, as a result of intensive advertising, the strength of the Army increased by one and the Navy by two? Does the Minister consider such high costs of advertising to be in reasonable proportion to the results achieved?

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. The honorable senator’s question has already been asked in another place and an answer has been given.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Can the Minister advance any reasons for the failure of the recruiting campaigns?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The honorable senator would be able to get from the Estimates the cost of advertising through various media to gain recruits for the armed Services, for the year covered by the Estimates. 1 do not know whether it would be possible or, indeed, of any significance to pick out a particular month to determine the cost of advertising in that month. These types of contracts would not be made month by month. They would be made to cover a considerable period, so that I do not think there would be any particular value in picking out one month. However, the information has already been presented, or will be presented in another place, and will be available to the honorable senator, as to the cost of advertising to gain recruits to the armed Services, and as to how the numbers of the armed Services are increasing over the period during which advertising takes place. From my recollection - and this will come out more fully during the Estimates debate - the numbers in all the Services are increasing not inconsiderably.

page 953

QUESTION

BERRY FRUIT PRODUCTION

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of a serious decline in berry fruit production in Australia? Will the Minister for Primary Industry have his Department make a survey of the Dandenong Hills area of Victoria with a view to establishing the potential for berry fruit production in that area?

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

– I shall convey the question to the Minister for Primary Industry “and see whether I can obtain an answer for the honorable senator.

page 953

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has he seen a report that intrastate airline operators in New South Wales, Airlines of New South Wales Ltd. and East-West Airlines Ltd., have discontinued flights to Collarenebri, Goodooga, Coolah, Lake Cargellico and Temora because runways at the aerodromes at those places are not capable of being used by Fokker Friendship aircraft? Was the Commonwealth Government or the Department of Civil Aviation consulted before those air services were terminated? Has the New South Wales Government approached the Commonwealth for a further review to be made of airline operations in New South Wales? So that such a review may be effected expeditiously, will the Minister give an assurance that the request of the New South Wales Government to the Commonwealth will be considered immediately?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, I did see a report concerning the discontinuance of flights to certain country areas. From my understanding of the report, the explanation given for the discontinuance by the airlines concerned was based on purely economic grounds. However, the honorable senator has asked a series of questions and, indeed, has tendered some information. For that reason I shall ask him to put the question on the notice paper and I shall obtain a detailed reply from the Minister for Civil Aviation.

page 954

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Minister advise whether the additional amount of $575,000 provided in this year’s Budget for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has been made available for additional coverage by A.S.I.O. officers at an ti- Vietnam demonstrations and for trailing anti-Vietnam demonstrators?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The honorable senator must know that the matter of the funds available for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is not one which is subject to questioning and not one which is detailed to the House, lt may well suit his purpose to indicate that the funds would be used for the purposes he suggested. Frankly, however, in spite of his call for demonstrations and for anti- Vietnam action, I very much doubt whether anything would be required for the kind of purposes he has suggested.

page 954

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. I ask: What is the latest information on the extent of the housing decline in New South Wales, and what are the reasons for it?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honorable senator inquires about the housing decline in New South Wales. The last figures we had regarding the position in New South Wales were not as good as we would like them to be, but we believe that these figures, like other housing figures in Australia, are increasing. He inquired about the reason for the decline. I do not think any particular reason has been given, but as I said yesterday, I believe that we are now, and that we have been for some time, seeing the benefit of the added assistance made available through the banks, through the additional money from the Commonwealth Government, the additional $15 million which was made available last March, and the money which is made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. All of this is, of course, making more money available for the building of homes. We see that the figures for approvals are increasing. I believe and I trust that there will be a continuance of this trend. I can assure the honorable senator that the Government is very conscious always of the importance of increasing the number of houses and that we will watch this matter most carefully. If I feel that further consideration by the Government is necessary, then of course I will bring the matter to the Government.

page 954

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES TRIBUNAL

Senator KENNELLY:

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, by saying that it is about six or eight months since the Trade Practices Bill was passed by the Parliament. I ask: Has the Trade Practices Act been proclaimed? Has the Tribunal which is to be established under the Act been constituted? What progress has been made in the appointment of staff? Could the Minister inform the Senate what progress has been made generally to have the provisions of the Act put into operation?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– From my recollection, all that I can tell the honorable senator at the moment is that the President of the Tribunal has been appointed. I think the appointment has been publicly announced. I do not know whether the other members of the Tribunal have been appointed. I think that the question should be put on the notice paper so that I can get from the Attorney-General the precise advances which have been made towards the implementation of the Act.

page 955

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, in which the Commission called for the building of plants to produce plutonium in order to provide atomic energy for peaceful purposes, Have any steps yet been taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I know of no steps that have been taken to build a plant along the lines suggested by the honorable senator. He may, if he so desires, put the question on the notice paper so that a more detailed answer can be given to it but I do not know of any steps that are being taken, and I am pretty certain I would know of them if they were being taken.

page 955

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation acquainted with reports currently circulating that the black box carried in the aircraft which recently crashed in the Winton district of Queensland was damaged to a degree that could have erased the recorded information for which the instrument is installed? In view of the discovery that in certain circumstances this invaluable information could be lost, will the Minister have a thorough inquiry made as to the possibility of modifying the instrument’s container so that it will withstand even greater stresses than those experienced in the unfortunate tragedy at Winton?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is my understanding that on 7th October the Minister for Civil Aviation issued a Press statement relating to the processing that is taking place regarding the data box. 1 understand that information is being obtained from the instrument. Because of some damage that was done to the data box, it might appear on the surface that slow progress is being made, but this is due to the very careful treatment that is being given to the box to ensure that the maximum information is gleaned from it. It is also my understanding that the information being obtained from the data box will play a considerable part in the ultimate evaluation of the circumstances of this tragedy. As to the generality of the honorable senator’s question about whether some other type of data box could be developed, let me say that this is clearly a technical question. I would imagine that the inquiry that is proceeding at the moment in relation to the Winton tragedy will examine this matter further. No doubt, comment will be made upon it. I want to leave my reply to the honorable senator’s question on this note: Quite considerable information is being obtained from the box that was recovered from the scene of the Winton tragedy.

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. What is the latest information on the likely approximate dates of completion of the international air terminals at Tullamarine and Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I ask the honorable senator to put his question on notice. Quite clearly, any dates for the completion of works projects are subject always to various influences.

Senator Murphy:

– Which terminal will be finished first?

Senator ANDERSON:

-For the reason I have given, I ask the honorable senator to put his question on notice. I will obtain a reply from the Department of Civil Aviation.

page 955

QUESTION

LODER REPORT

(Question No. 934.)

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

When will the Loder Report on northern freight rates be made public?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer -

The report of the Loder Committee deals with a wide range of matters of far reaching importance affecting all modes of transport throughout Northern Australia. It has been the subject of exhaustive study by relevant Commonwealth Departments. Consideration of the report by the Government is continuing and, in the meantime, it is not proposed to table the report.

page 956

QUESTION

IRON ORE

(Question No. 945.)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for National Development upon notice -

  1. Has the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. been granted a licence to export iron ore from Koolan or Cockatoo Island other than shipment to Japan of some ore for experimental purposes?
  2. Has the Western Australian Government agreed to ore being exported from these islands only on condition that B.H.P. develops iron ore deposits at Deepdale?
  3. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether B.H.P. intends to develop the Deepdale deposits in accordance with the agreement entered into between it and the Western Australian Government?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer -

  1. Apart from shipments made for experimental purposes. The Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. was given approval earlier this year to export relatively small quantities of Yampi Sound iron ore to Japan on a “ spot “ basis: however, no exports have taken place under these approvals as the company was not able to negotiate a sale with the Japanese steel mills.
  2. Western Australian Act No. 93 of 1965- The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (Export of Iron Ore.) Act - provides that B.H.P. may, subject to any licence required under Commonwealth law, export any iron ore from any of the deposits it controls in Western Australia. The effect of this Act is to remove previous limitations imposed by the Western Australian Government on exports from the iron ore deposits B.H.P. controls in Western Australia including the limitation under Western Australian Act No. 103 of 1964, Iron Ore (The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited) Agreement Act, that exports from these deposits: could not take place until the deposits in the Deepdale area had been developed.
  3. I am not in a position to answer this question definitely. I do understand that the company does intend to develop the Deepdale deposits, but I am not able to say how its plans are related to its agreement with the Western Australian Government.

page 956

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 996.)

Senator LAUGHT (through Senator

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

Have the translator television stations at Queenstown and Rosebery, in Tasmania, referred to in the Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, been successful?

Have plans been formulated to develop translator stations in any areas of South Australia? If so. in what areas, and when will they be developed? If not, why not?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers to the two questions asked by Senator Laugh t -

  1. Yes, but the full benefits of the Queenstown translator stations will not be achieved until the national station there is operating on its authorised power of 50 watts.
  2. No, but technical surveys have been made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in the Port Lincoln and Upper Murray Areas regarding the possibility of improving television service including the possible use of translators. The honorable senator may therefore be assured that consideration of the needs of South Australian areas in respect of television is not being neglected. With regard to the future extensions of the television services by either translator stations or other means,I have asked the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to prepare a report and recommendations to me and the whole question of additional areas throughout the Commonwealth to which it may be possible to extend the service must await the completion of the Board’s report.

page 956

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 1019.)

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Has the Postmaster-General noted the reported refusal of his Department to provide telephone and postal service facilities at the Savage River and Luina mining development projects on Tasmania’s west coast, on the ground that they are closed towns, being developed by private companies? 2.Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Government of Tasmania has undertaken to provide all the necessary services coming under State administrative jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth Electoral Office will provide polling facilities at these two centres on election day, 26th November?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General put an end to this anomalous situation by directing his Department to proceed with the installation of this essential service forthwith?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers -

  1. The Postmaster-General did see reports in the two Tasmanian newspapers of comments by the Tasmanian Premier with relation to the provision of telephone and postal facilities to the townships of Savage River and Luina.
  2. Yes.
  3. The provision of telephone service to the company settlements is undertaken by the Post Office under precisely the same conditions as apply to other applicants for country telephone services; that is, a maximum allowance of $1,056 per exchange line is granted. Normal non-official postal facilities will be established in these areas on a basis similar to that of non-official post offices established at many other places throughout Australia.

At Savage River, temporary telephone and postal facilities are available and negotiations are proceeding with the company for the permanent arrangements. Luina is just developing and discussions are proceeding with the company concerned for the establishment of telephone and postal facilities under similar conditions.

page 957

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1036.)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

In view of recent reports that crops in the Finschhafen area of Papua and New Guinea are not being harvested because of the inability of local people to transport their produce over areas where a primitive road system exists, will the Minister inform the Senate whether there are any plans for the construction and maintenance of roads in this part of the Territory?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Territories has now supplied the following answer -

The coffee producing areas behind Finschhafen are among the most rugged mountainous areas of the Territory, rising to between 7,000 and 14,000 feet above sea level. The produce is transported to the coast by small aircraft or by local people along native tracks. Some part of the coffee crops may, from time to time, be left on the trees in the more inaccessible areas owing to difficulties of transport.

Investigations have been made of the feasibility of constructing roads into these areas and of building airstrips to take larger aircraft. The problems, however, are formidable. Gradients are very steep, there is a lack of local road surfacing materials and the country is geologically unstable.

Consideration is being given to a proposal to construct aerial ropeways between Kabwum and Wasn on the coast and between Pindiu and Sattelberg to link the existing road system.

The possibilities of improving transport facilities in this area and other remote areas of the Territory are being kept under constant review.

page 957

METAL-WORKING CIRCULAR SAWING MACHINES

Report of Special Advisory Authority

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

– Pursuant to Statute, I present a report by the Special Advisory Authority on the following subject -

Metal-working circular sawing machines.

page 957

QUESTION

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Development of Airfield Pavements at Coolangatta Airport, Queensland.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work -

Development of Airfield Pavements at Coolangatta Airport, Queensland.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DITTMER:

– The recommendations and conclusions of the Committee are -

  1. In view of the impending introduction of Electra and DC9 aircraft on regular services to Coolangatta, there is a need for the improved pavements in this reference.
  2. The adequacy of the aircraft parking facilities should be kept under review to ensure that reasonable operational requirements are met.
  3. The construction of the works in this reference is recommended.
  4. The estimated cost of the works when referred to the Committee was$1. 3 m.

Rebuilding of H.M.A.S. “Nirimba”.

Senator DITTMER (Queensland). - I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work -

First Stage of Progressive Rebuilding at H.M.A.S. “ Nirimba “, Quakers Hill, New South Wales.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DITTMER:

– The recommendations and conclusions of the Committee are -

  1. There is a need to modernise H.M.A.S. “ Nirimba “.
  2. The sites chosen for the works in this reference are appropriate to their function.
  3. There is a pressing need for the barracks blocks.
  4. Wardroom accommodation of a better standard should be built.
  5. The new apprentices mess, galley and recreation centre is to be erected in the second phase of the rebuilding programme.
  6. There is a need for the proposed marina engineering demonstration building.
  7. The treatment room in the present sick bay should be improved
  8. The Committee recommends the construction of the works in this reference.
  9. The estimated cost of the works when referred to the Committee was $1,800,000.

page 958

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– by leave - I move -

That Standing Order No. 68 be suspended up to and including Friday, 28th October 1966 to enable new business to be commenced after half past 10 o’clock at night.

I would hope that we do not need to take advantage of this, but since we have agreed to new sitting hoursI think it wise to suggest that the motion be passed in case it is needed.

Senator WILLESEE:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– The Opposition does not offer any objection to this, because it follows, as the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gorton) has pointed out, the altered arrangements for the rest of the session upon which we agreed yesterday, namely, to shorten the lunch period and to sit a little later at night, in order not to have what are commonly known as allnighters. Therefore, having adopted these arrangements, it is necessary to all the Government to introduce new business after 10.30 p.m. As you know, Sir, the arrangements we have made are for this session. There is no precedent for them. This is merely an attempt by the Government and the Opposition to perform our business in a much more orderly fashion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 958

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11th October (vide page 929), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– On occasions which have been rare, as everyone will admit, I have had to take the opportunity of speaking other than in terms of praise of the Government and its actions. On this occasion,I feel, I have to castigate the Government.I know that many members on the Government side as well as those on the Opposition side will condemn the Government for its cowardly approach and Machiavellian device. Repeatedly, more particularly over recent years, we find that the Government, in order to limit debate and curtail criticism and even to eliminate helpful suggestions from the Opposition does not just bring in a bill saying that it is to amend a particular act. It brings in a bill saying that it is to amend a particular act in relation to particular features embraced in the act. This, of course, limits discussion. Far be it from me, Mr. Deputy President, to trade on your tolerance, because you and the President have been tolerant in your attitude to me. I realise that one can strain the patience of presiding officers too far and I do not propose to do it on this occasion.

This is a bill to amend the National Health Act, which in many ways merits a tremendous amount of alteration. It deserves a number of amendments, but we find that the amendments proposed are in relation only to pensioners, decimal currency and special accounts. Consequently, we are limited in our discussion to those particular features of the legislation. I propose to confine my remarks to those features, by and large. If I can get away with a little bit 1 shall do that, Sir, with your tolerance and Christian charity.I sympathise with the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who is in charge of the Bill in the Senate. She has a very difficult brief. More particularly do we realise this when we think of her charitable and sincere nature. She is more or less forced to utter words which do not convey her own impressions;I feel certain of thatWhen introducing the Bill, she merely repeats the words uttered by the Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes) in another place. She says that the proposed amendments represent improvements. Looked at on the surface, they may convey to the uninitiated a measure of improvement, but when one analyses their real effect in relation to what one might term the impairment of value of money, they represent no improvement at all. In fact, the proposed provisions do not parallel the financial circumstances that existed in 1959 when the amount of 36s a day, as it then was - $3.60 as it is today - was provided.

It is now proposed to increase this amount, which is paid by the Commonwealth Government throughout Australia in respect of pensioners who are not charged in public hospitals, to $5 a day. This is not the cost of accommodating a patient. As honorable senators on both sides of the chamber know, hospital costs have risen enormously in recent years, particularly in teaching hospitals in capital cities, where such a very large percentage of these patients are hospitalised. The proposed increase is a comparatively mean contribution. By and large, the great increase in the cost of hospital care has had to be borne by the States and it will have to be borne by them in the future. If Australia is unfortunate enough to see the present Government returned to office on 26th November, or whenever the forthcoming election is to be held, some considerable period will elapse before any relief is given because it has been the practice of this Government to alter these amounts only after lengthy intervals.

Many people of pensionable age but not in receipt of pensions are worse off than the pensioners. Surely the pensioners are badly enough off. The representations that are made repeatedly on their behalf suggest that the Government is miserable in its approach to the needs of pensioners. Many people who are of pensionable age do not receive pensions for various reasons, including their property holding. These people are deprived of pensioner hospital benefits. The Government should consider providing hospital care for persons of pensionable age who elect to receive such care.

The special accounts were established to meet the needs of people who, because their illness was chronic or because they had a pre-existing condition, were not acceptable to various benefit funds. The Commonwealth underwrites special accounts to ensure that contributors who otherwise would be refused fund benefits receive a combined benefit of $3.60 a day. This combined benefit is made up of the Commonwealth benefit of $2 a day and the standard rate fund benefit of $1.60 a day. The position is to be changed to provide for an increase in the standard rate fund benefit to $3 a day. The Commonwealth will underwrite this increase. With the Commonwealth benefit of $2 a day, a combined benefit of $5 will be payable.

When this scheme was determined in 1959 the amount payable met the current cost of treatment in most State public hospitals. But the combined payment of $5 a day which is now envisaged will not be nearly enough to meet costs in public hospitals in New South Wales and many other States. Fortunately, in Queensland the Australian Labour Party vigorously fought the Federal Government’s evil efforts to destroy the State’s free hospital system. The Labour Party was successful, and managed to retain the free hospital system, which had been in existence from 1953. That system is still in existence, even though the Queensland Country-Liberal Party Government would like to discard it. Some young Liberals and some older Liberals would like to discard the system, but the Queensland Government is not game to do so.

People with chronic illnesses are probably the least able to meet the cost of hospital treatment. The benefit that it is proposed to grant them will not be sufficient to meet current charges. Many of the States, because of the niggardly, selfish approach of the Commonwealth Government, which claims to be the defender of State rights, repeatedly have to lift hospital charges and to take steps to collect outstanding debts. This unfortunate group of people who are least able to bear the financial burden of hospitalisation must face up to it. The Government says: “ We will underwrite and assist to the extent of $5 a day.” It is insufficient to meet the bill. When considering the treatment of pensioners and people of pensionable age, I sometimes wonder whether the Government does not go in for a measure of window dressing. I would not like to be uncharitable on this occasion and suggest that the Government is window dressing on the eve of an election by trying to give the impression it is conferring a benefit when, in effect, the people benefiting from special accounts are worse off than they were some years ago.

The Opposition could have moved an amendment which, if accepted, would have increased the financial commitment of the Government, but I would say that such an amendment would be thrown out. The Opposition could have moved an amendment deploring the actions of the Government or making certain suggestions, but it has not done that. In an open and frank way we are tendering helpful advice. For years, anyone on a part pension or anyone earning over £2 a week, or £4 a week in the case of pensioner couples, was denied medical attention under the pensioner medical service. Following repeated attacks by members of the Australian Labour Party and by pensioner leagues in the States, the Government last year agreed that part and full pensioners and their dependants would be entitled to medical attention under the pensioner medical service, and to hospitalisation in public wards. It was a step in the right direction. It certainly did not involve a great number of people and did not cost the Government a tremendous amount of money. About 100,000 people were involved at a cost of a little over $4 million. The Government realised that an election was coming at the end of this year and thought that it might as well go in for vote catching. It thought that to extend the pensioner medical service was not a bad vote catching move.

The Opposition suggests that the means test should be abolished altogether. We know that the Government will not abolish the means test. It has no intention of doing so or of raising the permissible earnings of pensioners. Labour, of course, when returned on 26th November next will certainly set about abolishing the means test over the years, and will set about an amelioration of the means test in its first year of office. We suggest that it would not cost a tremendous sum of money for the Government to provide free hospital and medical services for all people of pensionable agc.

Another suggestion to benefit pensioners has been made over the years but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears or on the ears of an unsympathetic Government - an irresponsible instrumentality on many occasions. Neither the present Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes) nor his predecessors, nor the Government in general, have heeded the suggestion to provide specialist attention for pensioners. The point may have been raised by individual Government supporters at party meetings or at group meetings. 1 do not know. There is an evident need for specialist attention to be provided for pensioners. As honorable senators ate aware, the general practitioner service is available and, as far as this Go vernment and its immediate predecessors are concerned, that is the be all and end all of it. The only way that pensioners can receive free specialist attention is to attend public hospitals. Honorable senators opposite may say: “ Well, they can wait for attention, like others.” But pensioners cannot always attend at hospitals, and very often they are in need of specialist attention. In terms of the tremendous amount of money that is spent on medical, hospital and ancillary services, I doubt whether the amount required to permit all pensioners to have the right to receive specialist attention would be very large proportionately. I do not suggest that pensioners should have the right willy nilly to go to any specialist of their choice without reference by a general practitioner, but a tremendous number of pensioners and people of pensionable age need more than general practitioner services. If authority were given to general practitioners to recommend specialist treatment where necessary or in cases where it was justifiable, I do not think that would be stretching the bounds of charity.

When we look at the contribution made by the Government over the last financial year we find that 35 per cent, of the total cost of medical fees was met by the Government by way of its contribution. Forgetting for the moment that the contributors are the ones who establish the medical benefit funds, whatever their names and whatever their distributions may be, we find that the patients provided directly, apart from their contributions, 33 per cent. Those percentages may look all right, and it is true that there has been an improvement, but we must realise that as from 1st April last year the contribution by the Government increased in the case of general practitioners from 6s. to 8s. a visit and in the case of specialists when patients were referred to them by general practitioners, the contribution increased from £1 to £1 5s. This, of course, resulted in an increase in the percentage of the total cost contributed by the Government.

When we delve further into this position we find that for something over four months the fees of specialists and general practitioners remained as they had been for a period of two years. But as from 7th November, general practitioners in Australia without exception increased their fees substantially. Specialists have been doing similarly, and within the next few months I think it is inevitable that universally, all over Australia, they will increase their fees substantially. Therefore, the 35 per cent, contribution by the Government will drop automatically when there is a full year of increased fees. There is no suggestion that the Commonwealth will increase its contribution.

This scheme which was initiated by the late Sir Earle Page when he was Minister for Health, was sponsored by the LiberalAustralian Country Party Government. All credit to it for doing so. It was espousing a scheme which it thought was ideal in the way of a health service. However, at the time the scheme was introduced by Sir Earle Page it was mentioned that 10 per cent, of the amount of medical expenses had to be met by the patient. It was visualised at that time that 90 per cent, would be met by the Government and the medical benefit funds. Only 10 per cent, was to be met by the contributor, apart from his contribution to a medical benefit fund, in fact, the position has been different ever since the scheme began. I am not saying that the Government Parties were dishonest. 1 think that they were incompetent and did not know what they were dealing with. We find that very rarely has the patient received, from the fund and the Commonwealth contribution, much more than 60 per cent, to 66 per cent, of the total cost of his medical bill. So, when we remember the enormous expense involved, we have to face up to the situation.

The provision for increased hospital benefits embraces only those people who are contributors to hospital benefit funds, of which there are 111 spread throughout Australia. Some are big, some are small; some are efficiently conducted and some are not so efficiently conducted. Some of the funds are doubtful as to their future and some are not in any doubt because they built up reserves in the early days, although they may not be able to continue such a tremendous build up today. We find that $119 million is provided by contributors to funds and by the Government for medical services. This does not include those who come within the pensioner medical service or repatriation legislation or those who elect not to contribute to a fund. We find that hospital payments amount to $97 million. This embraces those who contribute to the 111 hospital benefit funds. I omitted to mention that there are 80 medical benefit funds of various types. The amount of $97 million does not include pensioners, repatriation benefit recipients or those who elect not to contribute to hospital benefit funds.

We find that $94 million is involved in pharmaceutical benefits. I may be straying a bit here and you, Mr. Deputy President, may say that this does not come within the ambit of the Bill, but I am speaking now of the general health services for the people This amount for pharmaceutical benefits does not include those prescriptions not embraced within the pharmaceutical benefits formulary or casual purchases of pills or potions over the counter. I have not mentioned nursing homes, which involve over $20 million. I have not mentioned dental expenses, which are terrific, and I have not mentioned home nursing services, physiotherapists and the 101 services that go to make up an efficient medical, hospital and ancillary services systetm.

The Government just drifts on from year to year. Sometimes it introduces an amendment when the burden becomes so heavy that the individual just cannot bear it. The Government lightens the burden a little and the patient then struggles on again feeling some relief until the burden again becomes so heavy that he just cannot carry it. When we think of the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in hospital, medical and other ancillary services, including dental care, are we not entitled to think it is time that the Government, instead of adopting a hotch-potch approach and giving a little bit here and a little bit there, made a complete investigation - even to the extent of setting up a royal commission - to determine the possibility of establishing efficient medical, hospital and other ancillary services which would be available to everyone in Australia? If the Government is returned to office after the next election - and Australia hopes it is not - it could decide for itself the way in which such a proposal would be financed - whether by taxation or by that process so beloved by the Government and its predecessors in which the poor pay an equal amount to the rich. Surely the time is long past when an inquiry should he made into all phases of medical, hospital and ancillary services in order to provide something that, is complete - something that will make a real contribution to lifting the health standards, and something thai will ease the financial burden now imposed on the people.

But the Government does virtually nothing. As I have said, every second or third year it introduces an amendment to the National Health Act. lt increases its contribution here or there for services, but to me and to many other competent judges and assessors the Government never appears to take an overall view of the health needs of the community. Surely the contribution that high standards of health can make to the wellbeing and contentment, and therefore the increased economic efficiency, of the community justify the Government taking an overall interest in this matter. But never a word along these lines emanates from the Minister. I am not speaking now in derogatory terms of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who is in charge of the Bill in this chamber. I know that the national health scheme is not her responsibility and that the Bill did not emanate from her. She has the duty to introduce the Bill into this chamber because she happens to represent the Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes), who is in another place.

The Government has the effrontery and political hide to talk about improvement of the national health scheme. The very first sentence of the Minister’s second reading speech was that the purpose of the Bill is to improve health services. As I have shown by cold figures, the Bill represents no improvement at all as compared with the position in 1959. It is just an attempt to delude the people. It increases to $5 a day the hospital benefit for pensioners and those who contribute to special accounts. But when the people receive their bills they will know that they have been deluded. The States know that the contribution for pensioners is not enough to meet hospital expenses. Surely this Government must accept some responsibility. 1 know that the Minister, when replying to the second reading debate, will have to put up a case, even though she may not quite believe in it herself because of her charitable nature and her sincere appreciation of the problems of people who are in difficulties. She will have to put forward the best case she possibly can with a bad case in order to try to get a verdict for the Government. But on this occasion she will not get a verdict for the Government. What has the Government done? It has provided increased hospital benefits for pensioners and for those who are classified in special accounts. Otherwise this is a purely machinery measure converting payments from pounds, shillings and pence into decimal currency. There is one question I would like the Minister to answer regarding the First Schedule. In Part II - Midwifery - there is provision for Commonwealth benefits for a caesarian section and postnatal care for nine days. But what happens to the poor, unfortunate woman if the medical care extends beyond nine days? Must the medical practitioner manufacture some condition to merit assistance or is it paid for-

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

– He can make an ordinary visit.

Senator DITTMER:

– If Senator Turnbull had waited without rudely interrupting me, I would have told the story.

Senator McManus:

– When doctors disagree.

Senator DITTMER:

– We do not disagree. We agree. But Senator Turnbull is trying to anticipate me.

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

– The honorable senator is taking so long to get there.

Senator DITTMER:

– No, I am not. I am putting this forward so that it will register with the Government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - Order! I suggest that Senator Dittmer come back to the Bill.

Senator DITTMER:

– I was just drawing the attention of the other honorable senator to this matter, after his interruption. The other way is for the doctor to send in a bill for ordinary visits and the 80c contribution by the Federal Government is made. That is in the case of a general practitioner. I take it then that, in the case of a specialist, similar remuneration would be made in terms of the allowances.

The position is this, Mr. Deputy President: The Government has been paltry and cowardly because it has used the device of bringing in a bill which specifies that certain conditions are being amended. Thus, discussion is limited and criticism is curtailed. It might be said that the Government is even lessening the possibility of a useful contribution being made to the debate by senators on this side of the chamber. My distinguished colleague from Tasmania, Senator Turnbull, probably has many helpful suggestions to put forward. He will be able to do so, with your tolerance, Sir, if he is permitted to go outside the limits imposed on the debate by the provisions of this Bill. Surely the Government which claims to be so proud of its record in the field of social services and medical and hospital care is anxious to have the widest discussion on its activities and on the limits of its abilities so that helpful suggestions can be made. Apparently, this is not the case. This means that the Government is frightened of criticism. It is frightened that the Opposition will pick loopholes in a particular act. Because of this fear, over recent years particularly the Government has adopted this nefarious practice of limiting bills to particular features of the principal acts which they amend.

I suggest to the Minister for Housing that she convey to her colleague in the other place, the Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes), and to her Government that the time is long overdue when a complete inquiry should be conducted into the whole of medical, hospital and ancillary services in this country in the light of the tremendous amount of money involved in the incomplete service provided now. I am not saying that the health systems overseas are the best in the world. But, at least in many countries, a complete service costing less than the service in Australia is provided. Let us learn from these services. 1 know that deficiencies exist in the national health service in Great Britain. Let us recognise the weaknesses in that service. But let us recognise also the good points of it and endeavour to bring into being in Australia a system which will make a contribution to lifting the health of every individual in this community so that each person is much healthier or is as healthy as is possible within the limitations of upbringing, constitution and so on. Let us make a contribution to the happiness of the people in our community. Certainly, we will be amply repaid by the contribution that these people would make to the increased economic efficiency of Australia.

Senator MCMANUS:
Victoria

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would be ungracious not to pay tribute to the fact that in the National Health Bill 1966 the Government makes some attempt to help the medically unfit to keep pace with rising medical costs. But while I pay tribute to what is being done in the Bill now before the Senate, I join with Senator Dittmer in expressing regret that we seem to be dealing with these urgent health matters year by year on a piecemeal basis. No attempt is being made to provide Australia with what practically every advanced country in the world has - a proper scheme of national health on a contributory basis and without a means test. I predict that, if we continue from year to year merely making this adjustment here and this adjustment there, particularly with the average age of the population increasing, we will eventually find that the health system will break down under the burden of increasing costs. So, I say once again that I hope that the Government, instead of dealing with the problem piecemeal will try to give Australia what other socially advanced countries have - a proper scheme of national insurance on a contributory basis.

I want particularly in my short remarks to refer to the plight of one group who, under our health scheme, I feel, suffer particular disadvantages. I refer to those people who suffer physical disability arising from injury to the spinal cord. I am advised that spinal cord injuries have the effect of rendering a person permanently paralysed in the legs and the lower part of the body. Such a person is known as a paraplegic. Where the injury occurs at a higher level - in the neck - a person is paralysed in the arms also. This disability is known as quadriplegia. What are the particular disabilities that these people suffer under our national health scheme? If we look at the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, we find that it enables a patient to obtain a wide range of pharmaceutical products on payment of the nominal sum of 5s. per prescription. This provision subsidises a very large drug bill in the community for people, some of whom may need the drugs and some of whom may not need the drugs. But the person with a severe physical disability, such as a paraplegic or a quadriplegic, is much more unfavorably placed. In general terms, the equipment which he requires to overcome his disability is not provided on a national health basis comparable to the provision of drugs.

No paraplegic can move from his bed unless he has a wheelchair, the basic cost of which can be quite considerable. These patients quite often require splints, crutches, rubber urinals, catheters and other items of medical equipment. These items have to be replaced from time to time. In the case of a person who is in an accident and obtains damages in a court of law, there will be provision for compensation. But to the person who is injured and receives no compensation the provision of this equipment can raise a major financial hurdle. If he cannot provide it, then his ability to move around and to try to live as a normal citizen is very severely handicapped. I hope that some attention will be given to the provision of the requirements of these people to the degree that provision is made for the requirements of others.

In what I am saying, I am relying on valuable information which has been supplied to me by a medically qualified gentleman who has devoted his life to the care of these people. He goes on, in the document that I have, to deal with the unsatisfactory nature of the provision that is made for these people, particularly when they are treated in public hospitals. He says -

The Spinal Injuries Centres are a part of a public hospital. These Centres are equipped to deal with the problems of physical rehabilitation. They are not equipped to deal with the problems of vocational assessment and retraining for a different occupation. These are peculiarly the role of the Rehabilitation Service of the Commonwealth Department of Social Services. However, and particularly in relation to the patient with a spinal cord injury, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centres leave much to be desired. In the first place, the patient with a spinal cord injury has problems of bladder and bowel re-education, which occupy much of the time which is usually required for rehabilitation. These special problems preclude the patient from going to a Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre until many months after the accident, and in any case the Medical and Nursing Staff in these Rehabilitation Centres is ill-equipped to manage these particular problems. Furthermore, as a general criticism, and on world standards, the staff of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centres are ill-equipped, either by academic training or by practical experience, to cope with major problems of physical rehabilitation. The problems of bladder and bowel rehabilitation on the one hand, and the deficiencies of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centres therefore, together militate against their useful employment in the assessment and training of paraplegic patients. Resulting from this, a load is thrown on the Spinal Injuries Centres to endeavour to compensate for this deficiency, and themselves to endeavour to secure retraining facilities and ultimate job placement.

A number of these people have to turn to the sheltered workshops. We hear a good deal about these workshops in Australia. It is pretty obvious from the available evidence that the sheltered workshops for handicapped people in Australia are worse than those in other comparable countries today. Mr. Fitzpatrick, the Chairman of the Australian Sheltered Workshops Association, expressed that opinion after a world tour that included countries behind the Iron Curtain. He felt that the state of our sheltered workshops was disgraceful in view of the high standard of living that we enjoy. Their deficiencies mean that there are inadequate places for those in need of sheltered workshop employment and that in many cases the facilities are sterile and unattractive.

Finally I wish to deal with the hospital treatment of these people. One of the big problems in Australia today is the provision of an adequate number of hospital beds. The medically qualified gentleman who has provided me with this information states, in regard to long term hospital care -

There is no hospital in Australia which provides suitable long term care for chronically ill people between the ages of 16 and 65 years (60 years if female).

That is as far as he knows. He continues -

It is emphasised that the majority of paraplegic patients will return home and lo employment, but there is a hard core of those whose disability is so severe that they will be unable to return home and will require long term nursing care for the duration of their lives This hard core of severely disabled people, and the lack of suitable long term accommodation in Australia, leads to the following problems -

Valuable public hospital beds are blocked by these patients. In this Spinal Injuries Centre the cost per bed per week is approximately $170. Pure economics demand that these beds shall be kept for patients requiring active medical treatment or active rehabilitation. The cost of a long term nursing care bed can be, and should be, greatly less than this.

Some of these patients are almost evicted from public hospitals due to the pressure of acute work; these patients may then find themselves in geriatric units, cither in the capital city or in the country. This leads to the unpleasant prospect of a severely disabled 20 year old being incarcerated in a ward with patients of 70 and 80 years, whose mental faculties are deteriorating–

Or have deteriorated. The. whole prospect is not a good one. He goes on to say -

Furthermore, one must add that the pressure on geriatric units is considerable, and even if one is able to achieve a place for a young handicapped person in a geriatric unit, it will frequently take several years to do so. In the meantime the patient is perforce maintained in an active treatment bed in a Spinal Injuries Centre. A patient with a long term disability . . . will also be unable to receive the necessary nursing care in a geriatric unit as these units are usually staffed by what is virtually a skeleton staff and certainly by a staff which is unable to provide the required quality of nursing.

Some other quadriplegic patients may find their way to private hospitals. In the majority of private hospitals inadequate nursing care is provided, even though the cost is high - often too high for a patient to go there. The only patients who do. in fact, go to private hospitals are those who are using the award of a court of law. It is ironical that a large award may perforce be spent in maintaining the patient in grossly unsuitable conditions with inferior nursing care and surrounded by old people.

Large numbers of quadriplegic patients are compelled to return to homes which are physically inadequate. In general, of course, the therapeutic aim is to return the quadriplegic patient to his home, but where the patient’s disability is gross this may not be possible. Other problems preventing the patient from returning home may be a breakdown in family and/or marital relationship directly caused by the disability of the patient, other sickness in the family. . . . Not least to be considered is the single migrant who has no home to which to return.

I mention these matters because it has been brought to my notice that in this respect we have a very serious deficiency in the provision of health facilities. I hope that the Department of Health will examine this problem and take measures to deal with it, because it is a very grave problem for the people concerned.

The question of the employment of these people does not come within the scope of this Bill; so I will not refer to it. I merely say that because of what I have heard about these people I have made representations to the Department of Labour and National Service in regard to their employment problems.I am pleased to pay tribute to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Bury) for informing me that he will arrange for consultation with his staff in an endeavour to do something constructive in regard to the employment problems. I hope that the Department of Health will adopt a similar constructive attitude.

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– As the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) said in her second reading speech, the purposes of this Bill are, first, to amend the definition of “ pensioner “ in order to bring approximately another 5,400 people within the ambit of the pensioner medical service; secondly, to increase the rate of hospital benefit payable to public hospitals for the treatment of public ward pensioners; and thirdly, to provide for an increase in the special rate of hospital benefit paid to pensioners with long term or chronic illnesses, who are contributors to the special accounts set up in registered hospital benefit organisations.

The Minister did not set out in her second reading speech the additional expenditure involved in bringing the additional 5,400 beneficiaries under the National Health Act. It is suggested - I take it, with some sort of pride - that the benefits of the pensioner medical service will now be provided to well over one million members of the Australian community at a cost in excess of $63 million a year. It is estimated that the increase in the rate of hospital benefit from $3.60 to $5 a day will cost the Commonwealth $6.6 million in a full year. It is estimated that the increase in the special rate of hospital benefit from $3 to $5 a day will cost in the vicinity of $2.5 million in a full year.

Because some benefit will accrue to some members of the Australian community as a result of the passage of this legislation, we members of the Opposition do not oppose it. But, equally obviously, the measures contained in it certainly will not mean a very big improvement. Having studied the measures contemplated in this legislation and having compared them with the figures available to us in the Annual

Report of the Director-General of Health, in company with Senator Dittmer and Senator McManus who spoke before me, I wonder how long the present arrangements for the health of the nation can continue, from both the economic and the social standpoints. I appreciate that the terms of the Bill are confined to pensioners, special account contributors and the application of decimal currency to the scheme. Because of the title of the Bill, the debate is very restricted. But I join with Senator Dittmer and Senator McManus in saying this is a great pity because if one peruses closely the statistical information in the report of the Director-General of Health, one must conclude that the time is long overdue for very close parliamentary consideration of the ramifications of the national health scheme generally.

One must conclude that it will not be very long before there is a breakdown in the present national health scheme. The report shows that only 76 per cent, of the community are covered by the 80 registered medical benefit funds. Whereas in its infancy the scheme was intended to return to a contributor 90 per cent, of the total outlay on medical expenses, the scheme today is recouping to contributors only some 60 per cent, of expenses. Surely, therefore, there, must be concern about this scheme among members of the Parliament. 1 realise that because of the restrictive nature of the Bill one cannot discuss all the difficulties, problems and anomalies of the medical benefits fund structure but because of the seriousness of the situation and the importance of national health, I hope the Parliament will be able to find the time in the near future to devote attention to this matter.

For the time being, let us examine the provisions of the pensioner entitlement cards as they are referred to in the Bill. As the Minister stated in her second reading speech, 5,400 more people will be covered by the scheme as a result of this legislation. In short, this means that roughly 8.8 per cent, of Australia’s population will be beneficiaries under the pensioner entitlement scheme. The report of the Director-General of Health shows that at 30th June this year, 6,034 doctors were participating in the scheme. Total payments to the participating doctors for the year exceeded $13 million and the average annual payment to each participating doctor was $2,246, or 43 per cent, above the average of $1,578 the previous year.

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

– The doctors have just had an increase.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Yes, 1 was about to say that according to the report of the Director-General of Health, this seems to have been brought about by an increase in fees payable to doctors from 1st May 1965. I think it is fair to say that to a lesser extent it is due also to the relaxation of the means test from 1st January 1966. We all know that from 1st January 1966, the pensioner medical service was extended to cover all people receiving full or part pensions from the Department of Social Services. But the surprising thing is that despite the increase of 42.3 per cent, in the average return to doctors participating in the scheme in the last financial year, the increase in cost has been minimal and in fact the average number of services per person enrolled in the scheme has dropped notwithstanding that from 1st January 1966 all pensioners under the social services scheme became entitled to pensioner medical services.

The figures set out in the report of the Director-General of Health at page 79 show that between 1965 and 1966 the number of people coming within the ambit of the pensioner medical service increased by 157,000. For these 157,000 additional people, there were 281,000 more surgery visits and 35,000 fewer domiciliary calls. All told, there was a total increase of 246,000 in the number of pervices provided to the additional 157,000 people. In other words, although 157,000 additional pensioners came within the provisions of the pensioner medical service, there was an increase of about .2 per cent, in the total number of services provided. The figures presented in the last column of this section of the report show that the average number of services per enrolled person dropped by 2 per cent, compared with 1965.

These figures must give the Minister and his Department food for thought because it appears that the overall cost of the scheme is not so much a question of the number of people who are covered but more a question of the fees agreed upon between the Government and the Australian Medical Association. I do not wish it to be thought for one moment that I am decrying the activities and the assistance of medical practitioners under the pensioner medical service. What I do say is that it is useless to argue that the scheme cannot be extended because the cost would be exceptionally high. The time has arrived when greater consideration can be given to an extension of the scheme to cover those who have contributed throughout their working lives by way of taxes to the national health fund but are ineligible for pensioner medical benefits because they are retired and are in receipt of superannuation. There are thousands of retired and superannuated Commonwealth and State public servants, police officers, railway workers and others in this category. Some of them receive just enough superannuation to preclude them from the provisions of social services legislation. Therefore they are outside the ambit of the National Health Act. According to the 1965 Year Book, there arc 1,295,000 people over 60 years of age in Australia. Already, 1,000,000 persons are covered by the existing legislation. I agree that many of them are invalid pensioners. But it would appear that it would cost very little to extend the legislation to cover those who have given service to the community and who in their retirement are not entitled to the security of the national health scheme.

In any event, one can fairly say that the existing scheme does not go far enough to cater adequately for the needs of beneficiaries. For instance, it does not recognise the treatment of pensioners by dentists. A pensioner may have bad teeth. He has to pay for the dental treatment involved to have those teeth corrected. If those teeth poison his system, he can go to a doctor and receive medical attention for the medical complaint involved. The scheme does not recognise optometrists. It does not recognise the need of elderly people in the community to receive physiotherapy treatment. It does not provide for free ambulance service for pensioners, or for specialist services. I suggest that even for those who are covered by the existing legislation - which is to be extended slightly by this Bill - the scheme falls far short of a proper and adequate standard.

So much for pensioner medical benefits. Now let me turn to the question of hospitalisation. An increase in the amount payable by the Commonwealth from S3. 60 to $5 a day is proposed, in other words an increase of $1.40 which, translated to old monetary terms, is a mere 14s. The staggering costs involved in hospitalisation and the conditions under which some hospitals labour are a shocking indictment of the community and of the Australian Government in particular. In the Sydney “ Sun “ of 20th September last was an article referring to the Lewisham Hospital casualty section, which had been visited recently by the New South Wales Minister for Health. The article stated that the Hospital’s casualty section was known to staff members as the dungeon. The article went on to state -

It is a 78 years old draughty, dilapidated basement maze of corridors and tiny rooms originally intended as storage closets. The corridors arc dusty and germ laden, with plaster flaking off the walls. Doctors and nurses say the section has appalling defects from proper medical standards.

The unfortunate thing is that this sort of situation applies not only to the Lewisham Hospital in Sydney. Unfortunately, it is rather typical of many which occupy temporary structures that were erected 20 or 25 years ago to cope with the war needs of the time and are still being used as wards or as part of hospital annexes. Without doubt, the system of financing hospitalisation in this country is overloaded and top heavy. One has only to see the situation in relation to hospital contribution funds.

According to the Commonwealth Director-General of Health, there are 111 hospital benefit funds covering an estimated 78 per cent, of the Australian community. According to an answer supplied recently by the Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes) to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), in another place, payments made to registered hospital benefit organisations by their members during the financial year 1964-65 amounted to $58 million, and payments made to registered hospital benefit organisations by the Commonwealth during the financial year 1965-66 amounted to $22 million. The amazing thing is that the aggregate reserves of registered hospital benefit organisations amounted to $52,969,000 as at 30th June 1965. Although these large reserves are being held back, in all States in the last financial year hospital fees were increased substantially. In my own State, New South Wales, the present Government increased public ward fees by $15 a week, making the charge for a public ward now $57.40 a week, yet the amount to be recouped by the Commonwealth is to be a mere $35 a week. In other words someone other than the Commonwealth will have to find an amount of $22 a week to cover hospitalisation of pensioner patients in public wards.

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

– A pensioner does not pay anything.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– A pensioner does not, but the community in general has to find this money. Fees are being increased in all States because this problem is not being tackled effectively on a national basis. Intermediate fees in New South Wales rose by S17 a week, making the charge $81.90 a week. Private ward fees were increased by $21 a week to an all time high of $104.30. We have been reading recently in newspapers suggestions that there is likely to be a further increase during the course of this financial year. As I have said, the aggregate reserves of hospital benefit organisations amount to $52 million, yet institutions such as the Lewisham Hospital are labouring under appalling conditions of the type to which I have referred. Hospitals are relying on charity workers to help them balance their budgets. Nurses are threatening industrial action to obtain better working conditions and higher rates of pay. People are giving false names and fictitious addresses because they cannot afford to pay their bills.

I have read that last year public hospitals in New South Wales alone wrote off some $6 million in outstanding accounts. According to an answer provided to me by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, the Commonwealth wrote off $25,000 in bad debts incurred by public hospitals coming under its jurisdiction. Because national health is of such importance and because the expenditure involved is very large the services provided are unreal and present a very dismal picture. I suggest that the situation has rather worsened. A week or two ago the Chairman of the New South Wales Hospitals Contribution Fund attacked the Federal Government’s policy on uniform health benefits.

The report of Mr. Harrop’s comments states -

He told the H.C’.F.’s annual general meeting that the fund could now afford to pay much higher benefits without increasing contributions.

The Federal embargo on the use of income from accrued excess reserves to provide extended benefits prevents contributors from obtaining their proper advantage from growing equity in the fund,” he said. “ Registered benefit organisations are not uniform. “ Restriction of competition in this way gears every fund inevitably to the performance of the weakest.”

A sum of $52 million is held in reserves while the hospitals are crying out for more money to be made available to enable them adequately to provide the services that the community needs. Although the fee charged for a bed in a public ward in a New South Wales hospital is approximately $57 a week, under the present legislation the amount to be made available will be only $35 a week.

I believe, as do all members of the Opposition, that health services should be of as high a standard as possible. There is certainly room for much improvement. Health services should be provided as efficiently and as economically as possible. But under the existing arrangements that certainly is not the position. A comprehensive and adequate service should be available to all citizens. Under the present arrangements such a service is not available. There must be a complete and thorough overhaul of the economic and social aspects of the national health scheme. I deeply regret that the provisions of this Bill will not allow us to have a complete and thorough debate on the problems that face the Australian community. I believe that only a Labour government, dedicated to the advancement of the health of all members of the Australian community, can adequately tackle this huge task.

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

– Before I make a few pleas to the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who represents the Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes) in this place. I would like to point out to Senator McClelland that if the Lewisham Hospital is in the state in which he says it is only one Government can be blamed. I refer to the former Labour Government of New South Wales, which was in charge of that Hospital for many years. Nobody else is to blame if the Hospital is in the deplorable state in which he says it is.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It still needs fixing up.

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

– That is so. But I wanted to point out that Senator McClelland should be blaming his own former State Government for its failure to do something.

Senator McClelland:

– I am blaming the Commonwealth Government for not providing sufficient funds to the State for hospital purposes.

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

– Let us not say that it is the Commonwealth’s fault, because when the Commonwealth apportions its turkey to the various State Premiers it is up to the State Governments then to decide in which way they want to spend the money. lt is for them to decide whether they want to spend it on power, roads or on anything else. That is their business. If they want to spend it on health, as we did in Tasmania, that is so much to the good.

Senator McClelland:

– The honorable senator did a bit of whingeing when he was u State Minister.

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

– Of course I did. That is pure politics. Surely everybody does

I hat. I do not think the State of Tasmania ever had it as good as it has now. It has had a much better carving up of the turkey than any other State, mainly because of shrewdness-

Senator Gair:

– It has the Commonwealth Grants Commission behind it. too.

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

– -That is true. But I do not think we should continually blame the Commonwealth. I would like to talk about the pensioners. It was the Australian Medical Association which in 1954 and 1952 - I cannot remember the precise date - restricted the number of pensioners who could be treated under the pensioner medical service. I pay tribute to the Australian College of General Practitioners, which really motivated the opening up of the pensioner medical service to all who were in receipt of pensions. We are very glad to be able to say that the Australian Medical Association was persuaded to agree to this. The result is that we have not two classes of pensioners when it comes to the provision of medical service.

The proposal contained in the Bill will mean that 5,400 more people will be brought under the scheme. For heaven’s sake, let us make the position clear. We do not want any more bellyaching on the part of the Director-General of Health when the pharmaceutical bill rises again. As will be seen from the report of the DirectorGeneral, the number of prescriptions per head is far greater in the case of pensioners than for the ordinary members of the community. Table 25 attached to the report of the Director-General of Health for 1965- 66 shows that the number of prescriptions issued per head of the pensioner population was 11.63 and for the population excluding pensioners the number was 2.61. Inevitably there will be a sharp rise in the cost of pharmaceutical benefits. No doubt the blame will be attached to the drug detailers and the medical practitioners for supplying what the Government says they can supply. The Director-General’s recent statement about drug detailers was the most ludicrous statement ever made by a Director-General.

I make a plea to the Minister for Housing to take up another matter with the Minister for Health. I refer to a situation in which a general practitioner who is treating a patient in bed at home needs a specialist opinion. I suggest that this service should be paid for by the Commonwealth. I am not asking for a complete specialist service to be provided, because that is already provided by the public hospitals. I suggest that the general practitioner should be allowed to certify that the specialist service is required and that, if he does so, then the pensioner should be provided with the service. The only thing we can do at the moment is to send the patient - he might be bedridden and his condition might be acute or chronic - to a public hospital by ambulance to get an opinion. That causes a certain upset to the family. Such a procedure is nonsensical. It increases the costs of public hospitals and also uses beds. 1 suggest that, with a bit of co-operation from the Government, we could well get specialist treatment for people who are confined to their beds.

I again put in a plea for single pregnant women and pregnant girls who marry just before the arrival of their baby. In this matter we set ourselves up as the arbiters of the morals of the country. It does not matter to me whether a girl is single or not; she is producing another Australian. That is the way in which we should look at the matter. I have been attacked by some medical benefit societies. They have said that I have been wrong in my comments, because some societies do provide a benefit for girls in this situation. But only some do so. If the medical benefit societies want more to do, then they could help these girls through their special accounts. If these societies are so poor that they cannot carry this little extra burden, then the Government could help. The cost would not be very great.

When I first went into practice 30 years ago, the age of single girls who found themselves in this situation was usually 17 or 18 years, but today the average age is 14 or 15 years. As I said earlier, with the exception of a few societies - I must exclude the few societies who do provide a benefit - no financial help is provided for the single girls when they go to hospital. If these girls, whether or not they are engaged, decide to get married, another conflict arises if they are not married 10 months before the birth of their child. Why are they not entitled to some benefit from the funds? I will keep plugging for this assistance. After all, it took only four years to get the Government to do something for mentally ill people. It has not gone the whole way, but at least it has gone a long way towards the desired situation. I hope that, by raising this matter a couple of times each year, eventually the Government will do something for pregnant single girls who are not covered by the provisions of the hospital and medical benefits funds.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The honorable senator can emulate Robert Bruce and the spider.

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

– That is right. I know that the Minister will take up this matter and see whether something can be done. I refer now to what is known in Tasmania as item 6 in the Schedule. Honorable senators may see in the Schedule items 1 to 4, and then another group is listed. Some of the medical benefit societies are now paying an extra amount for visits to the home. In Tasmania, doctors mark these visits as item 6, and I presume that the practice is common throughout Australia. Some medical benefit funds will pay an extra amount for home visits because doctors charge more for them than for surgery consultations. While the charge for a surgery consultation is $3, the charge for a home visit is $4. All medical benefit funds in the old days paid, and most medical benefit funds today pay the same amount to a contributor irrespective of whether it is for a surgery consultation or a home visit. The Commonwealth pays the same amount in each case. It does not distinguish between the two, but accepts in principle, in regard to pensioners, that there is a differentiation. For a domiciliary visit to a pensioner a doctor is paid more by the Commonwealth than for a surgery consultation. As the Commonwealth Government has accepted that there is a distinction to be drawn between a home visit and a surgery consultation, and that a home visit is worthy of increased payment to a doctor, surely the same principle should apply in respect of medical benefits. All medical benefit funds should be forced to pay an increased amount for home visits, as is done with what is termed item 6 in Tasmania. I do not want the Minister to tell me that the Government cannot do anything with the medical benefit funds. The Commonwealth Government has them right under its thumb. They cannot move without the Commonwealth Government’s telling them what to do. There is no reason why the Commonwealth Government should not tell the funds to pay benefits to single pregnant girls, and to pay a greater amount for home visits.

I am pleased that Senator McClelland referred to the reserves held by the medical and hospital benefits funds. It is fantastic that these mutual concerns should now have reserves of $53 million. About four years ago when I first raised this matter in the Senate I was told that the societies must build up reserves in case of an epidemic. The situation is comparable to that of life assurance companies who say: “ We have to be paid extra premiums to cover the people who are enlisting and might be killed”. More people are killed on the roads than in wars. The hospital benefit section of the societies does not pay. The medical benefit section does pay. The reserves that have been accumulated should be used to distribute greater benefits to contributors. The funds would do so, as any private company would do, but are prevented by the Commonwealth Government. Nobody else is to blame. The blame lies fairly on the Commonwealth Government which says: “ You will not increase your benefits “. Why? Because some of the smaller hospital and medical benefits organisations might have to close down. What does it matter if they do close down?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Administrative costs would be reduced if some of the smaller funds closed down.

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

– Exactly. They should close down if they cannot compete with (he bigger organisations. The Commonwealth Government supposedly is a private enterprise Government, but its actions do not prove it. It should allow the medical and hospital benefits societies to pay in benefits what they think they can pay without upsetting their financial positions.

I have referred on several occasions to the Commonwealth contribution. I have said that it is ridiculous that it should remain static until public revulsion builds up to the point where an increase is made. The amount of the Commonwealth contribution should be tied to the basic wage and then we would not have to fight about it every year. Some of the medical and hospital benefits organisations would be happy to increase the benefits they pay out, but they are not allowed to do so. It is an absolute disgrace to the Government. It has said: “ You must not increase the benefits “. The result is that contributors to the funds do not receive their entitlements.

I come to my final point, which has been referred to already by Senator McManus, Senator McClelland and Senator Dittmer: It is time that we had a national compulsory insurance scheme. All the medical and hospital benefits organisations are making money and employing large staffs. Each one is devoting about 15 per cent, of its income to the upkeep of its staff. That 15 per cent, could be distributed to contributors. The funds could be abolished and one man - the Commissioner of

Taxation - appointed to collect on behalf of everybody for a national insurance scheme. Everybody should be compelled to be insured. That is the only way to get over a lot of the problems associated with medical and hospital benefits organisations.

I shall summarise the points I have raised: I ask honorable senators not to blame the doctors and the drug detailers when the cost of the pharmaceutical scheme rises because of the increased number of pensioners. I ask the Government to act to give free specialist treatment to bedridden pensioners. I ask the Government to talk to societies so that single pregnant girls may be paid adequate benefits. I do not think that legislation would be necessary in this respect. Increased medical benefits should be paid for home visits. The medical benefits funds should be allowed to increase their benefits. Finally, I ask the Government, please, to do something about the establishment of a compulsory national health insurance scheme.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- The Senate is debating the National Health Bill and, in particular, benefits for pensioners, contributors to special accounts, and the conversion of the Bill’s monetary provisions to decimal currency. My main purpose is to draw the attention of the Senate to a characteristic peculiar to Australians. We are discussing an outstanding contribution by way of assistance in the pensioner field, yet honorable senators who have preceded me in this debate have not drawn attention to the great benefits that flow from this legislation.

We have heard ideas for improvements in the future, but let us look at the background of this legislation. This Bill contains the Government’s proposals which were included in the Budget at the beginning of this sessional period. They are now before the Senate in solid form. These proposals will cost the Australian community a great deal of money and will add considerably to the numbers of persons who are entitled to receive benefits. They will also contribute a good deal financially to existing hospitals. As Government senators we should be proud that in this particularly difficult year the Government has found it possible not only to add to the benefits that will be available to pensioners but also to enlarge the circle, as it were, so that the number of those who receive benefits will be increased. We are dealing with a short Bill, Mr. Deputy President, in that the wording of the Bill covers no more than two pages, but the Schedule attached to the Bill is a 30 page closely typed document, and it is from .he Schedule that the medical profession will derive assistance.

As a supporter of the Government I am proud to say that by means of this Bill some 5.400 additional persons will be brought into the field of pensioner medical benefits. I believe that this wonderful contribution by the Government is worthy of our heartiest commendation. These benefits cost the community well over $63 million a year. In a most difficult year the Government has found it possible to assist people who arc in need of assistance. In relation to the National Health Scheme, 1 believe that congratulations are due to the medical profession for the way that members of the profession have performed during past years. Indeed, the profession is held in the highest esteem in the community. Its contribution io this scheme and its assistance to pensioners is well worthy of comment.

In addition to the fact that an extra 5,400-odd individuals will now be able to obtain benefits, I believe that the proposals in relation to free general medical practitioner attention which will flow to pensioners from the Bill before the Senate are well worthy of note. Hospitals will receive assistance by way of increased payments from the Commonwealth during this year. Wc have heard of the problems which beset, public hospitals in nearly every State of the Commonwealth. Under prior legislation arrangements existed for pensioners and their dependants to receive free public ward treatment in public hospitals. That is something of which this community should be proud. Indeed, I have not heard it said that there is a better medical scheme in any other country, but 1 have heard it said on a number of occasions that the Australian health scheme, which was introduced by the late Sir Earle Page, a former Country Party Minister, is one of which we may justly be proud.

Previously the Commonwealth contributed at the rate of $3.60 per day for each pensioner, or his or her dependant, treated in the public ward of a public hospital. That amount is being increased by 40 per cent. The comment may be made that even the -increased amount of $5 a day is insufficient, but surely we should consider the fact that the Federal Government, with due regard to the difficulties involved in financing public hospitals at this time, is able to increase its contribution by 40 per cent. That is excellent. We on this side of the chamber are particularly proud to be associated with that development. I believe that over a period this will greatly assist hospitals with their financial difficulties.

I note that, these increases will be paid as from the beginning of next year. I hope that this Bill will be passed without any particular difficulty. It is pleasing to note that the Opposition supports the Bill in its present form. It is of interest that 78 per cent, of the Australian community have taken out insurance and are covered by the schemes operated by the various hospital and medical benefit organisations. This Bill provides for an increase iri the standard rate fund benefit to $3 a day. To that will be added an additional amount to enable the payment of $5 a day to be made under the standard rate. With one or two of the former speakers in this debate, I believe that the funds being accumulated in some of the hospital and medical benefit organisations should be looked at. I do not doubt that those who manage the organisations would be very keen to do so, having regard to the greater area now to be covered. They have established financial reserves, with the encouragement of the Australian community and the Australian Government. The work of the organisations over the period since their establishment has been very fine, and I have no doubt that they would be interested to find a wider field for contributions. Great cost to the Commonwealth is involved in increasing the standard rate benefit. That cost amounts to approximately $2.5 million in a full year. This proposal will commence as from 1st July 1967.

The final provision of the Bill relates to the conversion of amounts in pounds, shillings and pence to dollar currency. As I have said, the Bill is not great in detail but it is great in terms of the effect that it will have on the community. I heartily congratulate the Government not only for its Budget proposals but also for the fact that it has introduced quickly these benefits which will apply to such a greatly increased number of pensioners. 1 also congratulate the Government on the fact that it has been able to find the finance to contribute so greatly lo the health standards of the pensioner section of the community. I have great pleasure in endorsing this Bill.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the Bill with some diffidence because 1 regret very much that the Government has on this occasion limited discussion of the national health services by introducing not amendments to the National Health Act but a completely new Bill. Our discussions, therefore, are confined to certain aspects of the national health of the community. 1 noticed that Senator Webster took great pride from the fact that by means of this Bill so many more pensioners are to be granted free medical services.

Senator Webster:

– Surely the honorable senator is proud, too.

Senator TANGNEY:

– 1 am glad that the Government has in part seen the light. However, I inform the honorable senator - this was much before his time; he was only a boy at school at the time- that the Australian Labour Party, acting on a report which was brought down by an all Party committee of which I happened to be a member, introduced a completely free health service under which pensioners and all others could receive free treatment in public hospital wards. It was not just a national health service for pensioners. It was a service for all the people in the community. That was one of the very first measures piloted through this Parliament by Senator McKenna when he was Federal Minister for Health. I regret very much that that scheme was not continued.

Senator Gair:

– It was adopted only in Queensland.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Yes. Queensland is the only State in Australia which provides free treatment for all patients in public hospital wards. 1 think that Senator Gair and his predecessors in office in Queensland are to be congratulated on having maintained the scheme.

Senator Gair:

– The big fight took place during Sir Earle Page’s time.

Senator TANGNEY:

– That is right. Senator Gair and his predecessors are to be congratulated on having maintained a free hospital scheme in Queensland against great odds and against pressure from the Commonwealth at that time. There is really nothing in this Bill to which we can take exception, although the fact that it is confined to three aspects limits the subjects that we are permitted to discuss. I should like to congratulate Senator McManus for having raised in the debate an aspect of national health with which I have been long concerned. I refer to the treatment of paraplegics and quadriplegics. In Western Australia at the present time we have a public appeal for money to build a new centre for the treatment and care of people who are so afflicted. Some years ago I tried to get this Government to interest itself in housing proposals for paraplegics who were able to return home but who had special needs regarding housing. 1 feel that it is rather an indictment of the powers-that-be that although we can spend millions of pounds in trying to find ways of getting to the moon and to outer space, we cannot provide, through our housing authorities, houses with the necessary fitments for these disabled people.

I hope that the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) will bear in mind what I am saying. I am not criticising her, because she did not occupy the portfolio of Minister for Housing at the time when I introduced this subject some years ago. The provision of housing for the disabled should be regarded as a very important part of the Commonwealth’s housing policy. Much more could be done in this regard. Many crippled people could return to their homes if they had proper equipment such as ramps instead of steps, passageways wide enough for wheelchairs, and all the various fitments which are designed to help the disabled to become self sufficient. I think that this is a matter to which some attention could be given. In Western Australia today there is a move to provide suitable housing for these people within easy reach of the paraplegic centre where they can receive the necessary treatment. The thing that is wrong with this Bill and with our whole approach to national health is that we are just picking out a little bit here and a little bit there. We are not getting an overall picture and we are not creating a truly national health scheme, lt is like making doughnuts and only making the holes. 1 come now to Senator Turnbull s claim that some funds do not pay benefits to unmarried mothers. This again is a field in which the Commonwealth Government could play a part. 1 have received representations from doctors and from institutions which are helping many of these unfortunate girls. They are not really bad girls, otherwise they would not be having babies. They find themselves not only in emotional difficulties but also in financial difficulties because of lack of help at a very tragic time in their lives. I hope that some consideration will be given by the Minister to these aspects of our national health programme. 1 regret very much that the Bill does not extend the provision of specialist services to pensioners, so that they will be able to go to a specialist’s surgery and receive attention. / know how expensive medical treatment is and how often patients are referred to specialists by their own doctors. They go and see the specialists in their rooms anc! receive treatment from them. But unless a pensioner is an inmate of a public hospital or is able to get specialist treatment in a public hospital, he is not able to receive specialist treatment, even though his own doctor may recommend it.

The benefits that are provided in the Bill are most inadequate. Less than a month ago a 50 per cent, increase in Western Australian hospital charges was announced. Charges in public wards will rise from $7 to $10 per day from 1st November, although the added assistance provided under this Bill will not come into effect until the beginning of next year. What is going to happen during the intervening period? According to figures quoted by Senator Webster, 78 per cent, of Australians are enrolled in the various hospital benefit schemes. But people have to contribute to these schemes. They must pay this tax to bodies which have no responsibility to the community as a whole, such as the Parliament has. We believe that instead of paying this tax - of course, it is not called a tax - to these bodies which are building up great assets, people should be covered by a national health scheme. A Government instrumentality could function much more economically than can this multiplicity of hospital and medical benefit funds. According to figures given in another place, there are about 188 different health insurance societies throughout Australia. They have big staffs and are functioning in big offices. They do not operate in back lanes. Ever since hospital and medical benefit schemes have been in operation, these societies have increased the standard of their office accommodation and the numbers of their staffs. None of them is going bankrupt. They are fairing quite well. I feel that a number of additional services could be provided without even increasing the present contribution rates.

We do not have a national dental scheme and there is nothing in this Bill to provide one. Dentists and doctors throughout Australia are clamouring for a dental health scheme. Good teeth are the basis of good health, just as bad teeth can cause bad health. The object of any national health scheme should not be only to cure the sick but to keep the healthy people well. I think that the provision of an adequate dental scheme would be one way of doing this.

No matter how we might try to put health and social services into two separate compartments, they are inter-related. I would like to see our social services and health schemes reviewed by a joint committee of this Parliament, as was done more than 20 years ago. Senator Webster said that this is a very difficult year because the Government is spending so many millions of dollars. But there was not a more difficult time in the history of this nation than the th Re years between 1943 and 1946. If Senator Webster had been at the age of reason at that time he would know that this was so. Yet, during those three years, many social and health services were introduced, largely because of the work of the committee, to which I referred. Its Senate members included Senator Sir Walter Cooper and myself, as well as Senator Foll, a former member of this chamber. Representatives of the other House included the late Mr. Rupert Ryan, Sir Frederick Stewart, Mr. Daly and Mr. Haylen. We all worked, not as members of individual parties, but as members of a committee trying to devise the very best social service and health schemes that this nation could sustain. We cannot afford to have people out of industry for any length of time. We cannot afford to have a sick community.

I was interested in Senator Turnbull’s reference to the fact that Tasmania has done very well out of Commonwealth grants. It deserves to do so. The Social Security Committee of the 1940s toured the whole of Australia. As a matter of fact a critic of mine in Western Australia referred to me as the itinerant senator because I seemed to be always absent from the State travelling around the Commonwealth with this Committee. Of all the hospital schemes that we saw at that time, we found that one of the best was operating at Queenstown on the west coast of Tasmania. This was an excellent scheme and it became the basis for the hospital scheme ultimately Introduced by the Labour Government. The area school educational system in Tasmania was also first class. Tasmania has always been one of the leading States in health and social services. I do not want to see retrogression. This Bill is extending the scope of the national health scheme in the direction of the 1949 standard. In those days everyone was covered. I could say quite a deal about the necessity for adequate co-operation from doctors. I do not want to attack the doctors; I owe too much to them.

Senator Dittmer:

– The honorable senator had better not attack them.

Senator TANGNEY:

– As I have said, I owe too much to them. They have been very good to me, and, I think, to the community. But their organisation is the strongest trade union in this country.

Senator Dittmer:

– We are not ashamed of it.

Senator TANGNEY:

– I am thinking of the time when the organisation was called the “ British Medical Association “ and when it had some officers who were very conservative. I can remember attending a conference that was held in Canberra in 1943 when quite a number of proposals were put forward which were agreed to by the representatives here of the B.M.A. These proposals had to go to Sydney to receive the final O.K. of their federal executive. For that reason, we agreed to meet the representatives again in Canberra on the following Monday morning. We are still waiting - like Kathleen Mavourneen. The representatives, unlike the boomerang, never came back. The B.M.A. decided not to honour the contracts which had almost been entered into by its representatives here. If this had not happened, there would have been no need for the Bill that is before the Senate today. Its provisions would have been standard practice in this community for the last 20 years.

Mr. President, while 1 do not offer any opposition to this Bill, I do offer the suggestion to the Government that it should see its way clear to hold some kind of inquiry into the whole problem of health in this community. Too much money is being spent now to try to repair cracks and not enough money is being spent in trying to prevent disease which, after all, should be more the function of the health scheme. A great deal of money is being spent on C class hospitals for the aged. This is another matter that I cannot deal with because of the limitations of the Bill. I would like to have a free go on that subject, too. I do feel that the Government is spending quite a deal of money inadequately. Certainly money is being spent on health, but we are not getting the best value from it. I am not offering my comments in the spirit of carping criticism. I am trying to be constructive in my remarks. I earnestly ask the Government to hold some kind of inquiry. This could be carried out by members of the Parliament. Surely health is a subject which we can approach on a non-political basis. Surely the health of the community is something of equal importance to every member of the community.

Senator Dittmer:

– We are always helpful to the Government.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Yes. I think that the Government should be helpful to us. We should work on a basis of mutual help and get together a committee to discuss the ways and means of improving and keeping on a high level the standard of national health in Australia.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[4.48]. - in reply - Mr. President, first, 1 wish to thank honorable senators for their well thought out speeches and for the speedy passage that they have given to the National Health Bill 1966. There are a number of matters on which 1 should like to give some short reply. Senator Turnbull put forward one point - I think that Senator Tangney raised this matter also - in connection with the treatment of pensioners at home where a general practitioner suggests that a specialist should be called in to give consideration to the case. The suggestion put forward by Senator Turnbull was that the Pensioner Medical Service should provide the fee for the specialist. 1 have noted the suggestion made by the honorable senator. I think that is the point he made.

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

– That is correct.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 will be pleased to pass oil this suggestion, which was also put forward by Senator Tangney, to the Minister for Health (Dr. Forbes) for his consideration. Senator Turnbull said also that all medical benefits funds should provide confinement benefits for single girls or for members who have not contributed for a period of al least 10 months before the birth of their children. J would remind Senator Turnbull, as I have possibly said here before, that this is a matter on which the registered organisations decide their own policy.

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

– No. The Government can tell them what to do. The Government does tell them. They are under the thumb of the Government.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I repeat that these organisations decide their own policy. The Government does not interfere with the internal affairs of these organisations and does not attempt to dictate what policy they should follow.

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

– Why does not the Government allow them to pay greater medical benefits?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Mr. President, I listened to Senator Turnbull very quietly. I was interested in two points made by Senator McManus and Senator Tangney in connection with paraplegics and quadraplegics. The persons who suffer these most serious injuries are, of course, a grave concern to us all. I well know the really sincere interest which both honorable senators whom I have mentioned and, indeed, every honorable senator, take in this work. As far as I understand the situation, this matter is a State responsibility. The provision of hospitals and (he facilities in those hospitals for these people is a State matter for the consideration of the various State authorities. 1 was interested also in the points made by Senator Tangney in connection with the provision of housing for these people. This matter is not dealt with by the Bill now before the Senate. But I thought that Senator Tangney’s remarks reflected again her very real sympathy for these people and her desire that persons such as these should receive assistance.

Senator Dittmer referred to the Commonwealth benefit payable for Caesarian section and post natal care for nine days which, when looking at the Bill. 1 find is set out in Division 1 of Part 2 of the First Schedule at item 13 which shows that the Commonwealth benefit is $25. Senator Dittmer asked what happened when postnatal care extended beyond nine days. I draw the attention of the honorable senator again to the First Schedule to the Bill. Attendance that takes place after the expiration of the period of nine days does attract a Commonwealth benefit on an attendance basis. This is set out under Part I of the First Schedule which is headed “ Professional Attendances not Covered by an Item in any other Part of this Schedule “. I think that answers the point raised by the honorable senator.

In his speech, Senator Dittmer went back some years to the time when Sir Earle Page was Minister for Health. Senator Dittmer said that Sir Earle Page visualised that the medical benefits scheme would cover 90 per cent, of the cost of medical services. According to the information that I have been given concerning this matter, in introducing his National Health Bill, Sir Earle Page did not say that the scheme would cover 90 per cent, of the cost of medical services. What was contemplated was that the benefits would not exceed 90 per cent, of the cost of services. I think that that covers the point made by Senator Dittmer.

Let me turn now to the matter of special accounts. Might I remind Senator Dittmer who is trying to interject that it is my turn to address the Senate? I wish to deal with the point he raised in connection with special accounts. Senator Dittmer said that the payment of 36s. per day covered public ward charges in 1959 when this benefit was introduced. He said that the amount is not sufficient now to meet the charges made and that the chronically sick have to bear the burden of these increased charges. I say to Senator Dittmer that it must be remembered that the purpose of the special accounts is to provide benefits where no fund benefit was previously payable because of fund rules relating to pre-existing ailments, chronic illnesses and maximum benefits. Previously, the funds paid no benefit in these cases. In 1959, the Government introduced the special account plan which ensures that these contributors do receive benefits in these circumstances. The benefit of 36s. a day assured by the special account plan in 1959 was a very marked improvement, I believe, in the benefits available and the plan has been welcomed and has provided substantial aid for these needy cases.

As Senator Webster said, the National Health Bill 1966 provides greater benefits. As I said in my opening remarks when 1 introduced the Bill last night -

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the improvements to the National Health Scheme announced by the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) in his Budget Speech to be implemented.

The passage of this Bill will mean that there will be an increase in the rate of hospital benefits. More people will be assisted because they will become eligible for these benefits. Surely these matters arc tremendously important. I believe that all honorable senators recognise that this legislation means that a great number of people will receive benefits and, indeed, added benefits will be available. I refer to another section of the second reading speech which states -

With the addition of these persons, (he benefits which I have mentioned will be provided to well over a million members of the Australian community-

That is a lot of people - . . at a cost in excess of $63 million a year.

Another section of that speech states -

The amending Bill now before us proposes an increase in the rate by 40 per cent., to $5 a day.

Surely these things will be of benefit. I appreciate the speedy passage that the Bill has been given. I also appreciate the action of the Opposition in supporting the Bill in the way it has. This Bill will mean greater benefits for very many people in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Interpretation).

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– Referring to sub-clause (1.) of this clause, 1 mention that the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), when speaking about my statement on the special accounts, went to great trouble to explain - I take it, to me - the personnel who areembraced in them. Actually, very early in my speech 1 had mentioned those personnel. So I did not really need that information. But I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy in tendering it in case I did not have it.

What I did say was that I realised that the special accounts were worthwhile in 1959 when the medical benefits funds did not desire to carry the financial burden - possibly they could not do so - of people wilh chronic diseases, people with diseases that existed before their date of joining and people in respect of whom the time allowed by the various funds for the provision of benefits had expired. I said that in those days the 36s. a day met the average cost of a public hospital bed in those States in which charges were imposed for the occupancy of public beds.

What I would like the Minister to refer to is the relationship between the position that existed in 1959 and the position that exists today, when in many cases the cost of a public bed is much higher than the Commonwealth benefit. I would appreciate it if she could give me figures showing how the proposed Commonwealth benefit measures tip with the public hospital charges in the various States, including the increased charges that are now being made or will be made in the near future.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[4.59]. - I believe that this legislation shows that the Government has recognised that hospital costs have increased considerably since the time that Senator Dittmer has mentioned.

The present proposal to increase the Commonwealth benefit is designed to provide additional aid to these cases against the increased hospital costs.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a third time.

page 978

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1966-67

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 11th October (vide page 946).

Department of Primary Industry

Proposed expenditure, $35,880,000.

Proposed provision, $3,545,000.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

.-I return to the point thatI had reached in my consideration of the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry when the debate was interrupted last night. I was dealing with Division No. 380, sub-division 4, which relates to the payment of bounties on butter and cheese. I commented on the fact that the butterfat production section of the dairy industry is in a sick condition. I suggest to honorable senators that that is a chronic condition and is reaching a critical point - in fact, the most critical point in a number of years of declining returns. At the present time many farmers engaged in the production of butterfat are in pretty serious financial difficulties. As a matter of fact, at a recent meeting on the north-west coast of Tasmania, it came to light in the course of discussion on this subject that, whilst an endeavour was being made to fortify the co-operative dairy organisations by a voluntary levy on producers, many of the producers were in such an economic plight that they were not able to meet the requests made by the managements of their co-operatives to make funds available to the co-operatives in order to strengthen the industry and to enable their activities to be diversified.

There are many fields into which the products of the dairy industry can go. Various products can be manufactured from them. In fact, quite a lot of disputation is taking place. One does not wonder at this because there has been no increase in the return to dairymen for butterfat since 1954. In fact, the return has declined. Certainly, primary producers are trying to surmount costs which have risen over the years but there comes a time when it is not possible to go any further in that direction. Many dairymen occupy relatively small areas of land and they are no longer an economic proposition. What, then, can we do for this industry? Diversification can take place in many ways and this line is being pursued but the possibilities are limited. When the farmers are bound to factory organisations so that they can only supply butterfat for butter production, what happens to them? They are not able to buy larger areas of land on which to run bigger herds and so get higher returns.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

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

– Last night Senator Mulvihill in opening the debate on the proposed vote for the Department of Primary Industry asked several questions to whichI shall reply now. One was in relation to the fact that the Meat Industry Employees Union is not represented on the Australian Meat Board. The Government, in reaching its decision to reduce the membership of the Australian Meat Board from 12 members to 9, was concerned that the Board, as reconstituted by the Meat Industry Act 1964, should be a compact and workable body bearing in mind the essential need for effective marketing and good market intelligence. The decision to omit representation from the Meat Industry Employees Union was taken in the light of this need.

Senator Mulvihill referred also to nonrepresentation of the Australian Public Abattoirs Authority on the Australian Meat Board. Prior to the introduction of the 1964 legislation, the Government on two occasions considered the question of representation for service works on the reconstituted Australian Meat Board. It was decided that direct representation for service works was not justified because in relation to its export functions, it is essentially a marketing authority. In relation to representation by both bodies, it should be noted that provision exists in the legislation for consultation between the Board and appropriate representatives of other sections of the meat industry whenever this might be considered necessary.

Last night, Senator Devitt asked for some information on fisheries services. This item covers reimbursement to the States for the administrative services provided in the issuing of licences and in supervising the licensing provisions of the Commonwealth Fisheries Act and Regulations. Senator Devitt also raised a question of the survey of fisheries resources and co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States. 1 am able to advise the honorable senator that a very high level of co-operation exists between the Commonwealth and the States on fisheries matters. Although there is no fisheries council and standing committee similar to the Australian Agricultural Council and its Standing - Committee, there is machinery for regular meetings of the senior fisheries officers and for meetings of Ministers reponsible for fisheries. Ministers at their last: meeting agreed on the need for an overall fisheries development plan and on the holding of a fisheries development conference. This conference will be held in Canberra on 20th, 21st and 22nd February 1967 and will be attended by Commonwealth and State fisheries officers, representatives of the fishing industry and individual fishermen. It is hoped that this conference will make a worthwhile contribution to the formulation of a fisheries development programme for Australia.

Senator Devitt also asked for information regarding “ Fisheries Newsletter “. The circulation is approximately 14,000 a month and it is distributed free to all licensed fishermen, members of the fishing industry, fisheries organisations in Australia and overseas as well as to all members of Commonwealth and State Parliaments. Senator Devitt asked about the prospects of the sale of fresh fruit to Japan. Japan does not have the codling moth and fruit fly pests and under Japanese quarantine regulations, fruit from areas where this infestation is found is not permitted entry into Japan. Two Japanese quarantine officers recently visited Australia and noted the very strict quarantine inspection enforced on the interstate movement of fruit into Tasmania. They also noted that the control measures undertaken for codling moth are such that damage is kept to a minimum. Following this visit, proposals were transmitted to the Japanese authorities for amendment of the Japanese quarantine regulations, and they have been asked to indicate what kind of trials and safeguards need to be introduced before Australian apples and pears will be admitted to Japan. The Commonwealth Government and the Australian Apple and Pear Board are each contributing $48,000 over a period of three years towards research into pest control in apples and pears. The work is being undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the State Departments of Agriculture.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- In discussing the proposed vote for the Department of Primary Industry, I wish to bring attention back to legislation we have been concerned with over a number of years relating to organised marketing of primary products. In cases where such organised marketing has been employed, as in the case of poultry or wool, we have had to consider the appropriate franchise according to which the producer has the right to elect the controlling board. This matter received the greatest emphasis within my experience when we ha-d debates on the wool industry. I personally communicated with most of the State universities to ascertain whether any study had been done on the question of an appropriate franchise for a producer in a primary industry to constitute a board which would take control of the industry’s products and market it. Nothing to which I was referred was really relevant and direct on this point.

Honorable senators will remember the debates that took place regarding the voting power of woolgrowers in relation to their industry. At first it was thought that there should be a higher stake in the industry to entitle a woolgrower to vote. Then it was put down so low that the possession of 300 sheep and production of 10 bales of wool were adopted as the franchise. I took a close interest in the initial stages of the legislation and in the final form of the measure under which the question was submitted to the woolgrowers. I mention that because I took the view that the failure of the vote was contributed to in large degree by he dissatisfaction of the woolgrowers with the franchise. By that 1 mean the qualification that entitled the producer to vote in the industry. Others will have their own opinions as to whether or not that was unsatisfactory but we have always regarded the wool industry as one of major importance, and great political effort was put behind the viewpoint that a stabilisation scheme should be established. It failed. Those who think will be concerned to assess whether this is an advantage or a disadvantage to the industry and to the country. It is a matter that requires the utmost consideration.

From time to time this Department will bear the chief responsibility for formulating plans for stabilisation of industry, and it should be a matter of forethought on the part of the Department to stimulate through the Bureau of Agricultural Economics or through professors of agriculture - such as, I would hope, Professor Lewis of the University of New England - or the professor of economics at Monash, or somebody else who has shown a particular interest in the development of our primary industries, a study of the matter, lt is the chief responsibility of the Department of Primary Industry, as a matter of forethought, thinking ahead of the next possible vote for stabilisation, to study and evolve propositions as to the appropriate franchise according to which producers should be given the right to vote for the boards that take over their commodities.

We ardent and insular democrats of Australia are inclined to think that one man one vote is the cry that will appeal to everybody. Even for political elections it was scarcely 700 years ago that that was established in England wilh regard to male suffrage. The debates on the Suffrage Bill of 1870 show Disraeli and Gladstone arguing for and against male suffrage in political elections. Female suffrage is another matter. There are still limitations of that in relation to elections to some of the Upper Houses of the States. I make only a passing reference to that from the point of view of the political scene and the appropriate franchise there. Accepting adult suffrage, as we do in political elections here, it is quite a different problem to apply that outlook to producer elections where, accord ing to one’s contribution to the industry product one should have credit for some higher franchise than merely one vote per head. I raise this matter because ever since those wool debates it has been persisting in my mind that a study of this should be stimulated for the purpose of the guidance of future stabilisation schemes. I hope that the Minister will, with the Department, consider the suggestion worthy of faking up so that members of Parliament may have for consideration some thoughtful objective study on that proposition in the foreseeable future.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– In the light of the Minister’s reply to me in relation to the personnel of the Australian Meat Board, 1 want to recapitulate to some degree some of my earlier submissions. I felt that in his reply he was inclined to skirt over the actual personnel of past and existing boards. As he well knows, in early 1964 the Board consisted of a chairman, representatives of the beef, mutton, pig and lamb producers, and of meat exporting companies, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, and’ publicly owned abattoirs. On 17th June the new set up was: Chairman, producers’ representatives, export representatives, and a Commonwealth Government representative. The Minister, in his defence of the Commonwealth’s action to exclude representatives of State public abattoir authorities and trade unions, laid emphasis on the export functions of the Board. I want to direct his attention to a brochure produced by the Metropolitan Meat Indus ry Board of New South Wales. Homebush. Its charter is to provide for the maintenance and control of abattoirs, slaughter houses, cattle yards and meat markets within a certain district in and around the City of Sydney; to regulate the slaughtering of cattle within the district and the bringing into such district of meat derived from animals slaughtered outside it; and to provide for selling, exporting and otherwise dealing with cattle and meat. The pregnant provisions are the last two sentences, and 1 refer particularly to the word “ exporting “.

What sort of people do we advocate should have representation? For want of a better term, I would regard them more or less as the guardians of the consumers, the middle men of the industry. In the past when there were Labour administrations, a number of honorable senators opposite kept an eagle eye on what they called domination by the trade union movement of boards and commissions. WhenI see that this body is composed of a majority of producer representatives,I do not question their right to be there, but there should be some form of parity. The original structure of the Board was most democratic.I heard the Minister say: “We will consult these people at various times.” To my way of thinking, that is to give them blatantly a second class role in industry. The Australian Meat Board is always quite happy to use public abattoirs as a levying authority and for other functions. It is all very well that it should do that.

What sort of people do we findin control of public abattoirs? Amongst the officers of the Metropolitan Meat Industry Board of New South Wales we have the chairman. Mr. Hill, who is an extremely capable and outstanding public servant. There is Mr. Carter, who has had a life long experience with employee representatives in the industry, and Mr. Les Urigh, who is a successful postwar returned soldier meat producer. These are all people who would have something to contribute to the Australian Meat Board, as would representatives of other public abattoirs in the various States. It is all very well to hitch our star to export targets, but sometimes through obsession with a particular section of the industry everything else is ignored. It will be admitted that various metropolitan abattoirs maintain high standards in their operations. It is important to have a little look at the Australian consumer as well as our overseas markets. The time is overdue to have consultation and cooperation with State abattoir instrumentalities. They are entitled to parity when discussions occur at the top.

So much for the case for representation of State public abattoir authorities. Let us have a look at the trade union side. Among the matters that the Australian Meat Board discusses are. dual meat inspection, composition of meat branding inks, and meatworks standards. Let us analyse these headings a little further. Recently at Homebush, I was concerned with the question of whether sand, sawdust or something else was to be used on the floors. With all due respect to the members of the Board, it may be that they would regard it as of little consequence whether fellows working on the chain, lugging carcasses around, are in danger, because of the condition of the floor, of contracting hernia, back strain or something like that. I know enough about industrial psychology to know that when the hierarchy at the top is discussing an industry and rumours get around that a certain technique is to be changed, union secretaries are expected to pull rabbits out of the hat to maintain industrial tranquility andtime to negotiate is required. In relation to meat branding, some new technique might produce dermatitis on the hands of meat employees.

It might be said that I am more or less anticipating trouble before it occurs. I emphasise that in most other spheres of Commonwealth activity, such as in the stevedoring industry and the mining industry, provision is made for direct consultation. Round table conferences, at which the parties are on an equal footing, are held.I know Mr. Hall, the Federal Secretary of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, and Mr. Taylor, the New South Wales Secretary.I think their record, both private and public, would be on a par with that of any member of the Australian Meat Board. I do not know that the Commonwealth security service has ever alleged anything subversive about their background. Indeed, it would be extremely unlikely that that should be so. The only inference to be drawn is that these men are regarded as not. being worthy to sit on the top councils of the meat industry to discuss its future.

Let us consider the rivalries that exist between the various sections of the industry. The new Board consists of a representative of the Government, and representatives of the export interests and the producers. These people can put their cards on the table. But the impression has been created that the people on the chains, or their representatives, must not be allowed in on these discussions. It is all very well to say that an avenue for discussion has been provided. None of us likes to be taken for granted. We like to have a little equality in this sort of thing. I am not so naive as to think that some of the operators in the industry would not have their own meetings before the Board met in order to get one another’s views about certain things. I am sure that if they thought that the trade union movement could use certain information against them in arbitration cases, they would not disclose their hand.

The role of the State public abattoir authorities is such that they have a high degree of responsibility. They have to maintain meat standards and to evaluate the requirements of the United States meat market against our own regulations and requirements. 1 should say that they have acquired a lot of experience in this field. I suggest that they would go to meetings of the Australian Meat Board not obsessed wilh the profit motive, which would occupy the minds of the producers’ representatives. Of course, I realise that these people have to live. The point 1 make is that they expect their own interests to be safeguarded. I know enough ‘about meetings to believe that at times a Government representative, surrounded by export interests and producers’ representatives, must find the atmosphere to be rather cold.

The Minister, with his rural background, knows well that, even in this age when the emphasis is on better amenities and better conditions, no matter how modern an abattoir is somebody has to do work that is regarded as being very unpleasant. That being so, the position of an official of the Meat Industry Employees Union is not a sinecure. It is much more difficult if the impression is created that union officials do not count for anything and if the man at the bottom decides to stir up the employees. That creates a chain reaction and there is a sort of working out of the domino theory about which we have heard so much in relation to Vietnam. 1 put it to the Minister that, in the present enlightened industrial atmosphere, there is no occasion whatever for saying that the representatives of those who are doing the basic work in the industry should not be allowed to sit at the table at meetings of the Australian Meat Board and look every other representative straight in the eyes. They should not be made to feel that they are second class citizens. Those who sit in on meetings of the Board at the present time seem to think that they are.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

.- I should like to comment on a couple of aspects of the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. I congratulate the Department on the good work that it has done. I propose to refer to the Queensland sugar industry, which has suffered from a collapse of the export side of its marketing arrangements.

Senator McKellar:

– To which item is the honorable senator directing his remarks?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I relate my remarks to the provision for agricultural extension services in Division No. 380, sub-division 3. The Commonwealth Government is trying to negotiate a new sugar agreement with other world powers, but so far it has not been able to arrive at a satisfactory result. The Government has provided a considerable degree of assistance for the industry. At the request of the industry, through the Queensland Government, it has made available a loan of $19 million. For the first year the loan, which has been guaranteed by the Queensland Government through the Reserve Bank, will be made available at a rural credit rate of interest of 4i per cent. The first year’s interest is to be capitalised. Then for three years until mid-1970 no interest will be charged and there will be no repayments. The Commonwealth will not charge any interest on the loan for this period. Then a period of 10 years will be allowed for repayment of the loan, the rate of interest to be the bond rate. At the present time the bond rate is 5i per cent. Payments to the growers under this loan will not be regarded as loans. The money that is being made available will add about $8.50 per ton to payments to the growers for their product. The sugar industry, which, as 1 said, is being guaranteed by the Queensland Government, has accepted all the loan obligations. I suggest that, if by 1970 conditions have not improved substantially and the bad period is not over, the then Commonwealth Government will have to take another look at the matter in the light of existing circumstances. The Commonwealth Government has made available also a sum of $1.75 million to avoid the necessity for a number of growers to pay levies to certain mills. This particular payment will cover the 1966 and 1967 seasons. Another form of assistance that has been accorded to the industry is the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty which was introduced recently, lt is estimated that the bounty will reduce the cost of this type of fertiliser to sugar growers by 21 per cent.

I come now to the poultry industry, which also has certain stabilisation arrangements. Government proposals will make it possible for levies to be paid to State Ministers for Agriculture instead of to the State Egg Boards as at present. This will enable the State Ministers to give consideration to poultry farmers in special areas who are experiencing problems that are peculiar to those areas. I draw the attention of honorable senators to the report of the Australian Cattle and Beef Research Committee, which has been handed to us today. T commend the Committee for the work it has done in the interests of primary industry and for what it has done to keep exotic stock diseases out of this country. I hope that the Committee will not relax its standards in any way that is likely to endanger our stock industries. I commend the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry to the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- I wish to refer to Division No. 380 - Administrative, and to Division No. 383 - Administration of the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, for which the appropriation is $2,709,000. In doing so 1 wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the economic crisis which has developed in the Tasmanian apple and pear industry. Over the years the Senate has been made aware of the importance of this industry to Tasmania. It has now reached a critical watershed, and I feel that the Federal Government must adopt a new approach to ensure the continuance of the industry’s economic stability.

During the past year many factors acted in favour of the apple industry. The season was partly unpredictable, but a substantial crop was produced, of which 5,714,767 bushels were exported to the United Kingdom and Europe from Tasmania. This represented an increase over the previous year’s exports, which totalled 4,120,513 bushels. I illustrate Tasmania’s good furtune in the last harvest year by pointing out that the Western Australian crop produced for export to the United Kingdom and Europe was only 693.376 bushels, as compared to the previous year’s exports of 1,391,316 bushels. South Australia’s exports were reduced to 93,730 bushels from 557,966 bushels. Victoria’s exports also fell to 399,629 bushels from 461,008 bushels. Exports from New South Wales and Queensland rose to 247,934 bushels from 177,894 bushels due to a more favorable season.

I have cited those figures to the Committee to illustrate what has happened because of factors outside the control of the apple industry. The industry is worth annually $17 million to Tasmania, a State with a population of about 360,000. lt is obvious that the industry is of the utmost importance to Tasmania. Over the years it has had its ups and downs and now, in my view and the view of many people, it is facing a very critical time. The cost of placing a carton of apples on the United Kingdom market is $4.

Senator Wright:

– Did the honorable senator say $4?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. That is the total cost of production plus freight in putting a carton of apples on the market in the United Kingdom. 1 refer now to the report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board for the year ended 30th June 1.966. lt is a conservative body, but it has sounded a warning which 1 think could profitably be restated here in this debate, because of the plight of the industry. The report states -

A new quantitative record was set for apple and pear exports in the ]966 season. . . . The most disturbing aspect of the season was the generally poor market reception for both apples and pears. With the possible exception of Scandinavia, all major markets operated at levels well below last year, and wholesale realisations for most varieties were frequently under c.i.f. base prices. . . . These circumstances highlight the industry’s growing concern over its competitive ability to maintain satisfactory markets for an increasing export surplus, particularly in the face of steep cost increases such as freight rates. 1 shall now cite some figures included in the report. Towards the end of June, varieties such as Jonathan and Sturmer were selling al 6s. to 10s. per carton below cost. In contrast, prices for Granny Smiths - particularly from Western Australia - maintained a reasonable level. Victoria has the reputation of producing the best export pears in the world, but the prices returned from the market, were often 10s. a carton or more below cost. Tasmanian pears suffered an even worse fate, with some parcels returning less than the freight cost. This indicates a very serious situation facing an important Tasmanian industry. In the Board’s report it refers to the possible future outlook, and states -

In 1961, European imports of apples from the southern hemisphere stood at approximately 13.9 million bushels. In 1965 the figure was 21.4 million bushels, an increase of 54 per cent, in only five years. … a reflection of strong consumer demand and rising incomes. However, the experience of the 1966 season would suggest that the forces of supply and demand are now out of equilibrium and it may well be that the long feared over supply situation is developing.

Senator Wright:

– Does the Board state how much of that situation was contributed to by South Africa and New Zealand?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. The report states -

The “ production explosion “ in South Africa has been mentioned particularly in this regard. A projection made in South Africa some years ago indicated a doubling of production by 1970.

Reference is made in the report to a substantial increase in the quantities of apples and pears exported by South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. This was a major factor in contributing to the weak market situation. The report states -

It is estimated that these three suppliers provided an additional 2,500,000 bushels of apples and 1,300,000 million bushels of pears over the previous year, reflecting the greatly increased capacity of southern hemisphere producers, particularly South Africa, where vast new plantings are now coming into commercial bearing. The figures given above represent increases of 17 per cent, for apples and a staggering 49 per cent, for pears and are only partly offset by reduced shipments from the Argentine. 1 wish now to refer to freight rates. The Board’s report draws attention to freight rates under the Australian Oversea Transport Association Freight Rate Formula Agreement, which were increased by 6.6 per cent, for the 1966 season. This represented 10.1 pence sterling on a standard bushel box, and brought the standard rate to 13s. 7d. sterling, and the rate on cartons, which are now most in use for apples, to 14s. 7d. sterling. The report goes on to say -

This surcharge amounted to 9.61 pence on the final forecast quantity of 9.5 million bushels, bringing the effective rate for cell packs to approximately 15s. 5d. sterling, or over $1.90. This represents close to 80 per cent, of the f.o.b. value of the product - probably the highest incidence of any primary product exported in volume from Australia. The Board is most concerned therefore to note that further increases in freight rates are indicated from the latest results of the Formula exercise.

The Australian Apple and Pear Board has directed attention to the fact that the charges already being made amount to 80 per cent, of the f.o.b. value of the products. There is a proposal to increase the rale for refrigerated freight. This could go up to 10 per cent., compared with 6.6 per cent, as it has been during the current season. These additional freight rates could deal a heavy blow to growers, particularly the small growers in Tasmania.

The growers are obliged to meet all the costs associated with the industry. There is the cost of harvesting, the high cost of sprays, and the cost of transport from the orchards to the wharves. As Senator Devitt reminds me, there is also the interest on the money they borrow. In addition there is the cost of the cartons which are more or less an innovation in the industry. Those engaged in the apple and pear industry are trying conscientiously to produce products that will uphold the high traditions which the industry in Tasmania has attained over the years. However, . it appears that in view of competition from South Africa on the United Kingdom market, there is a hesitancy on the part of European Common Market countries to guarantee that they will take any large quantity of our apples in the future. It seems that action by the Government at the highest policy level is needed to grapple with this situation before a crisis in the. industry in Tasmania occurs. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry is seised of the importance of the industry not only to orchardists in Tasmania but also to the whole Tasmanian economy.

Reference has been made to the possibility of finding new Asian markets. I suggest that our Department of Trade and Industry should try to find ways of breaking down the prejudice that exists and of overcoming the excuse of the Japanese that because we have codlin moth in this country, Australian apples may not go to Japan.’ Not only should we try to sell our apples there, but if the wheat growers can sell wheat to China I think we should be trying’ to sell our apples there too. The same thing applies to Malaysia, Thailand, Burma and any other country where the people have the ability to buy our products. The Conference lines, the combines which have for years taken their toll of the primary industries of Australia, are slowly strangling the goose that laid the golden egg. This is happening wilh so many of our industries.

Pears are particularly perishable, and so are apples although not to the same degree. This means that they must reach the consumers quickly. It is desirable that they should bc transported rapidly. Once apples leave the orchard the costs start to mount. The longer they are withheld from the market, of course, the greater is the return required to compensate the grower. The figures supplied in the annual report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board must be taken as factual. On the basis of those figures, growers are losing up to 10s. a bushel, after all their work and the application of all the know-how they have acquired. As honorable senators may know, the growers are being ever more selective in the types of apples they are growing. They are trying to meet the demands of the market and in every way to improve their techniques in the presentation of the fruit. Yet, they are meeting this unfortunate position.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

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

– In reply to Senator Wright, I point out that the officers of the Department are present in the chamber and no doubt will take note of the matter he raised. The points raised by Senator Mulvihill were mainly those which he raised last night. They concerned the personnel of the Australian Meat Board. I point out that these points were covered during the debate on the legislation which set up the present Board.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Apparently I should have been here then.

Senator McKELLAR:

– The honorable senator was not here then, but the position is that if we were to alter the constitution of the Board we would need fresh legislation. Senator Lawrie referred to the assistance that has been given to the sugar industry in Queensland. In my view this is certainly very valuable to the growers, lt was necessary to provide the assistance. While the sugar growers have experienced some good seasons in the past and have enjoyed high prices, there has been a very heavy fall in the price of sugar overseas and unfortunately this has reacted on Australian sugar growers. As honorable senators know, we had a bit of a windfall when the United States of America diverted from Cuba to Australia its purchases of sugar. That has been very helpful in the past, but prices are now very low. The assistance given by the Government to the Queensland sugar industry will be much appreciated.

Senator Lawrie also referred to the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty of $80 a ton. lt is obvious that even if there is not a rise in prices of primary products, this bounty will be of great help to primary producers. The honorable senator also mentioned the poultry industry. Either next week or the following week we shall have before us a Bill dealing with that industry. The honorable senator also referred to cattle and beef research. He certainly knows something about this matter. I understand that he is one of the biggest producers of Devon cattle in the Southern Hemisphere.

Senator O’Byrne touched on the sore point of the apple and pear industry in Tasmania. I know something of the position in this respect. The situation of the industry is not a very happy one. The growers certainly have my sympathy. This is an industry which means much to Tasmania. From what 1 have seen of the industry in that State I should say that it is reasonably efficient. The growers go to a lot of trouble in trying to grow the correct varieties of fruit and they also are involved in a lot of expense. First of all they have to build cold storage sheds, which are essential, and then they have to use sprays of various kinds. The packaging sheds that 1 have seen seemed to be efficient. The question of employment is tied up with the position of this industry because the picking of apples and other fruit provides a great deal of employment, not only for males but also for females. I am full of admiration for the job that some of the pickers do. We in Australia have the sure and certain knowledge that our fruit compares with any other fruit in. the world. I have never had better fruit anywhere.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I was interested in Senator O’Byrne’s comments regarding the problems of the apple industry in Tasmania. The honorable senator had a good point in his reference to the need for a study of the markets in South East Asia. I do not think that those would be big markets initially, at any rate, but I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should have a look at some of the markets which are opening up in that area. Of course, there is a need for proper market research to ensure that the right type of apple is grown for sale in that area, and also that the right kind of packaging, which is so important, is used. 1 would certainly like this point examined because the apple industry is running into very great problems, all of which are beyond its control. At present the United Kingdom market, which is the industry’s biggest market, is presenting real problems to the industry, mainly because of the large import of South African apples into the United Kingdom. We do not know whether this will be a continuing process from year to year or whether it is only a temporary one, but it is presenting very great problems.

I would certainly like to see some market research undertaken in South East Asia to establish whether or not we can obtain a footing in that area for the sale of our fruit, particularly apples. I think I am correct in saying that there is already a small market in Singapore for Western Australian apples. I recognise that there is a problem in obtaining the necessary refrigerated ships to carry the fruit to South East Asia, but I believe that these matters are worthy of close attention. 1 was somewhat at a loss to understand Senator Mulvihill’s arguments concerning the Australian Meat Board. I do not intend to canvass the argument as to whether or not there is ground for the appointment of a trade union official to the Board. There are two sides to that question. I must admit that I fail to see what purpose such a representative could serve, but I have an open mind on that point. I fail to follow Senator Mulvihill’s reasoning that in some way the Meat Board is responsible for industrial conditions - whether there is sand or sawdust on the floor. It is true that the Board is responsible for establishing the standards of meatworks killing for overseas markets, but it has no power to enforce its standards. If any abattoir fails to reach these standards, 1 believe that the Minister for Primary Industry has power to cancel its export licence, and this is done particularly in relation to exports to the United States.

I do not think that one can base an argument for the appointment of a union representative to the Meat Board on industrial conditions. The Board is not concerned with industrial conditions. It is concerned with forecasting market trends, opening up new markets, carrying out market research, ascertaining the type of meat required, packaging, and shipping space and shipping freights. These are all matters of high policy. They are the functions of the Meat Board. I doubt whether a trade union representative could play a part in this work, but as I have said, I have an open mind on this point. 1 do not believe that one could justify the appointment of a trade union representative to the Meat Board on Senator Mulvihill’s argument That is the real reason why 1 rose to speak. Before we appointed a trade union representative to the Meat Board, I think we would want to hear sounder arguments than those advanced by Senator Mulvihill.

Senator DEVITT (Tasmania) I.5.58J. - 1 hope that the Minister will pardon my persistence, or insistence, in raising once again the question of the future of butterfat producers in the dairying industry. We want to know what action, if any, the Government proposes to take to protect the interests of those people, whose livelihood is threatened by the present economic trends in the butterfat producing areas of the Australian dairy industry. 1 would like the Minister to give us an assurance that the Department will conduct an intensive survey and assessment of new market possibilities throughout the world and indicate its findings to the dairy co-operative societies, which, in the main, handle the produce from the dairy farmers. If this were done the managements could undertake the expense of changing the systems and practices in factories with the assurance that what they did would be in line with trends for some years to come. These organisations are not particularly financial organisations.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator DEVITT:

– Mr. Chairman, when the sitting was suspended, I was suggesting a means whereby the Government might bring some hope of a solution to the problem confronting the dairying industry at the present time. 1 made the suggestion that the Department of Primary Industry might conduct an intensive survey and endeavour to make an assessment of the market potential offering to Australia in other parts of the world. We should bear in mind in a matter of this kind that a great proportion of the population of the world is in dire need of food. We in Australia could give assistance to at least some of those who are in need. This ought to be the great hope of this nation. We would be, as it were, killing two birds with one stone. We would be helping to supply the great need in the world for food and also doing something to ensure the survival of an important industry in this country.

I suggest that the Minister give serious consideration to my proposal that a survey be carried out by the Department to enable people who arc in a position to carry on with their present activity in the dairy industry to continue and not go out of business as so many of them have done in the past three years in Australia. Approximately 10,000 farmers have left the land in the post-war years. Many more will go out of business in the field of dairying production unless some solution can be found to this problem. I put my suggestion earnestly to the Minister. If such an assessment could be carried out and the findings were made known to the various organisations which are operating in this field, plans could be made for the future and the necessary equipment and manufacturing processes could be introduced into their industrial establishments. If this were done, we might see some hope at least for the survival of an industry which I believe is chronically ill at the present time.

I am grateful to hear from the Minister that a conference is to be held in the new year in relation to the possibility of setting up an Australian fishing industry. This industry is of great importance to a sound Australian economy. I sincerely hope - indeed, I confidently believe - that as a result of this conference we will see increased activity in the Australian fishing industry.

I return briefly, if I may, to the subject of the Tasmanian orcharding industry. I have already referred to the recent freight increases which we heard about some little time ago. It is expected that an average increase of 6i per cent, will take place in overseas shipping freight rates in relation to Australian, particularly Tasmanian, exporting industries. I understand that on analysis some industries - I believe that they are called “ dry goods “ industries - will suffer a 4i per cent, impost and in relation to fresh fruits and products of that kind which require refrigerated shipping space an additional 10 per cent, will be imposed. It may be recalled by honorable senators that 1 raised this matter some little time ago. I referred to an editorial that appeared in the “Australian Financial Review” on 29th August 1966 which although it was in a mild form nevertheless contained a condemnation of the system whereby, in pursuance of a formula laid down some years ago, organisations associated with the transportation of export goods overseas reached a decision that gave rise to this additional freight charge on Australian exports.

I wish to direct the minds of honorable senators back to another happening some 12 months or 15 months ago. The announcement was made out of the blue that the conference lines intended as from 1st October 1965 to increase the freight rates on meat exports to North America by 10 per cent. That was not the end of the story. At the same time, a decision was taken that these rates would be raised again by an additional 17 per cent, as from 1st April 1966. The industry, and those associated with it, protested quite rightly that this would mean virtually the death knell of this export market. The Israeli Shipping Company made it known to the Australian meat exporting industries at that time that it was prepared to provide shipping at the former ruling rates of freight for a period of three years. As a consequence of that intimation, the conference lines reviewed the decision that they had taken earlier. The conference lines decided that they would not go on with their proposal under certain conditions and that no increase would take place until October 1968.

I suggest that if an investigation could be made as to the availability of some shipping organisation outside the conference lines to carry these exports, it might be possible to grant at least some relief to the fruit exporting industry whereby this additional 10 per cent, which it is now feared will be imposed on the industry will not be proceeded with. I strongly suggest that the Federal Exporters Oversea Transport Committee go outside the conference lines and endeavour to find somewhere in the world a shipping line that will be prepared to pick up this fruit and take it to the markets in Europe. 1 am very pleased to know that the Commonwealth Scientific and industrial Research Organisation is investigating the problem of the codlin moth and the fruit fly which, I believe the Minister said, is the reason why we do not have access to Japanese markets at the present time. I wish the C.S.I.R.O. well in its investigations into this matter. I sincerely hope that the C.S.l.R.O. will come up with a solution to this problem and so help in the diversification of the market because this is a tremendously important thing. If these new markets were opened, 25 per cent, of the pressure would be taken off the Tasmanian industry in relation to markets in the United Kingdom and Germany.

Finally, following my comments yesterday in relation to hail damage to the export fruit crop, the Minister in his reply this afternoon omitted to mention the part that the C.S.l.R.O. might play in this field. The industry can work only in a very limited way in this regard. It has limited means. A limited number of people, relatively speaking, are engaged in it. Approximately £70,000 is required to supply sufficient anti-hail rockets for use by the industry in Tasmania. This is an extremely heavy load for a relatively few people to have to bear in view of the fact that the average net return of an orchardist in Tasmania is about 4s. a case. The 10 per cent, increase in the freight rale will mean an additional cost of about ls. a case which will have the effect of reducing the net returns to orchardists by approximately 25 per cent. This industry is struggling for its existence at the present time. We must bear in mind the fact that the orchard industry is carried on with very small blocks of land - approximately 20 acres to 30 acres. lt would bc extremely difficult to turn from this industry to some other form of agriculture on such a small area. If the industry has to carry any additional loads, especially one of 25 per cent., this could sound its death knell.

This afternoon, in the course of discussion of these estimates, we heard that the dairy industry in Australia is sick. I am now telling honorable senators that the orchard industry in Tasmania, which is the main fruit exporting area of Australia, is in difficulty. Senator Lawrie has dealt with the position in the sugar industry. So one wonders just what the Government will do about the situation of our primary industries, upon which we depend so much for overseas earnings to pay for the importation of raw materials, equipment, heavy machinery and so on to service our secondary industries, i am grateful to the Minister for announcing the assistance that can be given to the fishing industry and for endeavouring to clear up the problem in respect of the Japanese market for Tasmanian fruit. 1 wish to hear from him the attitude that will be taken towards the prevention of hail damage to the Tasmanian fruit crop. I also wish to hear from him some suggestions that may give some help to the people in the dairy industry who are struggling at the present time.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– The industries that are in the condition described by Senator Devitt are in that condition very largely because of increased costs. I rise mainly to speak about the apple industry to which Senator O’Byrne referred. He went into it fairly thoroughly. It is a fact that the apple industry, comparatively speaking, means more to the Tasmanian economy than to the economy of any other State. Increased production in other countries and the probable lessening demand on the English market because of the economic conditions there have resulted in a lower return to our producers. In fact, some producers, instead of receiving a cheque, receive a bill for costs.

The point has been reached where this and other industries simply cannot afford any increases in freight rates. The apple industry is in a parlous condition now. If freight rates keep increasing as they have increased over the past few years, some of these industries, particularly the apple industry, could be put out of business. Something that concerned me was a statement which was reported to have been made by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen) and which I read in a certain publication. I forget its name but I think it is supplied to all honorable senators. In that statement Mr. McEwen said that, according to statistics in his possession, if the present trends continued freight rates would treble by the late 1970s. Mr. McEwen does not speak lightly. In the statement that I read, he did not particularise at all. But, if freight rates increase to anything like the extent that he mentioned, not only the apple industry but a good many other industries in Australia will be put out of business. What concerns me is whether this Parliament is to stand by and see this happen without making some effort to alleviate the position.

Senator O’Byrne:

– As an old potato grower, the honorable senator would know that the growers are leaving their potatoes in the ground.

Senator LILLICO:

-That is right. They have been doing that off and on for years past. I believe that a thorough investigation of the position by a competent authority would not be amiss. I suggest an authority that could investigate the freight position and such things as harbour and port facilities. We are led to believe that many harbours and ports in Australia are inadequate, outmoded and result in a slow turnround of ships. Not long ago I read that the means of ingress and egress at some harbours and ports in Australia are completely outmoded and cause a lot of congestion. This matter should be considered with the utmost seriousness.

I repeat that, in my view, some competent authority should investigate the position and report on ways and means of bringing about some improvement. If the trend indicated in the statement made by Mr. McEwen to which I have referred continues, it may be fatal to the development and progress of Australia. The apple industry and other industries that are in such a parlous condition today, may go further down the scale until they almost cease to exist. I rose merely to say that. I suggest that some action be taken and that some investigation be made so that we will know precisely what is causing this set of conditions which, in my view, may lead to economic stagnation for Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator DrakeBrockman). - Order! I suggest that when honorable senators start to speak they mention the item to which they are speaking.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- I cannot state the item to which I am referring; but I notice that we are being asked to appropriate $.640,000 for wheat research, $280,000 for tobacco research and $85,000 for minor research and other projects. Looking through the appropriations for research, I wondered whether the Minister could tell me whether the Federal Government, through its departments, contributes anything towards research in the sugar industry. The Australian sugar industry is noted for its very scientific approach to both the growing and the manufacture of sugar. It has its sugar research station in Mackay and sugar experiment stations throughout the sugar growing areas of Queensland. Looking through the contributions to research, 1 see that there is no contribution to research in the sugar industry. I ask the Minister to let me know whether the Commonwealth Government does make any contribution to such research. If it does not, I ask whether it will give the matter consideration.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I relate my remarks to the proposed expenditure on agricultural extension services, which includes the subject to which, I am pleased to say, honorable senators from Tasmania .have directed the attention of the Committee. The Department of Primary Industry has the responsibility of promoting the welfare and prosperity of our primary industries as the source of an expanding export trade. In this chamber Tasmania is represented on a basis of equality with all the other States. Our apple and pear industry is of major importance. I have no need to traverse the situation. We are all concerned about the prosperity of that industry. Its national implication is that it has been a good export income earner for our State and Australia. But wish growing export freight charges and the other costs to which Senator Lillico has referred, there is dismay as to the future of the fruit industry in Tasmania.

The main point that comes out of the report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board is that freights have grown until they represent 80 per cent, of the value of the product. That freight rate gets the product 12,000 miles and lands it in Europe. Some have said that the solution is to exploit the Eastern trade. Through the tremendous influence of the Tasmanian Trade Promotion Branch under Mr. Angus Wilson, markets in and north of Singapore have been diligently cultivated to get Tasmanian fruit an outlet there. The trade to all these parts is expanding and anybody who has read the reports that Mr. Wilson has made after his mission will be encouraged to think that this part of the world will provide a market. But it would be false to our immediate needs to think that this can provide the solution that is required to support the European market. A year or two ago the European market absorbed something like 8 million cases of Tasmanian fruit and, due to the reduction of the crop, it absorbed last year something like 6 million cases.

I rise to put two points of view which 1 would ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) - not merely his departmental officers but the Minister himself - to consider. The first is the possibility of some co-operative arrangement between South Africa, New Zealand and Australia to see that the European market is not over-supplied with fruit from the southern hemisphere. These countries each produce their fruit at the same season and have the unique advantage of landing it in Europe in the off season. Apart from the Argentine, they are the only suppliers of fruit to the European market then. It surprises me that in the political imbalance between South Africa and the Commonwealth of Nations today, South Africa has the advantage. By reason of its proximity to Great Britain and its foresight in promoting the orchard industry and establishing refrigerating chambers at port side, South Africa is able to use all those advantages and get a benefit from the United Kingdom market that the staunch allies of Great Britain in the Commonwealth of Nations - Australia and New Zealand - do not share. This is partly because of their disadvantage of distance and partly because they have not promoted the industry in the same way as South Africa.

If it is not possible on a trade basis, it should be possible on a political basis, first, to try a co-operative arrangement between South Africa, New Zealand and Australia in their own interests to arrange supplies to the European market so that it will not be over-supplied. If it is not possible by co-operative arrangement it should be possible by using Australia’s influence with the British Government.

That is the first thing I want to say about this trade: but there is a second aspect which arises from freight costs. When we had some apprehension as to our export trade in manufactured goods five or six years ago, we met the situation by giving an incentive to exporters of secondary products by concessions in payroll tax to the extent to which they increased their exports. A component of export freights consists of a special payroll lax on the wharfs. This runs at the rate of 3s. 3d. per man hour of wharf labour and it is a component of freight on every case of fruit shipped. I know it is hypothecated for annual leave, sick leave and other amenities for waterside workers but if we are to keep our export trade intact, here is a special payroll tax which could be mitigated in favour of this industry. If that could not be done, could not the Government consider reducing the payroll tax in favour of all those whose costs contribute to Australian trade so that the actual freight that is charged the fruit exporter shall be reduced for a season or two?

The crucial fact regarding this industry today is that 80 per cent, of the value of the product is being taken in freight. I think with some of my other Tasmanian colleagues that it is imperative that the Government finds some means of reducing the load on these people to assist this export trade in such a way that the freight costs will be reduced. I do not think it is an immediate solution to suggest, the airy fairy nonsense that the Australian National Line engage in the export trade. That is just a political stunt and I appeal to Tasmanian senators on the other side of the chamber not to delude orchardists into thinking that is a practical solution. I also appeal to them, following the speech by Senator Wood who mentioned the sugar industry, not to desert the apple growers as they did the berry fruit growers when their caucus voted in favour of the major sugar industry of Queensland and said that out of the juice of the sugar, they could not provide anything for the small berry fruit growers in Tasmania.

I have made these few political comments by way of postscript to my remarks. I hope they engender no discord in the Senate’s consideration of this matter because what we want is Tasmanian senators to focus the attention of the Minister upon the imperative needs of the apple export industry to ensure that producers can get a market that will give them a reasonable return next season. I ask for consideration of these points of view: A co-operative arrangement between South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, to limit their supplies commensurate with the market and the Australian Government to find some way of reducing the freight costs so as to allow the producers a return next season.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– 1 have something to say in respect of Division No. 380, which relates to the Department of Primary Industry. The Schedule of Salaries and Allowances shows that this Department employs one Secretary, one Deputy Secretary, four First Assistant Secretaries, six Assistant Secretaries, a Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors, a Tobacco Appraiser, a Principal Project Officer, a Senior Project Officer, Project Officers, Senior Marketing Officers, a Chief Marketing Officer, a Personnel Officer, a Senior Research Officer, and so on. Officers in the Department total 327. What I have to say will relate to some of the duties that those officers have to perform.

We know that not all primary industries in the Commonwealth are enjoying a prosperous period. This is an opportunity that is afforded to the Parliament of the Commonwealth to bring forward the vicissitudes of some of our primary industries. If some good results from the discussion, the good will flow to the primary producers. Senator Lawrie is in his place. This afternoon he spoke about the sugar industry which last year received perhaps the lowest price on record for sugar exported, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £16 a ton. The widespread drought also had a very bad effect on the sugar industry last year. He referred to relief that will be afforded to Queensland sugar growers, but no money has yet gone forward from the Commonwealth Government. The $19 million is still in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Growers will have to wait till the legislation is passed to make that money available. From the way in which Senator Lawrie spoke this afternoon, I judged that he had deduced that the money had already gone forward and was in the hands of the authority which would pay it out to the growers.

A primary industry that has developed rather rapidly in recent years is the production of broilers. “ Broilers “ is perhaps a new word to many people. It relates to chickens that can be cooked or sold in a dressed condition. This industry has grown very rapidly in Australia. Since 1964-65 there has been a 16 per cent, increase in production in Queensland. Perhaps that 16 per cent, will apply, too, to the other States, because it does happen that in all of the States at present there is a certain amount of broiler production. I bring this matter up because here we have battlers in primary industry, men who are prepared to work for long hours seven days a week, who are short of capital to start their industry and who depend upon success from the moment that they begin. If something can be done about what is occurring in the industry at present the Government should take immediate action. It is very difficult indeed for producers of broilers to sell their produce at a profitable price. Big hatcheries are inclined to submerge and annihilate the small producer. On top of it all - this is what I want to bring to the notice of the Minister - we have broilers coming in from the United States of America. I may be embarking upon something .that concerns the Department of Trade and Industry, but I am speaking of a matter that affects broiler producers in Queensland and the rest of Austrafia. It surprised me to learn that last year Australia imported 316,000 lb. of chicken from the United States of America and 211,000 lb. from other countries.

Senator Cormack:

– Canned or fresh?

Senator BENN:

– These were brought into Australia in the same condition as broilers are obtained here at present. This is something that might interest the honorable senator: Bottled chicken is being imported from France and sold at Si a bottle. These imports are certainly handicapping local producers. I do not think that was intended at all. I mentioned the staff employed in the Department. It must be the function of one of those officers, or several of (hem. to watch this kind of thing, I know that the sugar industry was badly smitten last year because of drought and low prices, but no sugar has been imported. Similarly, no wheat is being imported. It is rather ironical that, at least in the eastern States, last year we had millions of cattle and sheep and no fodder for them, lt happens that this year we have the feed but we have not the cattle and sheep. This will handicap the economy of the Commonwealth for three or four years at least.

I return to the battlers in primary industry, the broiler producers and poultry men generally. They are not in prosperous circumstances. Their industry has many defects and it appears to mc that the Department of Primary Industry is not doing all that it could do to help them. There are six State departments, too, concerned with primary industry, and there should be some collaboration between the Commonwealth and State Departments. I am sure that some of the handicaps that are being endured at present by broiler producers could be corrected. I have been told that in Sydney chicken is selling at a wholesale price of 3.1c per lb. This gives a ridiculous return of 6c per lb. or $6 per 100 birds to the producer. It would seem that the industry is not on a sound economic foundation. If the Department of Primary Industry can do anything to have the position corrected even slightly, it will be doing some good.

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

– Senator Devitt referred to hail damage. I know that this causes a lot of financial loss in Tasmania. Unfortunately, there is apparently no provision in that State for insurance against hail such as we have for wheat crops in the eastern States. 1 understand that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation did some research into this problem some time ago but apparently it was not able to get very far. Reference has been made to the firing of rockets to break up the storm clouds before they start to spill out hail. I know that this problem is of grave moment to the apple and pear growers of Tasmania. But to be quite truthful, [ do not know of any solution to the problem. I understand that in some cases the growers have adopted a cooperative form of insurance.

The honorable senator referred also to freights. We are now dealing with the estimates for the Department of Primary Industry. The subject of freights is not a responsibility of the Department of Primary Industry but is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. Senator Lillico stressed the importance of apples and referred to what I think he described as our outmoded ports. I believe that he is on sound ground in mentioning this matter. It is one that is being brought to the forefront in most States. At long last action is being taken to modernise our ports. This will be of great advantage. I believe that the producers’ organisations will find that it is imperative for them to keep continual pressure on the bodies concerned to ensure that modernisation is effected as speedily as possible.

Senator Wood:

asked whether any research was being undertaken in regard to sugar. No research such as is being undertaken in many other industries is being undertaken in the sugar industry. For example, research is being conducted into the production of wheat, wool, dairy products and tobacco, and even into plague locusts. A sum of about $100,000 has been granted by the Commonwealth for a series of minor research projects to match funds put up by States or industries in regard to activities which do not enjoy the benefit of research funds established by legislation. These projects include pest management in pome fruit orchards, the biological control of lantana, banana research, and research into the cotton, ginger, honey and poultry industries. The practice has been for industries, that are benefiting from research to make contributions themselves. This is something that the sugar industry could well look at.

Senator Devitt referred also to the dairy industry. The Government is only too well aware of the problems that face this industry, and it is examining means of diverting butterfat from the production of butter and cheese. I remind honorable senators of the introduction of the processed milk products bounty of $800,000 a year. We must remind ourselves that this year a sum of $27,800,000 has been made available to assist the dairy industry. Senator Devitt suggested that an inquiry should be conducted into the dairy industry. 1 do not know how many more inquiries we need. There have been quite a number since 1960. It has been indicated to me from private sources that markets are opening up overseas for the by-products of butter production. From what I have been told, this development could prove to be very valuable in the future. 1 come from a State in which over the past three to six months the production of butter has been a burning question. The matter still has not been settled. The State Minister for Agriculture has just put forward a scheme which in the main seems to be acceptable to dairy farmers outside the milk zone. Dairy farmers outside the milk zone in New South Wales and a large body of dairy farmers in Queensland probably are worse off than dairy farmers elsewhere in Australia. Perhaps a few elsewhere are not doing too well, but I think the majority of those who are doing poorly, are in the two States I have mentioned. This is not an easy problem to overcome, because in the main dairy farmers have only small properties. The farmer’s property is not large enough to enable him to direct his activities into other spheres of production. He never seems to be able to get far enough ahead to get into the position where he can produce economically.

Senator McClelland:

– He finds it difficult to get bank accommodation, too.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– The honorable senator is quite right. It is difficult to get bank accommodation. Possibly in many cases the farmers’ credit worthiness is not sufficient to enable loans to be made by the trading banks or even the other banks. That is about all 1 can say in regard to the dairy industry.

The subject of extension services was raised by Senator Wright. I think a very good job is being done in this sphere. One of the criticisms that arise from time to time in my own State is that, while the extension services are good at the foundation level, in some cases the information that is being gleaned by experimentation is not transmitted to the producer. Senator Wright mentioned the need for co-operation between New Zealand, South African and Australian fruit suppliers. I point out that this is a matter, not for the Department pf Primary Industry but for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Senator Benn referred to staff. The Department of Primary Industry is a fairly big department. We cannot operate big departments unless we have adequate staff. I know it is commonly believed that many civil servants are not doing enough work. But there is no doubt that in our departments we have some men who are making a considerable financial sacrifice out of loyalty to their departments. These men could get much more money outside. One of the difficulties is that, because of the money it is paying them, the Department of Primary Industry finds it difficult to retain its top men. But under existing provisions the Department just cannot pay those men any more. I do not suggest for one moment that everybody in every department is 100 per cent, efficient. That state of affairs does not exist anywhere else. Why should we expect to find it in the departments? But on the whole these men are doing a good job.

The broiler position was raised by Senator Benn. I know that the position as outlined by him existed two or three years ago, but I did not think that the position now is as bad as he has suggested. I am not saying that what the honorable senator said is not right. But here again, this is a matter, not for the Department of Primary Industry but for either the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Customs and Excise. I do know that the percentage of profit that is enjoyed by the producers of broilers is quite small. I conclude by saying that honorable senators have heard me say time and time again that as a rule the primary producer gets the rough end of the pineapple.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– 1 desire to raise a matter which is of importance to the Australian economy, and more particularly, to the economy of New South Wales. My remarks are related to items 04 and 05 in subdivision 2 of Division No. 380 - Administrative, under which appropriations are made for the “ Fisheries Newsletter “ and fisheries services. The appropriation this year for the printing of the “ Fisheries Newsletter “ is £2 1 ,000. This publication is issued each month by the Department of Primary Industry. An appropriation of $27,000- only $6,000 more- is made for fisheries services. Frankly, I do not believe that this amount is sufficient for fisheries services, having regard to the importance of the fishing industry to Australia and to the great number of people who are dependent upon it.

For the time being 1 have the honour to represent New South Wales in this Parliament. Between Tweed Heads, on the north coast of New South Wales, and Eden, on the south coast, there are large towns, small towns, hamlets and coastal resorts which are completely dependent on the fishing industry. In other words, practically every person who resides or earns his living in those townships is connected, directly or indirectly, with the fishing industry. In January of this year the Department of Primary Industry pointed out in the “ Fisheries Newsletter “ that preliminary statistics prepared by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics showed that the production of fish for 1964-65 had declined by 3.3 per cent, when compared with the previous year, and that the gross value to fishermen had fallen by 10.9 per cent. These figures illustrate the great economic difficulties that confront people in the fishing industry. lt is all very well for the Department of Primary Industry to spend $21,000 on a publication containing information for fishermen on what is happening in the industry. I concede that it is well prepared each month, but frankly, I think it borders on scandal that only $6,000 more annually is spent on providing fisheries services to the people who earn their living in the industry. 1 should like to know what activities are engaged in by the Department of Primary Industry in providing information on fishing services to people in the industry. Recently, I toured the north coast of New South Wales and found that men engaged in the fishing industry and those who live in towns and hamlets which are entirely dependent upon the industry are very concerned about their economic future and that of their families.

In a publication prepared by the New South Wales Fish Authority in July last, several instances are cited that give cause for concern amongst Australian fishermen. An article states that New Zealand is considering invoking article 10 of the New Zealand-Australian Free Trade Agreement to prevent the dumping of fish on the Australian market by the United Kingdom and South Africa. The article went on to say that New Zealand fish exporters to Australia were reported to be facing a vicious price war in Australia between United Kingdom and South African suppliers. According to information supplied by the Department of Primary Industry last year a decline of 10.9 per cent, when compared with the previous year occurred in the value of the return to fishermen. On top of that, the New South Wales Fish Authority states that New Zealand exporters are very concerned at the possibility of the dumping of fish on the Australian market by United Kingdom and South African suppliers.

On the same page in the publication it is stated that Canada eyes Australia as a potential fish market. Australia is a nation of 3 million square miles with a coastline of about 12,000 square miles and is surrounded completely by water. People from other nations come here and interfere with Australians engaged in the fishing industry. I say that deliberately, because on 21st June last an article appeared in the Lismore “ Northern Star “ referring to poaching by Japanese fishing vessels in Australian waters, lt pointed out that damage amounting to $9,000 was done by Japanese fishing interests to the equipment of Australian fishermen engaged in earning their living in waters off the Australian coastline.

I think it has been proposed from time to time in this Parliament that the territorial zone should be extended for Australian fishermen from three miles to 12 miles. I do not know whether that matter comes within the ambit of the Department of Primary Industry. I rather suspect that it is a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department. Nonetheless, fishermen engaged in this industry are very concerned at their future. I ask the Minister to explain what research and activities are undertaken and what information is provided in return for an expenditure of $27,000 on fisheries services. I turn now to deal briefly with a matter related to the meat industry and the export of Australian meat, mainly to the United States of America. r

The CHAIRMAN:

– To what item is the honorable senator relating his remarks?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Division No. 380 - Administrative. Honorable senators will be aware that about two or three years ago, following a visit by Dr. Pals of the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States authorities insisted on improved hygiene standards in Australian killing establishments preparing meat for export to the United States. I and all members of the Australian Labour Party agree with the recommendations as to improved standards of hygiene. But, of course, it just cannot be all one way traffic. While standards must of necessity be improved for export killing, the conditions under which the workers in the industry labour must also bc improved.

I raised the matter wilh the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) in correspondence, asking what is the attitude of the Department toward the provision of clean clothing for people engaged in export meatworks. In reply, the Minister told me that the matter was subject to regulation 61 (2) (a) of the Exports (Meat) Regulations relating to employees engaged in the slaughtering and dressing of animals. The Minister said, amongst other things, that he appreciated that the manner in which the regulation is expressed might give rise to doubts about its application to employees engaged in the slaughtering and dressing of animals, and he therefore had requested his Department <to have an appropriate amendment made to the regulations which would clarify the requirement. He mentioned that the amendment would be introduced as soon as possible. That was on 17th July last. 1 have not seen the amendment to date, although I admit that because of the number of regulations that go through this Parliament, one could perhaps miss it.

The Minister also said that the Exports (Meat) Regulations are designed primarily to ensure the preparation of a clean, wholesome product free from contamination which might arise from any source in the premises, including employees’ clothing. He said he believed that a statutory requirement that employees should wear clean clothing made of a material which would not contaminate the product with loose fibre, achieved this aim and was as far as the regulation should go. Frankly, I do .not agree with the Minister in that regard. I believe that the regulation should provide that the clothing must be of a specific nature, cither of a light cotton fabric or of some other fabric specifically stipulated. The type of material to be worn by employees should be specifically stated. The details should be set out clearly so that there can be no excuse and no ambiguity. If workers on the job are required to comply with the provisions, the clothing certainly should be provided either by the Department which is responsible for policing the regulating under the Meat Export Award or by the employers engaged in the meat industry. Those are the two matters 1 wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. They are both important to the economy of this nation. The fishing industry is in a parlous situation. There is doubt and ambiguity concerning the Exports (Meat) Regulations, and I therefore ask for clarification of those matters.

Senator HEATLEY:
Queensland

.- Our primary industries are vital to the interests of Australia because to date the primary industries have been the backbone of our export trade. I wish to direct attention to Division No. 941, item 02 - Agricultural Extension Services, and Division No. 380, subdivision 2, items 4 and 5. I think that the majority of our States have to date depended on the results of primary industry. In recent years we have had droughts, the severity of which had not been experienced since 1902. In the near future we shall pass through a troublesome period of rehabilitation. We have weathered the droughts, and with the assistance of the Department of Primary Industry I am sure that we will overcome such problems in the future.

Let me by way of preface mention some of the points which have arisen in this debate. First, Senator Mulvihill raised the question of trade union representation on the Australian Meat Board. I am not a Minister and I have no aspirations in that direction, but I cannot see that the adoption of his suggestion would help at all in the organisation or administration of the Board. I ask him to take the matter up with the Minister and to discuss with him whether or not this would be beneficial. If he does so, I am sure he will receive the greatest assistance. Reference has been made to the establishment of ports and the provision of shipping facilities for our primary industries, particularly those in north Queensland. I take i: that mining is a primary industry. In this respect, we find that Weipa will be a greater port in relation to its volume of exports than is the port of Brisbane. We have no regrets about developing ports such as that. Many people think only of sheep, cattle and livestock when they think of primary industry.

Intense investigation is being made into means of bringing cattie south from the far north of Queensland. 1 speak of Queensland because that is the part of the continent which 1 know best. Intense investigation also has been made with a view to discovering which are the best ports to develop in order to handle the cattle that are brought down from the rapidly developing areas in the north. 1 know from my visits there over the last four months that certain recommendations have been made. I believe that the expansion of primary production will be helped greatly when these ports are established and developed.

In passing, I wish to refer to the sugar industry. 1 accepted a challenge which was made to me to go to the sugar producing area in north Queensland and discuss the problems of the industry. I was born and bred there but I did not know the details of the industry or the intrigues and inner mechanics of the industrial side. I accepted the challenge and went there and spoke to the farmers. I learned quite a bit. I was able to assist them, by means of my representations, to stimulate what 1 believe to be one of the best organised industries in Australia. Sugar producers do not run to us for assistance when they see a problem. They work out the solution for themselves, and only in the most dire extremes do they come to us as a government and say: “ Can you help? Can you advise?” 1 respect the industry .100 per cent.

The Treasurer (Mr. McMahon), in consultation with his departmental officers, has decided to give the industry a stimulant, an injection, of $19 million. The assistance is being provided not to individual growers but to the industry, which is what those engaged in the industry wanted. The object is to keep the industry buoyant so that eventually it will be able to overcome the problems which confront it. I am sure that it will do this in the not too distant future.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Does the honorable senator think it was wise for the State Government to increase the acreages? Does he think that acreages could be reduced again?

Senator HEATLEY:

– I shall answer the honorable senator’s interjection if I may, Madam Temporary Chairman. The Gibbs Committee recommended that acreages should be increased by a certain percentage. Perhaps they were increased too quickly, but that is not for this House to judge. The State Government has to decide that matter.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The growers expect us to help them.

Senator HEATLEY:

– I think that it will be a sorry day for Australia when we cannot help them. The sugar industry is one of the strongest and best organised industries in Australia. We do not hear any squeals, yells or lamentations from it. The growers are prepared to stand on their own two feet. I think that it is up to us to support them when they need our help.

I revert to my point concerning the fisheries section of primary industry. The cattle and sheep sections have been dealt with quite adequately. I owe my livelihood to primary industry. I have been engaged in the sheep, cattle, fish and timber industries all my life. I think that the fishing industry is deserving of a lot of attention. The value of our imports of fish from overseas is in the vicinity of $4 million. Yet in Queensland we have the Barrier Reef and other fishing areas virtually untapped. I have always advocated that more money should be spent on research into the movements and breeding grounds of pelagic fish and crustaceans. Fishing vessels from foreign countries which are operating along our coast are working very efficiently and obviously very economically. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot do the same. I was pleased to hear the announcement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) today that there will be a three day conference on the development of Australian fisheries on 20th, 21st and 22nd February of next year.

I have sailed from southern New South Wales to the tip of Cape York Peninsula, and at no stage did we run out of tuna, black fin, yellow fin and other varieties of fish. Further research should be carried out. 1 am pleased to see in the estimates that more money is to be spent on fisheries services. However, 1 have spoken to departmental officials and 1 understand that they arc prepared to spend much more money than is proposed to be spent this year. I think that the fisheries industry is a terrific industry which as yet is virtually untapped. A lot of the men engaged in this industry are very despondent because they cannot find better fishing fields. But I noticed in yesterday’s Press that Dr. Raaseck is reported to have discovered new fields off the continental shelf. This bears out what I saw in the United States. Fishermen there told me that whereas previously they had been fishing in 30 or 40 fathoms of water, now they had moved out to 80 and 90 fathoms and had found prawns.

Senator Devitt:

– And crayfish loo.

Senator HEATLEY:

– That is purely a seasonal factor. At the moment I have a boat working off Ballina and it has discovered new fields. Crayfish are being caught in water from 92 fathoms back to 6 feet. I do not like to introduce my private affairs into a debate in this chamber but I would nol want honorable senators to think that I am not trying to promote primary industries. I was brought up to believe that we should develop our primary industries which up to the present have been the backbone of Australia.

So much for the fishing industry. I turn now to agricultural extension services. In Queensland we are grateful for what the Department of Primary Industry had done in advising and providing assistance both before and after the drought, and also for the recommendations it had made to the Government for drought relief. But as I have said previously in this chamber, 1 think that extension services must be very closely watched. The results of a great deal of research are not reaching the primary producers. I am extremely pleased to see that the appropriation for agricultural extension services this year has been increased by more than 100 per cent, over last year’s appropriation. If the results of surveys, investigations and research are made available to graziers and other primary producers, I believe that the additional expenditure will be money well spent.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– Unfortunately, when the Minister answered the last set of questions which had been asked of him, I did not hear any reference to my suggestion that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation might be induced to take a hand in overcoming the problem of hail damage in the orchard areas of Tasmania.

Senator McKellar:

– I mentioned that the C.S.I. R.O. had carried out investigations.

Senator DEVITT:

– I am sorry, I was absent from the chamber and I did not hear the Minister say that.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I want to refer to the bounties that are paid under the Dairying Industry Act. This year an amount of $24,500,000 is provided for the payment of bounties to butler producers. Of course, this is a substantial part of the total amount of $29,877,000 which is provided for the payment of bounties this year. One has been inundated with literature in recent weeks on the subject of the inefficiency of the dairy industry. One has been flooded with propaganda stating that because the dairy industry is so inefficient we should revise our consideration of this bounty that is payable to the dairy industry. 1 think that Australians as a whole have taken for granted, without any careful analysis of the facts, that the Australian dairy industry is in fact inefficient. Recently, I asked the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service to give me some figures relating to the Commonwealth basic wage, the Sydney retail price of butter and the average return of dairy farmers as at June for a number of years. The base year for the basic wage was 1945. This was the year also for the Sydney retail price of butter. Both of these figures were 100. 1 will not weary the Committee with figures. I will give the 1966 figure. The 1966 index figure for the basic wage is 342 while the index figure for the Sydney retail price of butter is 312. So, on a retail basis, the price of butter has not kept pace with the rise in the basic wage. So much for the story that we hear bandied about that the price of butler in Australia is exceptionally high. In relation to the basic wage, it is low. If we look at what the butter producer receives, the story is different altogether. The figures supplied to me refer to a base year of 1950 when the index figure for the return to the dairyman was 130. The latest figure that was availablefor 1964- was 210. So, during that period, there has been a rise in the return to dairymen, from 130 to 210, while in the same period the basic wage index figure has risen from 141 to 322.

Senator Benn:

– Does the figure 130 include the butter subsidy?

Senator PROWSE:

– Yes. It includes the subsidy. The actual figure for the return to the dairyman was lower in 1964 than it was in 1953. In 1953, the dairyman was receiving 47. Id. per lb. In 1964, he received 45.86d. per lb. So, during that period while all costs were rising, the return to the dairyman was falling. I ask honorable senators: What industry in Australia would continue to exist in a situation like that? This so called inefficient industry has survived under conditions in which its returns have been declining since 1953 from the index figure of 216 to 210 in 1964 while, if we accept the basic wage figure as reflecting an indication of costs - and it is that- this figure has risen to 141 as against 322 in the same period. I think that the people who talk so glibly about the inefficiency of the dairymen and the dairy industry should consider how they would fare in that context. The report of the Committee of Economic Inquiry-

Senator Ormonde:

– What is the attitude of the Country Party?

Senator PROWSE:

– It is to maintain the subsidy.

Senator Benn:

– You have made out a good case for the dairy farmer. Will you tell me-

Senator PROWSE:

– Will you let me make my speech or-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wedgwood:
VICTORIA

– Order! Senator Prowse will address the Chair.

Senator PROWSE:

– My apologies, Madam. I am drawing attention to the fact that the dairy industry on the basis of efficiency must surely compare very well with Australian industries as a whole. It has responded to the challenge by increasing the production per cow and, to a certain extent, per unit. This continual harping on the inefficiency of the dairy industry comes ill, I think, from people who are connected with a system of boosting prices in Australia on the level of the cost structure as it moves. This harping comes largely from people who support enthusiastically a system of protection. I am not criticising that system. But if it is right for secondary industries then it is right for primary industries.

If we can maintain the average level of protection at 30 per cent, in accordance with the argument of the Vernon Committee which inquired into the economy, then the dairy industry qualifies very well. For a subsidy of $25 million per year, the dairy industry has contributed $106 million to our export industry. So, on the basis of export income, the dairy industry is earning its keep. When some of these so called efficient industries - our secondary industries that have been pampered for so long - export the same proportion of their total production as our primary industries are exporting, particularly the dairy industry, then I think the secondary industries will be contributing a great deal more to our export figures than they are doing at present.

Those who would sneer at the efficiency of the dairy industry need to have a look at some of the facts concerning the industry. One of the difficulties in assessing the level of efficiency is the absence of statistical bases that would give us any competent measure of judgment regarding the industry. We certainly have not at the moment any means of assessing this level. When we look at the world situation, I am doubtful that any butter producer in the world is selling his product unsubsidised. The New Zealand industry subsidises its producers. The so called world market prices for butter which are often quoted as being the prices at which we could land butter in Australia would be very elusive if we ever attempted to import butter because we would find that these prices no longer existed as world market prices.

I urge those who so glibly criticise the efficiency of the dairy industry, especially those who criticise the existence of this subsidy that has been proved necessary to protect the industry over the years, to consider the points that I have raised. No better proposition has been put forward. We have been told that the subsidy helps (he most efficient producers. If anybody can devise a method by which differential prices can be paid in the butter industry or any other industry, he will be a magician. I know of no industry that expects its members to receive varying prices. No method is available to the Government, except the payment of a price related to production. In my view, we need to consider carefully the whole range of Australian industry - some of the so called economists who have so glibly branded the butter industry as inefficient should do this - and apply to other industries the rules that those so called economists apply to the butter industry,

Senator McKELLAR:
New South Wales Minister for Repatriation · CP

– Earlier Senator Benn mentioned that no money has yet been made available to the sugar growers in Queensland, lt is expected that the Queensland Sugar Board will make application for this money. But before that can be done certain legislation has to be passed by the Queensland Parliament. That has not yet been done. So the Commonwealth cannot be blamed because the money has not yet been made available.

Senator McClelland mentioned hygiene standards in killing establishments. This applies not only to chilling works but also to any abattoir that exports meat. It has cost some abattoirs thousands of dollars to be in a position to be passed by the authorities who are responsible for certifying that they meet the conditions that were laid down by the people who came to Australia from America to ensure that hygiene in our abattoirs was up to the standard on which they insisted. Senator McClelland mentioned clothing. About two months ago I had a look over the Darwin abattoir. I was interested to find that all of the operatives there wore white caps. The manager told me that hair is regarded as one of the chief offenders in the lack of hygiene. In other words, germs can be carried more easily in the hair than on any other part of the body. That is the reason why the operatives wear caps, lt is true that the regulations in relation to clothing have not yet been amended. But it is intended that they will be amended.

Regarding fisheries, the journal mentioned by the honorable senator contained a report of the dumping of fish in Australia by the United Kingdom and South Africa. But no real evidence of such dumping was produced. Australia relies on imports of fish mainly in the form of frozen fillets which are largely in packs ready for cooking. The Government is examining the question of extending the exclusive fishing zone around Australia from 3 to 12 miles, but no decision has yet been made on that matter. The Commonwealth is engaged in fisheries research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, which is engaged in a wide range of research projects designed to assist the fishing industry. An examination of what has been done would appear to show that there has been a continual improvement in this field. Senator Heatley may or may not know of two individual surveys of the Gulf of Carpentaria carried out in conjunction with the Queensland Government. Also, a survey for tuna off the Barrier Reef, covering the period from 1st August to 30th November, was carried out in conjunction with the Queensland Government. That survey is to be repeated between January and April 1967.

I was very pleased to see somebody stand up and defend the dairy industry. Senator Prowse was quite right in his remarks concerning it. I do not know of any honorable senator who would like to put up with what the average dairy farmer has to put up with in the areas that are not doing as well as the main dairying areas.

Senator Ormonde:

– Is that true efficiency?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I do not know whether it is true efficiency or not; but I am prepared to say that if any honorable senator entered this industry he would not bc any more efficient than the people who are already in it.

Senator McClelland:

– Why can they not obtain bank accommodation?

Senator McKELLAR:

– As I mentioned earlier, in many cases the question of creditworthiness enters into the matter. I suppose that if any of us were in the money lending business we would look for security before we lent money. Many of these people are not in a position to offer the necessary security. That is the reason.

Senator Prowse went on to give figures to substantiate his claim that, because costs have been rising continually since the present prices for dairy produce were fixed, dairy farmers have not had much of a chance, if they have had any chance at all, to get ahead of things financially. I again remind honorable senators that these people work 365 days a year. On many dairy farms, not only does the dairy farmer work, but his wife works, very often his children work and, if they have a grandmother, she works too. These are the people whom some say are spoon fed. I believe that it would be very good for some of the critics to go on to a dairy farm for a while and to do some of the jobs that the dairy farmers are doing now.

Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted.

Department of the Navy.

Proposed expenditure, $193,673,000.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

.- I refer to Division No. 664. I wish to preface my remarks on that Division by making a couple of criticisms. The first is that the Defence Report for 1966 was supplied only today. When I spoke on the estimates for the Department of Supply, I criticised that Department because its report was not available. In fact, it has not yet been made available. The fact that the Defence Report for 1966 was made available only today is very regrettable because members of the Opposition and also members of the Government parties, unless they received copies earlier, have not had an opportunity to study it in detail.

The first point that I want to make in regard to the Department of the Navy - perhaps it would be more approporiate if I left this until later, but I will deal with it now - is that the figures given on page 17 of the Defence Report show that the estimated expenditure for this year represents an increase of 40 per cent, on the expenditure in 1965-66. The report we have received today states -

In comparison with 1965-66, estimated expenditure for 1966-67 has increased by $64,012 million to $234,634 million, largely due to the purchase of new equipment.

In his Budget Speech, the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) stated that $1,000 million or 17 per cent, of the total Budget was to be spent on defence. If one examines the figures, it is significant that the Navy still apparently does not warrant a very large part in the defence organisation and still receives a. minor share of the Budget compared with other arms of the defence forces. Last year we were told of an order for 10 Skyhawk fighter bombers. The allocation was to be in two sections. There was to be one allocation for the Navy and then there was a revised programme providing for some alterations. I will not go into them in detail because I have not the time but I want to know what happened to the 10 Skyhawk bombers which were ordered for 1967. Have any of them arrived? Are they likely to be delivered on time?

Before I comment on the proposed appropriation under Division No. 664 - Australian Naval Forces, I want to refer to some provision for 1965-66 about which we have not yet had any information. As 1 said last year, I am critical of the Government for spending money outside Australia on the construction of naval vessels which should be built in Australia. The Auditor-General’s report for the year ended 30:h June 1966 refers at page 154 to the purchase of three Charles F. Adams guided missile destroyers and it states -

During the year, two of the three Charles F. Adams class guided missile destroyers, being purchased under an agreement between the United States and Australian Governments, were commissioned.

The destroyers have been or are being built in accordance with a contract entered into by the United States Navy, which is applying the same contractual and inspection procedures as are employed in relation to its own shipbuilding programme.

Australia is required to reimburse the United States Government the cost of the destroyers.

The report stated that the total expenditure on these destroyers to 30th June 1966 would be $53,393,644. Again, I want to know why this money has not been spent in Australia. Does the Government consider, as it has in other connections, that no Australian workman is able to do this class of work? The Government has adopted that attitude in other fields and appears to be delighted to send money over- seas. Under Division No. 664. there is a proposed appropriation for the Permanent Naval Forces of $42,998,000 compared with the appropriation last year of $38,642,000. The actual expenditure last year was a little under the appropriation. If the Navy is growing as the Government claims, one would have expected the appropriation this year to be somewhat larger than it was last year but the appropriation for the Royal Australian Naval Reserves this year is only $622,000 compared with actual expenditure last year of $478,602. Perhaps the Minister will explain the reason for this.

Under Division No. 668, the proposed appropriation for travelling and subsistence is $4,340,000 compared with actual expenditure last year of $3,473,571. This is a significant increase and I should like the Minister to give a detailed explanation of this item. Division No. 668, Item 03, provides for an appropriation of $785,000 for office requisites and equipment, stationery and printing compared with an appropriation last year of $680,000 and an actual expenditure pf $678,322. I know there has been some criticism in another document of the expenditure of money for which there was no provision last year for a particular department. This might throw some light on the problem. Item 04 in this Division provides for an appropriation of $743,000 for postage, telegrams and telephone services compared with an appropriation last year of $800,000 and actual expenditure of $778,923. In view of the Minister’s explanation on a previous occasion of a similar item under the estimates for another department to the effect that costs had increased, is the Navy so efficient that it can carry out an expansion programme while reducing expenditure on this item?

I come now to a matter about which I have been critical previously. I refer to Division No. 668, Item 15, “Incidental and Other Expenditure “. This might be called the petty cash account. Last year the appropriation was $320,000 and expenditure was $318,292. The appropriation this year is $374,000, an increase of $54,000. What comes under this heading? Why is such a large sum of money placed under the heading of “ Incidental and Other Expenditure “? Before I make my general remarks, I want some information on Division No. 677 - Aircraft and Associated Initial Equipment - Purchase and Manufacture. Actual expenditure last year was well under the appropriation of $9,386,000 and totalled $6,886,207. The proposed appropriation is $1,276,000. If the Government is still arranging the purchase of Skyhawk bombers, is paying off the Charles F. Adams destroyers and is generally negotiating in other areas for aircraft and equipment, it seems strange that expenditure under any of these headings should show such a significant decrease.

I turn now to Division No. 681 - Machinery and Plant for Naval Dockyards and Establishments. Actual expenditure last year was $1,326,318 and the appropriation has jumped to $2,067,000. Under Division No. 685 - Defence Research and Development the appropriation last year was $520,000, actual expenditure was $262,782 and the proposed appropriation is $433,000. I realise there are certain expenses under these headings which can make a significant difference but perhaps the Minister can explain the reason for the variation. I feel impelled to make some reference to these matters in the discussion of the estimates. There is still a lot to be desired so far as the Royal Australian Navy is concerned. This Government has not approached the defence of this country in the manner in which it should have been approached in order to provide a properly balanced defence system. Again I make the accusation that the Navy largely is a fishing fleet; If some of the vessels were supplied, they would help Senator Heatley to find some of those prawns of his in 40 fathoms of water. 1 refer now to the Seventy-Fifth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, at page 20. In relation to the Department of the Navy, the Committee states, in paragraph 102 -

The Department indicated that during May, 1965 the Department of the Interior advised that the requirement for the Department of the Navy’s share towards the cost of construction of the joint Navy/Army E.D.I’, building would not exceed the £55,000 already paid to the National Capital Development Commission . . .

Paragraph 103 reads -

In regard to the under-expenditure on the naval establishment housing, Mr. Murphy informed us that initially the Department had provided for seventeen houses, at a cost of £18,000. Subsequently, this project was placed before the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Services’ Housing Programme, and it was decided that the programme would be provided only in respect of the number of people actually on the housing list at that time. Due to officers being posted away for various reasons, the number on the housing list at the time was nil, although there were 7 people who had applied for housing but could not be considered for the list until they actually arrived at H.M.A.S. “ Harman “. Consequently, after the Draft Estimates had been submitted to Treasury, the Department of Defence, on 27th July 1964, advised the Department of the Navy that following consideration by the Minister for Defence of the Report of the InterDepartmental Committee, the proposal for the construction of additional houses at H.M.A.S. ‘“Harman” was not approved.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I refer to Division No. 675, which relates to naval construction. 1 am forced to make reference to that division because of the remarks that have been made by Senator Keeffe, which I feel should be challenged. First, he said that the Charles F. Adams destroyers could have been made in Australia. It is quite true that the hulls could have been made in Australia. I have been on these destroyers and had a look at them. I doubt whether Senator Keeffe has been on one. In naval construction the hulls are not the important thing; it is what is in them. Anyone who saw one of these Charles F. Adams destroyers would appreciate the complexity of the equipment buried in the bowels of these ships which would not be available in Australia. Australian naval ratings and officers are entitled to have equipment that is superior to that of any possible enemy which they are likely to meet. I am not one of those politicians who believe that the lowest level of technical equipment should be given to the armed forces. I believe that the best should be given to them.

The second point [ wish to make is that the missile equipment on these destroyers is not within the technical competence of Australian manufacturers to produce. I refer to the Tartar missile equipment. It is not within the competence of Australian technology at present to produce the weapon guidance system required to fire these missiles and it is not within the competence of Australian technology to produce the quickfiring guns with which these vessels are equipped. So much for the ships. We are extraordinarily lucky that the United States Government has been able to give us relief in the terms of payment for these ships. The original agreement was made by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gorton), who was then Minister for the Navy, with Mr. McNamara, the United States Secretary for Defence. The United States Government agreed to become the contracting authority for the purchase of these ships wilh a capacity to allow Australia to pay for the ships over a long term. Attention is drawn to that fact in the 1966 report of the Department of Defence at page 14, in relation to logistical arrangements with the United States Government. If Senator Keeffe looks at the second paragraph, he will see the arrangements set out quite clearly.

It is appropriate that .1 should refer to another matter in relation to the Division with which I have been dealing. Senator Keeffe said that the Royal Australian Navy was nothing but a fishing fleet. This is a denigration of the worst order. The best way to sabotage the morale of the Navy, Air Force and Army, is to sneer at them. The Navy is not a fishing fleet. This is a fleet of high capacity, although not as of high capacity as it will be in a few more years. It has been caught, as was the Royal Navy, in what is known as the 10 years period. In the period up till 1962-63 the Royal Australian Navy was not having devoted to it the money that should have been devoted to it. It is now in a 10 years period when it is being raised to higher capacity. I venture to say, 1 hope without too much contradiction from any honorable senator, that even at this stage an enemy that tangled with the Royal Australian. Navy would receive such a mauling that it would never wish to have another go. I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of all honorable senators on this side when I say that it is not a fishing fleet but is a fine fighting service of noble traditions.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- I refer to Division No. 672, which relates to repair and other charges on ships, aircraft, machinery and plant. I direct attention to the remarks of the AuditorGeneral in his report on the Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure. At page 209 he refers to motor transport for the Department of the Navy. I consider that he has given a well earned rebuke to the Department in relation to its policy on the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles used at various establishments. He states -

The general conditions required by the Department to be satisfied when considering replacement of motor vehicles provide, among other things, that vehicles arc to be retained in service until they reach the end of their economical life.

What has actually happened is thai many vehicles have been in use in naval establishments for a considerable number of years and have recorded in excess of 50,000 miles. In some instances the accumulated repair costs exceeded the orginal value of the vehicles. This is indefensible and is just a was.e of money. In addition, it borders on inefficiency that vehicles should be in such a state of disrepair that repair costs are so high. An establishment depends on every section being at a state of readiness and at the highest possible efficiency. That the Auditor-General should have to direct the attention not only of the Department but also of the Parliament to this state of affairs should not go without remark. The AuditorGeneral slated that the conditions that exist in the Department of the Navy are different from those in any other Department. I wonder why. There is evidently a parsimonious outlook in some sections of the Department that has allowed this to happen as an exception to the general rule. In his remarks, the Auditor-General said -

These conditions are in contrast with the policy observed by the other Service Departments whereby replacement criteria have been determined to provide for the disposal of vehicles after specified periods of time and completion of certain minimum mileages. Consequently, vehicles replaced are generally disposed of while they still retain a considerable resale value.

No department should fail to avail itself of the opportunity to obtain vehicles without the payment of sales tax and other charges and to get the best use out of them in the first year or so when tyres and other wearable parts are least likely to need repair or replacement. The adoption of this practice would add to the prestige that the Navy enjoys in so many other ways. I believe that the Department has received a well deserved rebuke from the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General further said in his report -

Tn reply, the Department stated that up-dated costs were being prepared to permit consideration of the question and it was expected that a conclusion would be arrived at shortly.

I hope that in his supplementary report the Auditor-General will be able to say that the Department has altered its policy, that it has cleaned out all these old, expensive vehicles, and that the Navy is equipped with barges, as they are often called in naval parlance, of a standard that is beyond criticism.

The fact thai repair costs have been allowed to exceed the original value of the vehicle borders on a minor scandal. I want to record my disapproval of the fact that this Department, which in so many other respects is beyond reproach and has had a reputation for being spick and span and right up to the mark, should have adopted this lackadaisical approach, not only to the financial aspect of its transport service, but also to the lack of efficiency that has been occasioned by having these vehicles in its workshops for repair. 1 hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to say that consideration of this matter was almost instantaneous, that the existence of this state of affairs was the result of an oversight, that whoever was responsible for this policy realises that the Auditor-General has issued a well deserved rebuke, and that this sort of thing will not happen again.

Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia

– I refer to Division No. 677 - Aircraft and Associated Initial Equipment - Purchase and Manufacture, for which we are asked to appropriate the sum of $1,276,000. This sum is very much less than the sum that was appropriated last year and very much less than the sum that was spent. I ask the Minister to indicate what this sum is intended to cover. It is very small indeed, considering the activities of the Department of the Navy. I take it that it is related to the acquisition of aircraft for operation from either carriers or land. I have been a little critical of the aircraft that have been purchased from time to time by the Navy. When Mr. Bury was Minister for the Navy I asked him a question about the purchase of Lockheed Neptune aircraft. The Neptune undoubtedly was a very fine type of aircraft. It had a tremendous range, was fitted for anti-submarine work, and 1 believe was considered to be one of the best aircraft available for that particular work. But although it had a great range, it also had a limited speed and it was petro! driven. Indeed, I believe that the last batch of

Neptune aircraft that were purchased by the Australian Navy for anti-submarine work were the last of their type to come ofl’ the assembly line of the Lockheed company.

I directed Mr. Bury’s attention to the fact thai the Lockheed Orion, a prop-jet military version of the Electra aircraft, fitted with Allison engines and very much in advance of the old Neptune, was in service with the United States Navy at the time. I wondered « hy we did not invest in that kind of aircraft instead of the old fashioned Lockheed Neptune. I know that it is now proposed to equip i hp land based anti-submarine forces of the Navy with Lockheed Orion aircraft which, as I said, were in service with the United Slates Navy some years ago. I believe that the Orion is a very good aircraft and is much superior to the old Neptune.

I should like to know why such a very small sum has been allocated for the purchase and manufacture of aircraft and associated initial equipment. I am wondering whether this is just an initial sum for the purchase of these aircraft. 1 am wondering also when the delivery dales of these aircraft will he determined. Anti-submarine work is extremely important to the Navy. We know that anti-submarine work is not complete without a proper land based service, such as has been provided by the Lockheed Neptune aircraft.

Announcements have been made from time to time that Tracker aircraft are to be purchased. I do not know what type of aircraft this is. 1 do not know whether it is the most modern carrier based aircraft available: possibly it is. I have been told tha: it is a very good American aircraft and can be used in the main for hunting submarines, lt is an all important matter that our Navy should be equipped with land based aircraft for anti-submarine patrols and carrier based aircraft: that is the Tracker aircraft, the proposed purchase of which was announced some time ago. J hope their arrival will not be too far off. lt is important to realise that the two types of aircraft are complementary to each other and it is extremely important to ensure that our Navy is equipped in the best possible way. 1 do not know whether the Minister can provide the answers 1 am seeking. Perhaps I am asking a little too much of him. I would like to know whether the Navy has been equipped with the Lockheed Orion aircraft which, as I explained before, is a very much more modern version of anti-submarine aircraft than the old Neptune. 1 also wish to know whether the Navy is likely soon to be in possession of the Tracker aircraft which will be an adjunct to our carrier force.

Senator McKELLAR (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation) [10.1 lj. - 1 shall reply, first, to the question asked by Senator Keeffe of which 1 managed to get a note. Ten Skyhawk aircraft will be transported to Australia in September 1967. The reason for the increased appropriation for item 01 of Division No. 668 is due mainly to greater activity in the Department caused by increased defence spending. The increased appropriation in item 03 is due mainly to the provision of stationery for the Navy Electronic Data Processing Centre due to commence operation early in 1966-67. The increased appropriation for Division No. 681 to $2,067 million over an expenditure of $1,326 million in 1965-66 is due to an increased programme for new and replacement items necessary in expanding activities. For Division No. 685 expenditure in 1965-66 was about $263,000 and the appropriation for 1966-67 is $433,000. The increase is because of an anticipated overtaking of lags in the research programme which were due to difficulties in obtaining appropriate staff. . In respect of Division No. 677, the estimated total expenditure on the purchase of aircraft is $25.1 1.4” million, but only $1,276 million is chargeable to the appropriation. The balance of $23,838 million is paid for out of the special Loan Fund, which is referred to at page 121 of the Appropriation Bill. At the bottom of the page the sum of $300 million is shown, which comes out of the Loan Fund.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about item 15 - the petty cash account - in Division No. 668?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I do not have that information. I will try to get it for the honorable senator in a moment. Senator O’Byrne placed some stress on the fact that the Auditor-General had commented adversely on the retention by the Navy of motor vehicles for too long a period. All I want to say in that connection is that if this is the only criticism the Navy ever gels from the Auditor-General, 1 for one will be very satisfied.

Senator Keeffe queried the appropriation for incidental and other expenditure in Division No. 668. The appropriation is $374,000, and the expenditure last year was $318,292. The increase is $55,708. The provision covers film production, public relations, repairs to office equipment, advertising of civilian vacancies, naval displays, commission payable to the PostmasterGenera Ps Department on dependants’ allotments, beautification of naval establishments, expenditure on Navy League Sea Cadets and other incidental expenditure. The increase of $55,708 is due to a general increase in activity. Included is an amount of $7,000 for amendments to the honour roll at the Australian War Memorial. I think I shall be able to give Senator Hannaford a little later the information he has requested.

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

– I wish to refer to the proposed appropriation of $216,000 for medical and dental services in Division No. 668 - Administrative Expenses and General Services. The estimates for the Department of the Army show an appropriation of $1,104,000 for medical and dental services, and the estimates for the Department of Air show an appropriation of $425,000 in that respect. Is it not time that we showed a little commonsense in the provision of medical and dental services for the three Services? I regret to say that even professional people on full time salaries believe in Parkinson’s Law. A considerable amount of money could be saved by combining the medical branches of all three armed Services. I know what the answer will be, because this point has been raised before. We will be told that each Service has to have a specialised medical service. In other words, we have three specialists to examine men for the Services. A sailor receives a different examination from an airman or a soldier, but basically the three men are the same.

It is not asking too much of the capabilities of a graduated medical man to understand that there is a difference in the requirements of the Services, and to study those differences so as to be able to examine personnel for each Service. I do not think it is beyond the ability of any medical man to conduct examinations for each of the three Services. But as things stand, each Service must have its own director to control medical and dental services, each with his own underlings. If the three were amalgamated, several people would lose their jobs, but it is commonsense that the amalgamation should occur, particularly when some Army, Navy and Air Force depots are very close to each other and each has its own medical service. Not only medical men are employed, but also nurses and other hospital personnel. Soldiers do not enter Navy hospitals, and so on. It is ridiculous. It is a real exercise in Parkinson’s Law. I think it is time that the duplication were abolished and a combined medical service established with a division each for the Army, Navy and Air Force. It would not then be necessary to have so many higher ups. Hospital and nursing facilities then could be combined quite easily, because a man with a leg off can be attended to by any nurse, regardless of the Service to which she belongs. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point.

I would also like to hear an explanation of the terrific amount of damages paid as workers compensation, the proposed appropriation of $232,000 for which is in item 08 of Division No. 668. Item 09 shows an appropriation of $300,000 for compensation payable for damage to property and personal injury. It is amazing to find that the Navy goes around injuring people. I am not referring to employees of the Navy, because they would be covered by item 08, where provision is made for workers compensation. I am referring to damage to property and injuries to people who are not covered by workers compensation. I should like an elucidation of those two items.

I was worried about the provision for sea cadets, but the Minister in his last answer to Senator Keeffe said that these people are provided for in the appropriation for incidental and other expenditure. That obviously illustrates what is happening to them. I can speak only of the Launceston sea cadets. If ever parsimony existed in the sea cadets, it is exemplified in the Launceston sea cadets. If the Navy does not want the sea cadets and does not think that they are worth the money, then for heaven’s sake abolish them. But if the Navy really believes that they are doing a good job - and 1 think they are doing something well worth while - their activities should be supported by the Government in a proper manner. I invite the Minister for the Navy, through the Minister who represents him in this chamber, to come and see the conditions under which sea cadets work. They are an absolute shame. We may as well abolish the whole system if that is the way we intend to treat sea cadets throughout Australia.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to Division No. 670 and particularly to item 02 which relates to electronic, electrical, engineering and miscellaneous stores. Some months ago people engaged in electrical manufacturing, particularly those in the electronics field, complained that some of the orders for the Services were supplied from overseas. I should like the Minister ‘to say how much of the amounts shown in the Estimates for the purchase of equipment is for purchases overseas. To what extent is the Department of the Navy endeavouring to fill orders with equipment manufactured in Australia? It seems to me clearly desirable to have as much equipment as possible supplied by Australian producers.

I also wish to refer to the matter of compensation payments under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act, to which Senator Turnbull referred. Under Division No. 668, item 08 relates to payments under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. Expenditure last year was $.199,497. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of that amount is represented by compensation in the form of leave or gratuities from a serviceman’s credits? Under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act it is possible for compensation to be paid by way either of a lump sum or other means, such as taking out some of the credits standing to an ex-serviceman. I know that it may be difficult to obtain the information I am seeking, but it would be interesting to have it. It seems to me that the method of covering servicemen by means of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act provides a lower standard than that provided for ordinary employees in the States. If the Minister cannot supply the informa tion tonight perhaps he could let me have it in the form of a letter.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- Under Division No. 675 - Naval Construction - I wish to ask the Minister whether he is able to give the Committee any information on the intention of the Department of the Navy regarding the construction of a further aircraft carrier. As 1 see it, we will have one aircraft carrier, H.M.A.S. “ Melbourne “, which will be available only after a refit. That information is based on a report which we have received today. Australia is an island continent and also a Pacific power. The last war in particular showed how essential aircraft carriers are for warfare purposes in the Pacific area. 1 have been informed by people who have had experience in the present Vietnamese war that it would have been almost impossible for the United States forces to have carried on their campaign effectively had it not been for the air strikes which are made from the aircraft carrier force belonging to the United States. It appears to me, therefore, that the provision of at least an additional aircraft carrier is highly desirable.

As against that, I realise the immense cost of an aircraft carrier. I .have made some inquiries and have been told that a full size aircraft carrier might cost $180 million. 1 can understand the Government and the Department of the Navy being somewhat concerned about that cost and adopting the attitude that perhaps their money would have to be spread more widely in other directions. However, 1 still feel that from the point of view of a country such as ours it is highly desirable that our Navy should be equipped with one or more aircraft carriers. I therefore leave the matter with the Minister. As I said, I appreciate the immense cost involved, and I realise that the Department is seeking to reequip our Navy after it had fallen into the doldrums. I know that it is a pretty serious matter to consider, but I think it is something which the people who are in our Navy regard as vital. 1 have seen a suggestion in one section of the Press in the last day or two that an examination was being made of a proposal for a less expensive form of aircraft carrier which might be used by our Fleet Air Arm. I do not know whether the Minister can give me any information in this respect, but if he can do so I shall be grateful.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I wish to refer to Division No. 687 and in particular to seek details of the expenditure under item 02 - New Zealand. I should like to know for what purpose this expenditure has been incurred. I also would like information about item 03, which relates to other expenditure. Last year the expenditure was $73,596, and this year the proposed expenditure is $56,000. A few moments ago I referred to underexpenditure of £46,890 which had been mentioned in a document I had before me. I pointed out that it was stated in the document that some of the money provided had not been spent because people were not available to take the houses that were being built with the money. I believe that the Department of the Navy ought to take a fairly hard look at this matter because there is still a long waiting period for accommodation for married naval couples. If the Department wishes to encourage young people to make a career of the Navy, one of the first things it has to do is to see that suitable accommodation is available, but that is not being done at the present time.

I am sorry that Senator Cormack is not in the chamber at the moment. He came in earlier, fired a broadside, and has since left. I would have liked to comment on a couple of the points he made and in respect of which I feel 1 was misrepresented. Perhaps he is an old naval man and has gone to make an entry in his log book and if not to have a tot of rum. He spoke like an old naval man, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. I wish to refer to another document, and again I am seeking information because the matters to which I am about to refer are associated with the Department of the Navy. I refer to the Treasury Minute on the seventy-sixth report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Under the heading “Department of the Navy “, the report of the Committee refers to Division No. 475/05 and to explanations which apparently had been given concerning expenses in connection with fuel, light, power, water supply and sanitation. The Public Accounts Committee accepted the explanations but directed the Department’s attention to the apparent need for better liaison between technical and administra tive staff to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the variations in expenditure likely to result from changes in the use of technical equipment. I appreciate that this matter has been dealt with partially in the previous answers given by the Minister. Again, in referring to Division No. 475/06, the Public Accounts Committee stated -

Your Committee accepts the explanations provided by the Department but suggests that a continuous review is necessary to ensure that established liaison channels are maintained at as efficient a level as is practicable in the light of the co-operation that may be available from time to time in respect of overseas activities.

My reason for submitting these matters is that I would like to know whether the Department has in fact taken notice of the suggestion made by the Public Accounts Committee. 1 now wish to quote from another document. So that the Minister may be able to refer to it easily, I shall quote the full title. It is the seventy-fourth report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on expenditure from “ Advance to the Treasurer “. At page 11 there is a heading “Original Appropriation £1,200,000; Expenditure £1,400,988.” The report states that the Department - . . indicated that the funds sought in the Additional Estimates and from the Advance to the Treasurer had been necessary due to the growth in the number of naval personnel and the increased movement of naval personnel arising out of Australia’s increasing defence activities . . .

On this occasion the Committee accepted the rather lengthy explanation which I shall not read out. It also referred to another division where the appropriation was £262,000 and the expenditure was £295,963 - a fairly high additional expenditure. The Committee states -

We were informed that expenditure in excess of the original appropriation had been incurred under this Item due to increased costs of stores, accelerated deliveries which had not been expected until the ensuing financial year and unforeseen requirements largely involving the printing of plans.

The Committee continued -

The Department had become aware in November 1964 that paper costs had been increased and had sought an additional £10,009. . . .

The Department went on to point out that this was not enough. Then the Committee stated -

Your Committee is not satisfied that the need for stationery supplies which arose in the last months of the financial year demanded immediate expenditure to the extent of £17,000.

Have these things been tidied up in the Department, or does it still have these problems today? I think that the Minister might be able to tell us whether there is better organisation within the Department or whether there has been a recurrence of these practices for which the Committee chastised the Department.

Senator Cormack was most indignant when 1 referred to the Australian Navy as a fishing fleet. He did not think that was a very nice thing to say. I draw attention to a question which was placed on the notice paper by Senator Mulvihill on 27th September - 1 5th days ago. If the Navy is so efficient. 1 think that, it should have been able to reply to this question by now. Senator Mulvihill asked, in part - ls it a fact that H.M.A.S. “ Anzac “ was originally commissioned wilh four forward guns, but that the only workable weapons on her during escort duties were two Bofors anti-aircraft guns? Were two forward guns removed and a school room built on a gun deck as a lecture room for naval trainees?

Government supporters know that these things arc going on. If they did not happen, why was not an answer supplied to Senator Mulvihill on the first sitting day after the day on which the question was placed on the notice paper? His question continued -

Were the two remaining forward guns in a completely unworkable condition when H.M.A.S. “Anzac” escorted H.M.A.S. “Sydney” to South Vietnam, and had they been in an irreparable condition for a considerable time before the vessel went on escort duty?

Hud the gunners on H.M.A.S. “An/.ac” who manned the Bofors anti-aircraft guns been given training only with (lummy ammunition? ls it a fact that H.M.A.S. “ Anzac “ has had no major refit since first being commissioned in 1947?

Senator McManus referred to the fact that we have only one aircraft carrier. For a considerable number of years the Labour Party has said that there is need for a second aircraft carrier. Even if the cost is great, there is still room for an adequate Navy to defend this country.

Senator McClelland:

– The present carrier was purchased by the last Labour Government.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is true. I would not like to poke my finger into the side of it because it has probably rusted through. The last part of Senator Mulvihills question is -

Do similar outmoded facilities exist in H.M.A.S. “ Duchess “, causing widespread dissention amongst crew members?

Government senators will recall that I raised this question last year when there was a near mutiny on H.M.A.S. “ Duchess “ which, as honorable senators know, is an exchange ship. Although the Government denied that anything like this had happened, it is significant to note that it saw fit to bring down from the north one or two members of the crew for disciplinary action.

I have another document before me. It refers to complaints made by people on behalf of their sons about inadequate bathing facilities on naval ships. This is not good enough in 1966. Senator Cormack, when replying to my earlier remarks, admitted that up to two or three years ago the Navy was so far behind that it did not matter. He now claims that provision is being made to bring the Navy up to date. If_.the Government has not seen tit until now to do anything about the Navy although it has been in office for 17 years, it stands indicted. lt is rather late in the day to be looking at problems that should have been dealt with a long time ago. I have raised these matters because think they are relevant to the estimates that we arc discussing. I hope that the Minister can give me some assistance in this matter.

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

– Senator Bishop asked how much money has been spent on the purchase of equipment overseas. I -am unable to give this information tonight, but if the honorable senator desires it, I hope to bc able to supply it to him tomorrow. He also asked whether the Navy is purchasing electronic equipment overseas that could be made in Australia. The reason why certain electronic equipment is being obtained overseas is that this equipment is developed overseas and the small quantities required would not justify its production in Australia. Where equipment is manufactured in Australia and deliveries will meet the time schedule for ship construction, etc.. the equipment is obtained locally.

Senator Bishop also raised the matter of payments under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. I do not know whether this provides the answer he is seeking, but I point out that the estimates provide for an appropriation of $232,000 for 1966-67 whereas the expenditure in 1965-66 was $199,497 - a difference of $32,503. The additional requirement of $32,503 was necessary to meet anticipated expenditure due to expanding activities. That is all the information I have on that point. If it does not clear up the matter, the honorable senator can let me know and I will see whether I can get further details for him.

Senator Hannaford:

asked why we did not purchase Orion aircraft instead of Neptunes. This is a matter for the Royal Australian Air Force and not for the Navy. The R.A.A.F. purchases the aircraft and operates them. Senator Hannaford also referred to Tracker aircraft. They are complementary to the land based aircraft. They are due for delivery in late 1967. I think that that just about clears up all the explanations, except for the matter raised by Senator Hannaford concerning the purchase and manufacture of aircraft and associated initial equipment. The estimated expenditure on purchasing aircraft in 1966- 67 is $25,1 14,000, less an amount of $23,838,000 which is payable under U.S. Logistics (Credit) Arrangement.

Senator McManus:

– I raised the question of the aircraft carrier.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Thai is a matter of Government policy. I cannot answer it.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

.- I refer to naval construction for which the appropriation this financial year is $60,188,000. I assume that Division 675 which covers naval construction relates to ships purchased overseas as well as ships manufactured in Australia. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong in that regard. The remarks that I propose to make stem in the main from a statement that was attributed to Rear-Admiral Birrell shortly after his retirement from the Royal Australian Navy. Rear-Admiral Birrell referred to the selection and use of the Tartar missile, two of which are mounted on each of the Charles F. Adams class destroyers to which, as far as I am able to gather, we have committed $120 million over the period during which we will be completing the purchase of three destroyers of this type. One is rather surprised to find that one Tartar missile - we have six on order - will cost $13.5 million. I raise my question on the basis of some information which came to me quite a number of months ago as to the capability of the Tartar missile to hit a target.

I recall reading that the Tartar missile had an accuracy of approximately 10 hits in 200 firings which represents an accuracy of 5 per cent. The Minister for the Navy (Mr. Chaney) in reply to a question that I directed to him said that during the trials of one of these ships the accuracy of the Tartar missile was at a far higher level than 5 per cent. However, there is some doubt in my mind as to the ability of the Tartar missile to carry out the function for which it was purchased and mounted in these ships. I understand that there are limitations also insofar as the operation of this weapon is concerned. Each Charles F. Adams class destroyer carries 42 rounds per launcher. These launchers are capable of very quick loading. But the advantage in this latter respect is largely lost by reason of the fact that it is necessary to home the missiles onto a target by a radar device.

So, if a destroyer had two missiles in the air - and if it were under attack from aircraft, it certainly would have two missiles in the air - the next two rounds could not be fired until the effectiveness or otherwise of the two missiles already launched had been seen. This means that each of these destroyers is capable of engaging two hostile aircraft only at the one time by means of its launchers. Presumably, if more than two aircraft are attacking a destroyer, that ship would have a man-sized job on its hands to fight off those aircraft. Naturally, other types of weapons would be available on the destroyer. But (he main function of each Tartar missile, as I understand it, is to meet the threat of air attack when it comes.

I believe that we have the capability within Australia to construct vessels of this type. Surely our defence thinking must be along the lines that it is better to be able to produce our own defence equipment in Australia than to obtain it from overseas. It is suggested to me that we have the capability within the Australian shipbuilding industry to construct a patrol boat type of vessel of approximately 110 ft. to 120 ft. and similar to the type of vessel that is used in Great Britain. This type of vessel is used also in West Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and other countries. In the case of the Russian ship of this type,

I believe that the tOtal cost of such a vessel with four surface to air missile launchers is §8 million. We are paying to the United States $40 million to $42 million for a ship that another country is providing for a fraction of the cost and which can perform the same functions but which has twice the hitting power. I. suggest sincerely, because 1 am pretty disturbed about the way in which the Government seems to order its defence equipment overseas, that in the first place a capability exists in Australia for building much of this equipment with the facilities of our present industries and that with a little encouragement and a little assistance various other types of defence equipment could be manufactured in Australia. In the event of hostilities and this country coming under attack, initially Australia would be thrown very much on its own resources. A country under attack needs ships. We are lacking in this regard as far as our merchant navy is concerned. A nation with a coastline of 7,000 miles needs, I suggest, a number of strategically placed ships, capable of high speed and with a high degree of hitting power. I do not believe that we have this kind of equipment in our naval Service.

I strongly urge that the Government turn away from the attitude that it seems to have of going overseas to purchase this equipment. This attitude brings with it the problem of servicing and keeping up the supplies of projectiles, missiles and armorments of that kind. I believe we should endeavour to build up Australian industries capable of providing this equipment, perhaps wilh a great deal more effectiveness, designed for local conditions. If the Government took this action, employment would be provided for Australians and we would establish a degree of independence from overseas manufacturing industries in this country.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I tried to obtain an answer from the Minister concerning the expenditure last financial year of $199,497 in respect of payments under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. I make this point first: Under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act, it is possible in meeting the liability to servicemen that credits such as sick leave and gratuities can be taken into account in the discharge of those liabilities.

Usually, under other compensation acts the liability is clearly on the employer to pay the total wage or whatever it is that is prescribed. I would like to know whether this amount of $199,497 includes any such accumulated gratuities? If it does not, how much in the appropriation this financial year of $232,000 is represented by any such credits, and where would 1 find a record of them?

While 1 am on my feet, ‘might .1 ask also iri relation to Division No. 685 - Defence Research and Development - a question in relation to the amount appropriated? We see that the appropriation for 1965-66 was $520,000. In the current financial year this amount has been reduced to $433,000. The expenditure in 1965-66 was down to $262,782. This means that the full appropriation for .1965-66 was not expended. The report of the Auditor-General states that in 1965-66 this amount was reduced from the 1964-65 appropriation of $1,394,000. In other words, this represents a decrease in expenditure of $1,131,000. Would the Minister please explain what is indicated by this trend? Does it indicate that the appropriation in respect of defence research and development is not being continued, or is some new policy being adopted by the Department of the Navy in relation to research and development?

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

– Regarding the points raised by Senator Devitt, .1 would remind the honorable senator, when he speaks about the need for shipbuilding in Australia, that already several frigates have been built here. I attended the launching of one frigate at the Cockatoo Island dockyard. 1 do not remember what year that was, but 1 do remember being present at the launching. I would remind the honorable senator also that the Ikara missile is an Australian invention.

Senator Devitt:

– But the Ikara missile will not be on the Charles F. Adams class destroyer.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I am afraid that I cannot hear the honorable senator.

Senator Devitt:

– The Tartar missile manufactured by the General Dynamics Corporation will be on the Charles F. Adams class destroyers.

Senator McKELLAR:

– If the honorable senator spoke a little more slowly and a little more loudly I might possibly be able to hear him. I cannot hear what he is saying now. Senator Bishop referred to the reply that I gave to his previous query. The amount that I mentioned was compensation for death or injury. Therefore, the amounts that the honorable senator referred to were not included in that figure.

Senator Bishop:

– Can the Minister tell me how much was taken from credits in relation to this year?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I am informed that nothing was taken out of the leave credits.

Senator Bishop:

– Nor gratuities?

Senator McKELLAR:

– No. I have been given some more information. I do not know whether Senator Devitt was seeking this. If he was, 1 could not hear him. The Ikara missile is being fitted to the Charles F. Adams class destroyers in Australia. I was surprised to hear the other day the length of time that it takes to fit these missiles. This is a matter beyond my ken, but it certainly seems a long time.

Senator Keeffe referred to Division No. 687 and asked for the reasons for the variations between appropriations and expenditures. I think the answer is given in the following breakup of the estimated expenditure on behalf of the United Kingdom -

The provision made for estimated expenditure on behalf of New Zealand includes $250,000 in respect of contributions to be made towards the cost of maintaining Royal Navy submarines on the Australian station. He also asked about the expenditures in previous years and whether the Department has revised its estimating procedures. Continuous reviews of the Department’s esti- mating procedures are being carried out. I think that answers his question.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

.- That leaves one more question: Why was the Defence Report for 1966 not made available to us until today?

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

.- I am astounded to learn from the Minister that we now propose to fit the Ikara surface to air missile on the Charles F. Adams class ships in Australia. I would be very interested to know when that decision was taken. I believe that we are entitled to know that, because I understand that each of the Tartar missiles costs Australia $13£ million. If that is not so, have we been given a credit for the return of those weapons to the United States? We have heard nothing whatever about the decision to fit. the Ikara in Australia. It astounds me, particularly in the light of the fact that, when I raised the question of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Tartar weapon months ago. I was assured that it had a high degree of capability and a high degree of accuracy.

Some reason must exist to make the Department of the Navy decide to take out the Tartar missile, which was such a wonderful weapon about six months ago, and to replace it with the locally built Ikara missile. I am all in favour of putting Australian equipment into our naval ships and other parts of our Defence Services’ equipment. But I believe that we are entitled to some explanation of this decision and to know what credit or reduction in price has been given to Australia by the United States in view of the fact that we are now fitting Ikara missiles to these destroyers. I would like to know how many Ikara missiles are being fitted to them.

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

– First, let me reply to Senator Keeffe. The Department of the Navy cannot say why the Defence Report was not ready for presentation to honorable senators before it was presented to them. 1 think this question would be better directed to the Department of Defence than to the Department of the Navy. I come back to the Ikara missile. The position is that allowance is made for the fitting of the Ikara when the ship is ordered, but the fitting is done here in Australia. It will be done at the Garden

Island Naval Dockyard. The Tartar is a surface to air missile, lt is fitted overseas, lt is not fitted here in Australia. The Ikara is an anti-submarine missile. As Senator Devitt knows, two of the Charles F. Adams class destroyers have arrived in Australia. The experience gained so far with the Tartar missile has been of a high and satisfactory order. I will see whether I can obtain some information about the Ikara missile.

Senator Devitt:

– 1 want to know whether it, as welt as the Tartar, is on these ships.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Yes. they are both on these ships. I cannot obtain for the honorable senator any further information about the accuracy of the Ikara. However, I will be very surprised if it has not a better performance than that of the missile that the honorable senator mentioned. The performance of missiles is classified so if I were the honorable senator, 1 would not take too much notice of an answer given about the performance of a missile. That is the sort of answer that is given when people ask questions about weapons, the performance of which is classified. However, I would be very surprised if our defence forces would fit to any of our ships a missile that did not have a better performance than that of the missile that the honorable senator mentioned.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Minister did not reply to my question about Division No. 685 - Defence research and development. 1 pointed out that the appropriation for this Division has been cut drastically. The report of the Auditor-General shows that in 1965-66 an amount of $262,783 was spent and that in the previous year an amount of $1,394,642 was spent. Last year the appropriation was more than half a million dollars, only half of which was spent. This year the appropriation has been reduced again. I ask the Minister: What is intended by these decreases in the amounts of money being appropriated for and spent on defence research and development?

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

– I am informed that this position has been brought about because the amounts that the honorable senator mentioned were spent on the Ikara missile, and now that it is on the way to being fitted it is no longer necessary ro appropriate money for its development.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

.- Let us clear up this point about the Ikara missile. The Minister said that he would be very surprised - so would I - if the Ikara did not have a better performance than the Tartar. Is he suggesting that the Tartar has not a high performance? If he is, that is quite contrary-

Senator McKellar:

– The answer to that is ‘ No “.

Senator DEVITT:

– So the Ikara has more than a 100 per cent, performance.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Department of the Army.

Proposed expenditure, $328,498,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to make several submissions in relation to these estimates. First, I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to elaborate on the effectiveness of the initial medical examination to which recruits are subjected when they are called up for the Army. I preface my submissions by paying tribute to the very efficient secretary, Miss Tomkins, who has handled a number of matters that 1 have raised-

Senator McKellar:

– To what Division is the honorable senator relating his remarks?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– In my dealings with the Department, I have had every consideration in unravelling some of the problems associated with the Department but I have been forcibly impressed with the fact that the medical officers responsible for the initial examination for admission to the Army have not been efficient.

I might quote the case of a recruit who typifies this issue. ‘This boy was extremely enthusiastic. He was called up and wanted to go to an officers’ training school but after the fourth medical examination it was discovered that he had a severe hernia. As a layman, I am amazed at this. Everybody knows that in an Army call up, that is one of the first things any doctor worth his salt would look for. The Army cannot have it both ways. Other honorable senators have had cases of men who have said: “ The doctor says I am fit but I don’t feel well ‘*.

T can imagine the Minister saying that such a person was trying to welsh on his obligations. But this boy was Army minded and after the fourth examination there was a wrangle about whether he had the hernia before he went into the Army or whether it developed during the two or three weeks initial training. Everybody knows that in the type of medical examination given a recruit into the Army, the railways department or something of that sort, that is one of the things they look for first and it should be detected. There is something slack about the initial medical examination for the Army. It should not be a double headed penny. If it is an Army examination, it should be right.

That is the medical aspect of the Army. I turn now to a lighter side. As a New South Welshmen, the Minister for Repatriation, (Senator McKellar) will appreciate this point. J have had correspondence from the Australian Rugby League Board of Control regarding question No. 672 which 1 asked in November 1965. It contained a simple request that in the various Army clubs, the men should have facilities for whatever sport they played. My sporting tastes are wide. I have enjoyed soccer as well as rugby but I appreciate to the full the football code played in other States. I am not arguing about codes, but in a critical vein I have a letter from the secretary of the Australian Rugby Football League Board of Control, Mr. H. R. Matthews in which he states -

During the football season, we have been in receipt of several complaints from military trainees that provision is not being made for them to play Rugby League in the various camps throughout the Commonwealth of Australia whilst a similar complaint was received from a member of the 6th Light Regiment, Malaysia.

My point is that there should be parity of opportunity for the various codes of football. I imagine that the officers at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, play rugby union. Good luck to them. But when you go down the line and you get an influx from New South Wales and Queensland where the men play rugby league, the facility should be provided. The Rugby League does not go down on its knees nor does it crow about code rivalry but whenever there have been appeals for comforts funds, it has played its part. This matter arose last season and I suggest that Eastern

Command or the other Commands should arranged for their senior officers to meet the Rugby League Board of Control so that this matter can be ironed out before next season. I have spoken to members of the British rugby league team and I know that the British Army tries to avoid code rivalries. I do not understand why this policy should not be followed in the Australian Forces.

On 24th August 1965 when the late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge was handling these matters in the Senate, I directed a question to him about the Department of the Army despoiling Middle Head and North Head by the erection of dwellings. Senator Paltridge in reply to my question said I was exaggerating the situation. The amazing thing is that after Senator Paltridge’s unfortunate illness and within a week of the answer being given to my question, the late Mr. Cockle, who was then the honorable member for Warringah in the House of Representatives, disputed the answer that had been given. I could only conclude that as a Western Australian, Senator Paltridge virtually had been misled by some of his officers. I refer the Minister for Repatriation to an article which appeared in the Sydney “ Daily Mirror “. This was one of a series dealing with the tenancy by the Services of the Sydney Harbour foreshore. I want to be fair with the Minister while I believe in hitting hard when 1 think 1 am right, and if 1 should direct this salvo at the Minister tor the Interior (Mr. Anthony) I will dwell on it. But I read about negotiations for 122 acres of land at George’s Heights, Middle Head. Does this mean in effect that the Commonwealth Government is asking the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Askin, to pay for this land at George’s Heights or what is the reason for the prolonged negotiations? In this age of electronic and push button warfare, you cannot tell me that George’s Heights rates very highly tactically in Army plans. In fact, the Army has said that it is prepared to release 32 acres of land. What is the nigger in the wood pile? Is the Commonwealth Government telling Premier Askin that it wants so much money in payment for this land? Are we not all Australians? Why cannot we have a quick transfer of this land between the Commonwealth and the State?

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I direct my remarks to the administration of the Department of the Army and I shall range fairly widely. My first point is that 1 wrote to the Minister for the Army (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) regarding a change in the Australian Military Regulations on 17th June. 1 have not yet received a reply. I do not know whether the Minister is capable of replying. The fact is that the regulations were changed. Regulation 140 was repealed and paragraph (2.) of the new regulation 140 provided that Army personnel who reached retiring age could be appointed for a further period of time. No time was specified but it meant that personnel could go on after reaching retiring age. In certain circumstances they could be appointed until they reached the age of 60 years. The Regulation reads -

Subject to the next succeeding sub-regulation, a soldier, whether or not he has attained the age of compulsory retirement prescribed by paragraph (b) of sub-regulation (t.) of regulation 191 of these Regulations, may be re-engaged for a period that will expire after he attains that age . . .

The Department of the Army had adopted a policy of not appointing these people for any specified period of time after they reached retiring age. Then late last year regulation .191 was promulgated and paragraph (5.) stated -

Where the Adjutant-General certifies, by writing under his hand, that it is desirable in the interests of the Military Forces that the services of a soldier in the Military Forces, not being a soldier in the Australian Regular Army, who has not attained the age that would, but for this sub-regulation, be his age for compulsory retirement be retained after he has attained that age, the age for the compulsory retirement of the soldier is sixty years.

The interpretation that the Army gives, to that provision is that if a soldier is on an extended period of service but has not been appointed for a time over the retiring age, he cannot then be appointed for an extension of term under Regulation 191 (5). This has meant injustice to several highly skilled officers on the administrative side of the Army who were led to believe that they would be carried on until they were 60, even though they were not appointed. When this regulation was promulgated they had to get out. They could not be appointed till the age of 60 because they had already passed the retiring age of 55. Yet we. are trying to build up an army. It is interesting to note from the figures that were supplied a few days ago that the strength of the armed services over the past 12 months increased by two. I have written to the Minister about this and I cannot get a reply. I know of several people who are affected by this position. Their retirement came at 30th June and there is nothing that can be done for them. The Minister should attend to his correspondence when a responsible senator writes to him. It is wrong for the Minister to ignore these matters. 1 invite the Minister’s attention to regulation 210a and 210. During the 1963 election campaign, I made application to Brigadier Hunt of Western Command for the right to distribute some pamphlets to members of the armed services as part of the policy of the Australian Labour Party. I was advised by the Brigadier that I could not distribute the pamphlets as Army personnel were not allowed to be in possession of political literature, and that he would have to deal with them under Army regulations if he found them in possession of such literature. I think I can understand the reason for the regulations, which are very restrictive. Regulation 210 reads -

Except as provided in this Regulation an officer or . soldier shall not when in uniform attend any meeting, demonstration or procession held for a religious or political purpose.

Regulation 210a states -

An officer or soldier of the Permanent Forces shall not lake any active part in the affairs of any political or municipal organisation or party, either by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the purposes of any such organisation or parly, or in any other manner.

That is how wide the regulation is - ‘ in any other manner “. But I notice from the Press that the Minister for the Army writes articles in the Army magazine which is distributed to every soldier every fortnight, in which he condemns the policies of the Australian Labour Party as being unAustralian and Un-American. Soldiers are allowed to have this political propaganda distributed to them freely at Government expense, when other political parties are not allowed at election time to give the servicemen political propaganda designed to give them a better go. Some of these questions have to be answered. It is going a bit too far to go on like this.

I want to refer also to the lack of mail facilities for soldiers in Vietnam, lt is all very well for the Government to commit u certain number of troops to Vietnam, including a number of conscripted youths, then forget all about them and just think about the next group to be sent there. These hoys are entitled to get the mail, including parcels, that their people send them, and they should not have to wait weeks. Sometimes they do not even get their mail, if they are shifted from one place to another, very often the mail is returned to the sender through the Dead Letter Office. I read in the Press a few days ago that a lady, whose son was in Vietnam but was thought to be going on leave to Hong Kong wanted to send him $180. She took the money to the Army and asked that it be forwarded to him. lt was taken and as she was walking out the door she asked how long it would take to get there. She was told that it would lake approximately a month. This was money being sent to a soldier in Vietnam who required it in a much shorter period.

I have a letter from a lady who sent a telegram to her son in Vietnam advising of a death in the family. It took seven days for the telegram to get to him. Why is this sort of thing allowed to continue? How docs the Government expect to get volunteers for the Army if as soon as it gets them into the front line it forgets and neglects them? lt is a disgrace for the Government to carry on in this way. There have been continual complaints. These are not new. The boys have been up there only a little over 12 months, but there have been complaints ever since they went there. Yet the Minister comes out with a five point plan, fie is making inquiries about getting the mail there a little quicker. 1 should like the Minister to tell me not of inquiries but of the plans that the Government has to ensure that the mail gets in a proper and regular manner to troops that it sends overseas. Why is it necessary for mail to go from here to Honolulu and then back to Saigon to be distributed? Is there not a quicker and more direct route instead of going half way round the world? Surely we have a daily service by which we can get mail to Hong Kong, which is much closer. Alternatively, could we not send it through the Philippines? Surely it does not need to go across the Pacific Ocean to Honolulu, then back to South East Asia to be delivered from Saigon. I. should like the Minister to answer a few of these questions.

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

– I shall be delighted to do so. First, I should like to let Senator Mulvihill know that the Army medical examinations are substantially the same as those carried out by the Department of Labour and National Service. Standards are set to meet the high requirements of the Army. The honorable senator talks about football. I remind him that tonight we are discussing the appropriation of $328,498,000, so I will not spend time on the type of football that the Army is to play. I am trying to get some information in regard to the establishment at George’s Heights.

Senator Cant has referred to quite a number of regulations. I did not come prepared to discuss regulations because we arc debating the Estimates, but 1 shall see what I can find out regarding the matters he mentioned. 1 have not the information before mc. The honorable senator said that the Minister for the Army (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) had put out an article for the Army. My information is that the Minister did not use the Army newspaper for political purposes. This was a condensation of a statement expressing Government policy, published as a matter of interest to servicemen. The Minister subsequently offered to permit the Opposition to express ils viewpoint, but this offer was not taken up.

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– After telling the soldiers that we were un-American and unAustralian.

Senator McKELLAR:

– This is the statement given to me. I am prepared to abide by it, irrespective of what the honorable senator has been told. A statement was issued on 9th October of this year regarding improved mail services for the troops in Vietnam. Anybody who has had any experience in the Services realises that one of the first things a person has to accept is some delay in the receiving of mails. The Minister for the Army has stated that corrective action can be taken only by certain agencies. I do not intend to read the whole of his statement. He pointed out that provision had been made for additional Army postal staff in Saigon and Vung Tau to speed the handling process at Army field post offices and in the United States Army mail clearing areas. Timings of mail carrying aircraft within Vietnam have been changed to provide a quicker service from Vung Tau to the main sorting area in Saigon. Australian postal personnel will be located so that as far as possible they can handle Australian mail direct onto aircraft. Provision has been made for additional personnel to be allocated to handle anticipated heavy Christmas mail traffic and for an improved system of checking telegram traffic to overcome possible delays.

The Minister said that the feasibility of introducing a. postal order service was also being examined. The review has considered all alternative systems of routing and none would be more efficient or frequent than the method and routing now being used. The Minister said that all mail was sorted into priorities in both Sydney and Vietnam. Letters were despatched to and from Vietnam seven days a week by commercial aircraft via Honolulu. A check of transit times for mails during the past two months showed that the transit times between Sydney and Saigon were two to three days, and between Sydney and Vung Tau three to four days. The review had revealed that a number of factors were involved in mail delays that were beyond the capacity of the Army to change. These included delays through troops being engaged in operations for lengthy periods and not being able to write, through mail being incorrectly addressed and badly wrapped, and the normal delay in Australia with newspapers and parcels being carried by surface means.

At Ingleburn a few weeks ago I had an opportunity to ask some men who had been returned wounded how they found the mail position. In most cases the answer was that, taking into consideration the delays that inevitably occur in conditions such as those experienced by these men, they were reasonably well satisfied with the position. I would not like honorable senators to think that this matter is being looked upon lightly. Those of us who have had an opportunity to serve in the Forces know that regular and fairly quick mail deliveries are a morale builder. The matter is regarded as being very important. I can assure honorable senators that, if possible, delays will certainly be overcome.

Reference was made to land at Middle Head. As a result of a review of Army land, it has been decided that 32 acres will be thrown open for disposal and that the matter will be referred to the Department of the Interior for the necessary action. The matter of payment is one for the Department of the Interior.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I rise only because Senator Mulvihill mentioned a case in which a young man had been passed medically fit upon his initial examination but at a subsequent examination some weeks later had been found to be medically unfit. On the basis of this one report-

Senator Mulvihill:

– I had three other cases I could have mentioned.

Senator SIM:

– On the basis of that one report, and perhaps one or two or three others, Senator Mulvihill condemned the whole system as being inefficient. I say with great respect to Senator Mulvihill, who usually puts his propositions in a very reasonable and proper manner, that it is rather unfair of him to ask honorable senators to accept his statement which was based on one case and perhaps two or three others. From my experience in the Army over many years, there is nothing unusual about this sort of thing. I can recall many cases in which young men had passed the initial examination but at a subsequent stage had been found to be medically unfit for service. That could be due to a number of reasons. It could be due to the carelessness of one medical officer or to failure for varying reasons to diagnose a complaint. I suggest quite seriously that it is unreasonable, on the basis of a few cases, to condemn the whole system as being inefficient.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I wish to raise a matter relating to the Department of the Army. For this purpose I refer to Division No. 698. I refer to the detention of military personnel at military detention centres. In August last I received from the Minister for the Army (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) a reply to a question that I had placed on the notice paper relating to the number of servicemen who had been detained in military detention centres in each Of the last five years. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) will know what I am referring to, because he referred to it during his speech on the Budget. 1 also asked the Minister for the Army how many servicemen at any time during the period of their detention had been ordered to be placed on a bread and water diet. From 1961 to 30th April of this year the total number of personnel who had served sentences at the No. 1 Military Corrective Establishment at Holsworthy was 2,066. Of that number, 548, or nearly 25 per cent., had been placed on a bread and water diet. That is a staggeringly high proportion. At this stage I ask whether there” are any military corrective establishments other than the one at Holsworthy.

During his speech on the Budget, the Minister for Repatriation said that I had been reported in one of the Sydney newspapers as having referred to this matter following receipt of that answer from the Minister for the Army. The Minister for Repatriation said -

If my reading of the article was correct, I gained the impression that Senator McClelland intended to raise the matter in the Senate. He referred to an answer that he had received from the Minister for the Army (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) regarding the number of soldiers who had been on bread and water. Apparently Senator McClelland was of the opinion that it should nol be tolerated.

Senator Wright:

– What is the honorable senator reading from?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– 1 am reading from the “Hansard” report of 15th September.

Senator McKellar:

– Why not complete the statement?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I shall read the whole paragraph. Referring to myself, the Minister said -

He referred to an answer that he had received from the Minister for the Army (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) regarding the number of soldiers who had been placed on bread and water. Apparently Senator McClelland was of the opinion that it should not be tolerated.

The Minister was certainly right in that regard. He continued -

I want to say to the honorable senator, without making a song and dance about it, that the present training and disciplinary action of Australian troops has been responsible for producing some of the best fighting soldiers in the world today.

The Minister then said that he had been on the saluting dais in Sydney upon the return of a battalion from Vietnam and had seen the march past. Not only do i think that this type of military establishment should not be tolerated, but certainly do 1 think-

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator DrakeBrockman). - Order! In conformity wilh the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - .

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

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

page 1017

ADJOURNMENT

Television

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– 1 rise to mention briefly a subject I have been raising in the Senate for the last seven years. I refer to country television. As a Western Australian, I wish to refer particularly to Kalgoorlie and Geraldton, but 1 am also very mindful of the fact that my remarks apply equally to Darwin and Mount Isa. I am not the only honorable senator who has made strong representations on behalf of country people who do not have television services. My Liberal and Australian Country Party colleagues and a number of Labour senators have made strong representations in the interests of country people. For four years I tried strenuously to convince the Government that translators were the answer to provide television in areas that are not receiving adequate television reception, but for four years I came up against the completely closed mind of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

I ask honorable senators to remember that I was not requesting the Government to spend one cent. I was asking that translators be permitted to operate without being classed as a second licence. For four years people were denied the amenity of television while the Board was making up its mind whether translators were satisfactory, despite the fact that I had produced conclusive evidence that literally hundreds of them had been operating in the United States of America for years. 1 appreciate that translators are not the answer for Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Darwin and Mount Isa, because those places are too far away from a parent station. In that realisation, I argued that the Government should consider package or special type stations in those areas. Again I emphasised that such stations are working very satisfactorily elsewhere in the world. Again I met complete resistance, apparently from the Board, which seemed to have a closed mind on the subject.

This year I was forced into the situation of introducing a private members bill, a practice which any Government supporter is loath to adopt. I remind honorable senators that as a private member of this Parliament I have no control over the notice paper, lt is not possible for me to alter the Orders of the Day. I realise that 1 cannot canvass any part of my bill. I hoped to introduce a bill which would allow package type stations to operate and to be included in the same category as translators.

Yesterday it was announced that TVW Limited of Western Australia had made a firm offer to the Government to supply Kalgoorlie and Geraldton with television within the next 9 to 12 months. This company is prepared to supply television in those areas. I have a bill before the Senate which will make it possible for them to do so, but one thing stands in the way and denies television to the residents of those areas. That, is the closed mind of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Senator Devitt:

– It is the Government surely?

Senator BRANSON:

– The honorable senator should be aware that the Government’s policy is not lo interfere wilh boards such as the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Government does not attempt to impose its will upon them, but I. honestly think that it should use a stick to stir up the Board so that country people may receive television. The package type stations that. TVW Limited is prepared to put into the areas would cost $250,000. The company proposes to instal transmitters which would give reception at metropolitan technical standard within a radius of 25 miles. For the four areas I have referred to, a radius of 25 miles is more than adequate. About 70,000 people have been denied television unnecessarily while a lot of us have had the privilege of television reception for about 10 years. About 22,000 people live in Kalgoorlie and about 16,000 people live in Geraldton.

TVW Limited proposes to supply programmes for 42i hours a week for the first three years of operation. It would videotape the complete metropolitan programme of the parent station from 5 p.m. onwards on weeks days and from 4.30 p.m. onwards on Saturdays and Sundays. It would make special arrangements to provide an adequate local news service, not just a videotaped service from the metropolitan area. The stations could operate with staffs of four to six people, but the proposal could not be carried out if the Board insisted on classing the package stations as second licences. That is why I introduced my bill. The company’s investigations have shown that the most feasible way to extend television to Kalgoorlie and Geraldton is to use small package stations with exactly the same standards that metropolitan stations have today. In addition lo TVW Limited, Swan Television Limited operates in Western Australia. That company’s manager has stated that it is also interested in providing television to Kalgoorlie, and Geraldton.

Senator Webster:

– To both areas?

Senator BRANSON:

– Yes. So there would be competition for the licences. F ask the Minister to put to the Government that in view of the concrete offers put before the Board by TVW Limited and Swan Television Limited I should be permitted to proceed with my bill to make it possible for about 38,000 people in Kalgoorlie and Geraldton to enjoy television, as well as the people of Darwin and Mount Isa. If the Government is not prepared to allow me to proceed, I ask it to consider bringing in legislation to do just what, my bill seeks to do. I would be quite happy in that case and would seek leave to withdraw my bill. I remind the Minister and honorable senators and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board that what 1 am asking would not cost the Government one cent. The equipment would be supplied by private enterprise. If the Government wishes to follow its declared policy of having an alternative programme available, there is nothing to prevent the Australian Broadcasting Commission from establishing exactly the same type of station in competition with the commercial station. Today in answer to a question by Senator Laught, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson), who represents the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Hulme) in this chamber, said -

Wilh regard to the future extensions of the television services by either translator stations or other means …

There is a number of other means, but in the case of Kalgoorlie and Geraldton, apart from the communication cable that is to be laid, the only other means is the package type station. The Minister continued - . . I have asked the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to prepare a report and recommendations to me and the whole question of additional areas throughout the Commonwealth to which it may be possible to extend the service must await the completion of the Board’s report.

I was told 12 months ago that the Board would produce a report with respect to the other areas.

Senator Wright:

– Has the PostmasterGeneral not taken four years to consider the report of the Senate Select Committee?

Senator BRANSON:

– I do not wish to be drawn into that angle, because I am concerned at the moment with the people who are not enjoying the amenity of television that Senator Wright and I have been enjoying. All I can say to the Government is: “ For goodness sake speed up the inquiry which is being made into the matter.”’

Senator Murphy:

– The Government cannot even speed up its own inquiry.

Senator BRANSON:

– lt should not take an expert from the Department long to report on package type stations because they are being used very successfully in other parts of the world. There is no need for a complete investigation of the matter. Package type stations are in existence, just as translator stations were, but the Board will not listen. It has a fixed programme. It has a departmental mind on this and will not listen to anybody else on the subject of television.

I do not blame the Minister for this situation, but I do blame the Board. In my opinion it stands condemned as being one of the greatest dictators that we as a government have ever set up. I am perhaps destroying some of my own argument, but I have sat on this matter for four years and I am not prepared to do so any longer so far as the Board is concerned. I am sure the Board resents anyone having an opinion in respect of television services. The attitude that it has adopted over a period of four years in relation to translators is proof that it regards itself as God so far as television services in this country are concerned, and it will not listen to the opinions of anybody else. I think it is time that the Minister and the Government (old the Board to produce the report on package type stations forthwith. I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether he will request the PostmasterGeneral and the Government either to let me go on with my Bill or to take it up as a Government measure so that this amenity can be provided for people who have been mighty patient over the last 10 years.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak on the subject which Senator Branson has raised, Mr. President. He said that he did not blame the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Hulme) but he blamed the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I am always rather loath to do that kind of thing because I feel that in the final analysis blame usually rests with the person who has Ministerial responsibility. 1 am not too sure of the correctness of the approach when we say that such a thing is the responsibility of a board and not that of a Minister. I did not know that Senator Branson intended to raise this matter tonight, so I was unable to check on the situation, but my recollection of it is pretty clear. I do not intend to go into the technical details which Senator Branson mentioned.

The members of the Australian Labour Party are vitally interested in the outback areas of Australia. Having been in. some of the outback areas of Queensland only last week, I appreciate the problems of the people who live there. Their problems are just as real as are those of the people at Kalgoorlie and in the extreme north of Western Australia. It is true that Senator Branson has introduced a Bill and that it has been read a first time, but the Government has not seen fit to let him proceed to the second reading stage. One might have thought that that would have been normal practice if the Government wished to hear his arguments and to judge the technical soundness of the measure. As I see it, two answers have been given by the Government to this question. One answer was given to the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Collard), when the Postmaster-General indicated that there would be no change in the situation as it is envisaged. In other words, he said that the programme - if we can call it a programme - which has been laid down for the development of television in outback areas has not been changed. Recently in this chamber Senator Cant addressed a question on this subject to the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty). The Minister in reply gave a somewhat more promising picture. He said he was looking at the legislative programme and would see whether Senator Branson’s Bill could be discussed before the end of the current sessional period.

Senator Branson:

– We are running out of time. That is what I am worried about.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I think that Senator Branson has been here long enough, as I have been, to realise that there is not one chance of having it discussed. if the discussion of the Bill is to be fitted in with the legislative programme, unless we sit for an additional week. In other words, I do not think that Senator Henty, who is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, gave sufficient thought to the matter in answering Senator Cant’s question. His answer does not tally with the answer given by the Postmaster-General to the honorable member for Kalgoorlie. The PostmasterGeneral said that he did not see any change at all coming about in the television orogramme that has been laid down.

In my view, the subject of television services in outback areas is of great importance because it underlines an interesting aspect of outback development. The Australian Labour Party has been saying for a long time that a certain approach should be adopted to northern development. When we use the term “ northern “ we do not want to draw any geographical lines so as to determine where development shall take place. Generally speaking the outback areas of Australia lie towards the north of the continent. In my view the approach of the Government to the provision of television services in outback areas indicates its approach to development generally. We of the Labour Party have been saying for a long time that there must be a dual approach if we are at long last to develop our outback areas. First, there must be an approach by a government which is serious, which undertakes the proper amount of research, which provides the proper amount of finance, and which goes ahead on a permanent and continuing basis with the development of those areas. That requires a long term view, but events outside Australia could force us to do something about our outback areas much more quickly than this Government wishes, at any rate.

Secondly, it is necessary to approach the people already living in the outback areas and say to them that it is proposed to give them some of the amenities which people in other parts of Australia enjoy. In this category we think of education and transport facilities, which have posed problems over the years. The people in the outback have realised that they could not have such things as opera and light opera, performances by singers and dancers and other types of entertainment of that kind, but they know that television could provide that kind of entertainment for them. With television they could have the enertainment which people in Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and even New York, London and Tokyo enjoy. By means of television, people living in outback areas could enjoy exactly the same programmes as those enjoyed by people in the big cities of the world.

Senator Branson stressed that there are no technical difficulties in the way of providing television in outback areas, and I agree with him. Television could bc provided for the people of the outback. It seems silly that in a place like Perth, which Senator Branson and I know so well, there should be three television stations, while Kalgoorlie and Geraldton, where there would be approximately 40,000 people, and Mount Isa, where there are 16,000 people, have no television stations at all. In spite of all the difficulties, climatic and otherwise, people have gone to live in those places and made their homes there. The provision of television would present the opportunity to give them the kind of entertainment that is available to the people in the great cities of the world, but so far this Government has let that opportunty go by the board. 1 think that Senator Branson was being more than kind when he said that the Government was loath to interfere with the operations of boards which it sets up. The honorable member suggested that the Government should take a stick to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and try to ginger it up. An honorable senator who was sitting beside me at the lime said that he doubted whether there would be enough sticks to do that. 1 cannot be as kind in this respect as Senator Branson is. It is obvious that if the Government really wanted to provide television services in outback areas it could do so, because there are no technical difficulties in the way. According to information which I obtained only a few minutes before I cams into the chamber, commercial television station TVW in Perth has made an offer to move into the areas in Western Australia mentioned by Senator Branson and to provide television services. That should test the sincerity of the Government when it says that it wants to provide television services in outback areas and that it is serious about developing the remote parts of Australia.

I do not mean that the Government should wave a magic wand so that television will go into every little hamlet, but there are very big centres throughout Australia where television should be provided. In that respect I think of Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Mount Isa and Longreach. Obviously those are areas with sufficient population to warrant the establishment of television stations. What Senator Branson has said tonight underlines the fact that the Government is not serious about this question and that it is not serious about outback development generally. The failure to provide television for people in outback areas demonstrates clearly that the Government is not seriously concerned about developing the whole of Australia: but is more concerned to develop further areas that already are overdeveloped.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– 1 did not intend to speak on this subject tonight, but seeing that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) has made a few comments, I am drawn into the debate. He very cleverly has combined the Government’s lack of ability, through the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, to give a licence to commercial stations to erect package stations in a few outback areas of Western Australia, including the important areas of Geraldton and Kalgoorlie, with northern development as a whole. I would like to support Senator Branson and the Leader of the Opposition, who come from my State, in their approach to this question of the granting of licences to commercial stations to erect package stations in outback areas. I think that the Board needs to be severely castigated for its complete lack of understanding of the requirements of the Australian outback areas.

Having said that, I now want to refer to Senator Willesee’s remarks on northern development and his accusation that the Government has no idea about the development of these areas. I remind him that although it is getting near election time, I am a bit surprised that he has come out with this type of statement about northern development, because at the present time there is something like $2,000 million being spent in developing these areas. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to indicate what the Western Australian Labour Government did to encourage capital to come to the State in the years from 1953 to 1959. In the whole of that time it was not able to encourage the investment in Western Australia of overseas capital in one lump sum amounting to $2 million for developmental purposes. This applies to the whole of Western Australia, not merely to the north of Western Australia.

Senator Wheeldon:

– What has that got to do with it?

Senator SCOTT:

– The Leader of the Opposition connected his remarks on package stations with northern development. All I am saying is that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition as far as the provision of package stations at Kalgoorlie, Geraldton and other outback areas is concerned, but I do not agree with him as far as northern development is concerned. No other government in the history of Australia has done as much for northern development as has this Government. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to give one instance where the Western Australian Labour Government encouraged to Western Australia overseas capital amounting lo $2 million in the six year period that I have mentioned.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We were fighting a war.

Senator SCOTT:

– You were fighting a war from 1953-19597 There was no war then.

Senator Sim:

– They were fighting their own war.

Senator SCOTT:

– f am sorry, they might have been fighting an internal war. 1 leave it open to the Leader of the Opposition to come along, if not tonight then at another time, and say: “ Our marvellous Labour Party was able to encourage the investment in Western Australia of overseas capital amounting to a couple of million dollars for one particular venture.” He cannot do it, and he did not do it. This is the type of development that the Australian people can expect if ever the Labour Party is elected to the Commonwealth treasury bench. We will get the same sort of thing that we got for the six years that the Western Australian Labour Government under Mr. Hawke was in office.

T conclude by saying to Senator Willesee: Bring forward one instance where the Labour Party was able to encourage to Western Australia in any period he likes to choose overseas capital for one particular venture. I challenge him and say that neither he nor any other member of the Labour Party could do so. This Government’s record in northern development is unequalled by any other Government.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I join with my Western Australian colleagues in supporting the case for the provision of television services in the Kalgoorlie, north Midlands and Geraldton areas. We have been told that the Government has provided television coverage for 92 per cent, of Australia’s population. But when we look at Western Australia’s position we find that by the end of the fourth phase of development, 73 per cent, of Western Australia’s population will be receiving television coverage. But when we look at the position more closely we find that although very shortly there will be 8 television stations in Western Australia, all of them will be in a group south of the main east-west railway line. There is no television in the north Midlands, Geraldton and Kalgoorlie areas. I make a plea for the provision of television service in those areas.

A proposition has been put before the Government. I want to see a thorough investigation made into it. I do not know the ins and outs of the proposition that was advanced by Channel 7. I do know that this is not the first occasion on which it has placed a proposition before the Government. I was not in favour of its first proposition. Channel 7 now realises that the proposition would not have given satisfactory television services to country people. I believe that on this occasion it has put forward a proposition which will at least give satisfactory television service to the Kalgoorlie area. Perhaps it will extend to the Geraldton town area. But I want to go further and press for the provision of a television service, not only for the town of Geraldton but also for the outlying areas on which Geraldton depends for its livelihood. I hope that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) who represents the Postmaster-General in this chamber will press for the provision of television services in the two areas I have mentioned.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– 1 do not intend to be long, but because Western Australian senators have taken part in this debate, I do not want it to be inferred that the problem relates only to Western Australia. The situation is exactly the same in the outlying areas of New South Wales. At the commencement of this sessional period 1 asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral when television services would be provided for the residents of Cobar, Louth, Bourke, Booligal, Tottenham and Lightning Ridge, which are prominent towns in western New South Wales and which, despite their pleas for the provision of television services, so far have not received those services. I think that the reply that the Minister gave me is probably the reply that he will give to Senator Branson. The Minister’s reply to me towards the commencement of this session was -

With regard to the future extensions of the television services I have asked the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to prepare a report and recommendations to me and the whole question of additional areas to which it may be possible to extend the national service must await the completion of the Board’s report.

I understand from the discussion that has taken place this evening that the report was asked for some two years ago. Still, the Minister is merely saying that we must sit down and await the completion of the report by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Minister went on to say -

I should add, however, that at this stage in the development of television services I can hold out little hope for the early extension of service to distant and sparsely populated areas in various parts of the Commonwealth.

I hope that the plea that has been put up by honorable senators from Western Australia will not fall on deaf cars just as I hope that the plea that J put up on behalf of the outback people of New South Wales does not fall on deaf ears. But I believe that the answer provided to me by the Minister shows the complete inertia of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the negative altitude of the Minister and the Government as far as the provision of television services to country areas is concerned.

Thursday, 13th October 1966

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

– Mr. President, the case has been fairly stated by Senator Branson,

Senator Scott, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee), Senator DrakeBrockman and Senator McClelland. In the circumstances, the only thing that I can say is that I will faithfully convey to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Hulme) the views expressed by honorable senators on this matter. As I understand the position, a proposition has been put forward for package television stations in the Geraldton area in Western Australia. The matter has been referred by the companies concerned to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Senator Branson:

– The Kalgoorlie area also.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, the Kalgoorlie area also. The debate on this matter on the adjournment has covered a wide field in which honorable senators have pleaded the case for package or translator television stations in other areas. It is true, as Senator Branson said, that he has introduced to the first reading stage a Bill relating to this matter. He did this in April last. All these facts I will, as is my responsibility, faithfully convey to the Postmaster-General and ask whether he will give consideration to the submissions made.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Will the Minister take up the question of bringing Senator Branson’s bill before the Senate?

Senator ANDERSON:

– As I have already said, I will refer to the Postmaster-General all the matters raised during this adjournment debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.3 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 October 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1966/19661012_senate_25_s32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant