26th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.
page 225
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Has the Minister been advised of the resolution passed by the annual general conference of the Old Age and Invalid Pensioners Association of New South Wales calling upon the Government to bestow justice upon aged, widowed and incapacitated civilian citizens in accordance with Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is designed to abolish poverty and to preserve human dignity? Will the Minister prevail upon the Minister for Social Services to heed the plea of the pensioners in our community and do something for them in the social services legislation to be introduced into the Parliament in accordance with the statements contained in the Governor-General’s Speech of last week?
– I do not know whether my colleague the Minister for Social Services has received or seen the resolution mentioned, but I will direct his attention to the honourable senator’s comments. I would point out that this Government has a very proud record in the field of social services and that its intention to maintain that record is evident from the further promises contained in the Governor-General’s Speech.
page 225
– I address my question to the Minister for Supply. I understand that the United States Army will set up a procurement office, attached to the Department of Supply in Melbourne, through which Australian manufacturers will be able to compete with those of other countries for contracts to supply various articles to the United States Army, Navy and Air Force. Is it a fact that the procedure will be for a list of requirements to come from the central procurement agency in Japan and for it to be posted on a pub lic notice board in Melbourne? Is it a fact also that the goods required include foodstuffs, clothing, spare parts, electronic gear and toilet requisites? Will the Minister use his good offices to see that copies of these notices are simultaneously posted on notice boards in his departmental offices in all State capitals, and particularly in Adelaide as I am sure that South Australians would be most interested in tendering for the supply of these articles?
– It is a fact that the United States Government proposes to set up a procurement office in Australia for its off shore purchases for Vietnam. As I understand the present position, the United States has a central procurement office in Japan and procurement offices in Hong Kong and Singapore, lt is proposed now to extend the procurement offices to include Australia. I do not think that at present the organisation has been solidified. The Department of Supply will be in consultation with the mission to Australia and I can assure honorable senators that we will do our best to see that when the off shore requirements are known to the Department of Supply we will keep Australian industries in every State advised of them as early as possible. That is significant, because off shore requirements are urgently needed. The tenders are not open for a great length of time and therefore Australian industries should be advised as quickly as possible. The Department of Supply will do everything possible to co-ordinate matters and ensure that industries in every State are aware of the off shore requirements of the American Army, Navy and Air Force in Vietnam.
page 225
– Oan the Minister representing the Prime Minister give the Senate an indication of how far negotiations have progressed towards the formation of an Australian council for the purpose of combining all the arts?
– The Prime Minister has received a number of representations from different organisations on the question raised by the honourable senator. Honourable senators will have noted that the Prime Minister has recently made additions to his staff. He has said in another place that the additional staff will enable him to give close attention to the problems which have been put to him by various bodies. The matter raised by the honourable senator is now being closely examined by the Government and the Prime Minister and I should be able to give further information as soon as a decision is made.
page 226
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the ‘Western Australian’ of 1st March stating that large quantities of materials for the naval communication base at North West Cape were arriving regularly in Geraldton. Is the Minister aware that these materials include road plant, furniture, washing machines, construction material and food supplies? Could the Minister inform the Senate how much of this material is manufactured in Western Australia and whether the maximum quantity of Western Australian manufactured goods is being used in the project?
– I think the honourable senator will be aware that the agreement between the United States and Australian Governments for the construction of the North West Cape installations contains a provision that the maximum quantity of Australian, manufactured goods would be used in providing requirements. It did not of course contain, and could not be expected to contain, a provision that the maximum quantity of Western Australian goods should be provided; it was a provision that the maximum quantity of goods made in Australia would be used. This provision is being honoured in the observance. I cannot tell the honourable senator just how much of the Australian manufactured goods used are Western Australian manufactured goods, but the salient point is that they are Australian made goods. I think the honourable senator is aware that considerable rain has fallen in the Geraldton area which has closed the road out of Geraldton for some months. There is an accumulation of these goods which has perhaps prompted the newspaper statement that is the basis of the honourable senator’s question. However, the salient fact is that the requirement that Australian made goods should be supplied is being adhered to.
page 226
– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. Has the Minister investigated a report that a Sydney building society has introduced a scheme of home loans for newly married couples based on the joint salaries of the husband and wife, but that to qualify the couples must make a written statement that the wife intends to work for three years after their marriage and that they do not intend to have a family until after that time? Will the Minister agree that because of Australia’s shortage of population, this type of written undertaking required by the society is unduly harsh and restrictive and should not be tolerated? Will the Minister further agree that the requirement of the society really underlines the great difficulty young couples are having in securing housing loans? If investigations have been carried out by the Minister, what action is she able to take to see that young Australians seeking homes are not restricted in any way at all?
– I could not hear the question properly. Am I correct in understanding that part of the honourable senator’s question concerned the proposal by a building society that young married couples would be assisted in cases where both the husband and wife were continuing to work?
– The society required a written statement that they would not have children for three years.
– As I understand it, the building society referred to an intention to continue to work. I think the position has been somewhat misrepresented in the question by the honourable senator. As I have said, a further statement issued by the building society referred to an intention by husband and wife to continue to work. Of course, we believe that everything that can be done to assist young married couples to acquire their own homes is of vital importance to Australia. As the honourable senator knows, this Government has introduced the homes savings grant scheme and has established the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Both of these actions have assisted young people to acquire their own homes. But I think that it was a misrepresentation of the position to imply that the building society referred to a firm and binding assurance that the young couple would not have any children. My understanding of the position is that the society referred to an intention and a wish to continue to work. I do not think that is quite what the honourable senator said.
page 227
– My question which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping an[d Transport relates to the washaways that have occurred on the main north-south railway line between Adelaide and Alice Springs. I understand that there were thirtythree washaways and the destruction of a concrete and steel bridge, approximately 400 feet in length, over the Finke River. Can the Minister say whether any study is being made of the condition of this line that will tend to reduce the severity and the number of washaways in circumstances such as those which arose recently? In view of the population of Alice Springs and the north generally, which renders prolonged isolation a rather dangerous situation, can the Minister indicate whether any steps are being considered for alternative routes to Alice Springs?
– The Minister for Shipping and Transport made a statement on this matter in another place yesterday, and I have had the advantage of looking at what he said. The recent damage to the central Australian railway line, which included the destruction of the Finke River bridge, resulted from one of the most extensive floods in living memory in that area. There has been a study of ways and means to minimise these washaways and investigations are continuing into alternatives, particularly in relation to regrading, realigning and strengthening the existing track. I understand that it may well be up to a week before the line is restored. However, as the Minister indicated in another place, apart from the immediate measures being taken, the Commonwealth Railways authorities are actively studying the possi bility of the construction of a new Une, re-routing the existing line in places where it is obvious that trouble occurs in flash flood periods.
page 227
– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that complaints about poor wireless and television reception continue to be made by residents of Whyalla and Port Augusta and that recently the Port Augusta Council resolved to seek the support of adjacent councils in asking for adjusted fees for this reason? Will the Department carry out reception tests on Eyre Peninsula and have regard to requests for reduced fees in poor reception areas?
– The question about reduced fees is one of policy, which quite clearly the Postmaster-General would have to look at very broadly. The question as to complaints about reception in the Whyalla and Port Augusta areas is more immediate. Most certainly I shall direct the honourable senator’s question to the PostmasterGeneral and see whether I can get some information quickly about the cause of the complaints.
page 227
– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer confirm that the cost of irrigation works on primary production properties is usually considered to be deductible for taxation purposes? Will he say what the position is in relation to survey fees for general works for irrigation purposes? Are they tax deductible items, or are they considered to be capital items?
– I would be very loath to give information on taxation matters without being perfectly sure that it was correct. A person would be in grave trouble if he took my advice and it was found to be contrary to a ruling of the Commissioner of Taxation. If the honourable senator places his question on the notice paper, I shall get him the correct information from the Commissioner.
page 227
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation.
Will the Minister inform the Parliament of the number of total and permanent incapacity pensions and disability pensions that are being received by persons who have served in the Vietnam war and have now been discharged from the Services?
– I think it will be obvious that I do not carry those figures in my mind. I shall obtain them and see that the honourable senator is put in possession of them.
page 228
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. When monthly figures are published showing the state of the Australian work force, there is always a noticeable difference between the number shown as registered for employment - that is, the number of job seekers - and the number who are registered to receive the unemployment benefit. The former is always greater than the latter. Can the Minister state which figure more correctly indicates the number of Australians who are employable but who are out of work at the time of publication of the figures?
– 1 think it is well recognised that the figures which set out the number of people who are registered for employment cover many people who are itinerant workers or who have given up one occupation and are looking for another. They include persons who have finished, say, cane cutting and have come south to look for some other job. The real indication of the number of people who are unemployed in the sense, of having been out of work for a particular period and being unable to find other work would be the figure which shows the number of people who are drawing the unemployment benefit. Indeed, the figure showing the number of persons who are registered for employment could, and nearly always does, cover quite a large number of people who have registered for employment but who have since found employment and have not informed the Department of Labour and National Service of the fact. They are still shown as being registered for employment.
page 228
– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. By way of preface, I refer to the successful prosecution in Sydney yesterday of several people who were illegally exporting parrots to overseas buyers. I ask: since the evidence referred to an unknown overseas buyer, is the Minister’s Department content to leave the case as it is or will it seek the aid of Interpol to locate the overseas buyers who provide the incentive for such illegal ‘activities?
– As the Senate knows, I have the responsibility in relation to our import and export regulations dealing with the control of flora and fauna. There is a very strict rule that I alone will give approval for the export of birds and then only when they are for scientific purposes or the export is on a zoo-to-zoo basis. The zoo-to-zoo basis has to be thoroughly examined by my officers overseas. As to what my Department does in relation to matters consequent upon a prosecution, I am not prepared to make a comment to the Senate.
page 228
– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General ascertain whether it is a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is offering to young musicians twenty-eight scholarships each worth $1,500 per annum - two years for strings and one year for other instruments - the development of this plan being in the hands of the National Training Orchestra? If so, can the Minister say why the State conservatoriums should not participate in this scheme?
– The honourable senator indicated to me earlier this morning that she had a query on this matter and I have been able at short notice to get some information in reply. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has established the National Training Orchestra which is made up of an initial intake of eighteen men and ten women players who were selected from eighty-five candidates from all parts of Australia. Except for Tasmania, all States are represented as follows: New South Wales, sixteen; Victoria, four; Queensland, three; South Australia, two; Western Aus- tralia, three. Almost all the players are in the eighteen to twenty-five age group and they began work at the Training Orchestra’s headquarters in the Sydney suburb of Lindfield on 3rd January. Bach player has come to the orchestra on a SI, 500 a year ABC scholarship. Those who come from outside Sydney receive in addition a $400 a year living away from home allowance. There are thirty hours in the training week. From the ranks of the National Training Orchestra the ABC hopes to provide a steady stream of experienced players to fill vacancies in the symphony orchestras in each State. There is no legal bond binding the players to join an ABC orchestra. Players at times may be called upon to augment ABC symphony orchestras in each State. There are plans, too, for the whole orchestra to give public concerts at schools and to broadcast on ABC radio. The first public concert will be at the University of Sydney on 8th March.
The National Training Orchestra was established in Sydney for the following reasons: firstly, it is a national or federal orchestra and as the Commission’s Federal Music Department is located in Sydney, that city seemed the most appropriate location; secondly, Mr Robert Miller, the orchestra’s conductor, lives in Sydney - he has spent thirty-three years with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra; thirdly, premises were available for the orchestra in the Sydney suburb of Lindfield; fourthly, it was felt to be important that the orchestra should be associated with one of the Commission’s major symphony orchestras, in this case the Sydney Symphony Orchestra; fifthly - this is the touch that 1 like - as Sydney is the largest city in Australia, located in the most populous State, it seemed logical that Sydney could offer the strongest public support for the orchestra; sixthly, as previously mentioned, members of the orchestra from other States are paid an additional $400 a year living away from home allowance.
page 229
– My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate relates to his recent statement that we must watch closely the increasing freight charges on the export of fruit from Tasmania. Since it is within the competence of the Government so to do, can the Minister in form the Senate when we can expect the Government to stop watching and start acting on this tremendously important matter?
– Last night I spoke as a Tasmanian senator on the aspect to which the honourable senator has referred - 1 made that quite clear - because I wished to alert the Tasmanian people and the Tasmanian producers to what might lie ahead - a number of years ahead yet, by the look of it - if the plans for containerisation came to fruition and the number of ports was limited to three. The extent to which the Federal Government will become involved in this problem - if it becomes involved at all - is a matter of policy and will be revealed in due course.
page 229
– 1 direct a question to the appropriate Minister. Has the Minister noted that last week an Australian citizen was refused an entry permit to visit her sister in Great Britain and was forcibly placed on a return plane and sent out of the country? I might say that this is not the first time that this sort of thing has happened. Under similar conditions, what would be the attitude of the Australian authorities? Surely a few days grace would be given by the Australian authorities in such circumstances.
– I have not seen any report of the case to which the honourable senator has referred. 1 believe that this matter would be one for the Department of Immigration. We will have a look at it and obtain for the honourable senator any information that we can from that Department.
page 229
– Yesterday I asked the Minister for Customs and Excise a question about the remission of duty on transistor radios. The central committee of the Hobart Fire Relief Organisation had arranged with the Japanese Embassy in Canberra for the supply of these transistor radios. Has the Minister any information for me on this matter?
– Yes. I sought the information for which the honourable senator asked. Immediately after the fires in Tasmania the Japanese Government indicated that it would like to make a contribution to assist the people who were so seriously affected by this tragedy. It was suggested that the contribution could take the form of a gift of transistor radios. The suggestion was the subject of discussions between representatives of the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments, but eventually the Tasmanian authorities decided not to take advantage of the suggestion. I understand that the speedy and efficient restoration of adequate communications by the Postmaster-General’s Department and the ready availability of radios from local sources were the factors that influenced the Tasmanian authorities in making that decision. If the Tasmanian Government had wished to avail itself of the Japanese offer steps would have been taken to remit the customs duty normally payable on imported transistor radios. The Tasmanian authorities were so advised. I am sure that the honourable senator, and indeed all honourable senators, will be pleased to learn that the Japanese Government has now made a cash donation for the relief of those who suffered in the bush fires in Tasmania.
page 230
– Is the Minister for Education and Science aware that Mr R. L. Harry, the Australian Ambassador in Belgium, in a recent article made the suggestion that Australia should give a lead to the rest of the world by the introduction of the teaching of Esperanto in its schools? Does the Minister consider that there is some merit in Mr Harry’s suggestion? If he does, will the suggestion be investigated?
– I have not seen the article to which the honourable senator has referred. But I have known Mr Harry for very many years and I know that he has been an enthusiast for the study of Esperanto during all the time that I have known him. I would not like to express an offthecuff opinion on the merits of introducing Esperanto into the curriculum of schools. Indeed, even if I had an opinion on it, the curriculum of schools is a matter on which the State governments would have the say. This is an expression of an individual point of view by an Esperanto enthusiast. That is really all I can say about it.
page 230
– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General a question. Will the Government agree to the refunding of telephone rental charges that have been paid in advance in respect of the homes destroyed by the recent fires in Tasmania?
– This is a matter of policy. For that reason I am not in a position to make any statement on it on behalf of the Postmaster-General. Therefore I ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper.
page 230
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, refers to a recent article in a South Australian stock journal entitled ‘Call for Action to Save the Future of Citrus Areas’. Does the Minister agree with the claim made in the article that ‘unless urgent action is taken on a national level to deal with the problem of high salinity in the River Murray irrigation areas the future of the citrus industry and the river towns in South Australia is in jeopardy’? Can the Minister say what steps are being taken at the federal level to deal with this problem? Is it proposed to assist with the installation of irrigation systems which might lessen the damage caused by water salinity?
– I have noted a number of questions from producer bodies and from honourable senators on the quality of water in the River Murray. The best information I can obtain is that it is an exaggeration to say that the position is quite as serious as the honourable senator has implied. The River Murray Commission, which comprises representatives of the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, has been giving consideration to this matter, although the Commission is not responsible for the quality of the water. I understand that it is likely to call in a consultant on this problem. As the honourable senator will know, the Chowilla dam is being built. The Commonwealth Government is responsible for a quarter of the cost of that dam and also is making money available to New South Wales so that that State can meet its share of the cost. It is believed that this work will have a great influence on the quality of the water. The answer to the last part of the question is, no. In the Loxton Irrigation Area, which was developed under the war service land settlement scheme, the Commonwealth has perhaps set the highest standards in the draining of irrigated areas and disposal of drainage water. Other irrigation systems which have been developed by State and private interests have a wide variety of problems with which the Commonwealth cannot be associated.
page 231
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Has the Minister received a reply from the Postmaster-General to the question I asked last week about telephone services for the satellite town of Churchill in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria?
– No, I have not received the information yet.
page 231
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Army: are all Australian soldiers killed in action in Vietnam brought home for burial in Australia? If so, will the Minister explain the financial arrangements for such burials?
– Some time ago Cabinet decided that, when possible, the bodies of men killed in action would be brought home. This is being done in most cases. The next of kin have no liability for funeral costs unless a private funeral is requested. In such cases reimbursement up to $60 is payable in respect of expenditure on a funeral. The body is returned to the place of burial at public expense.
page 231
– The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry may be aware of my constant questioning last year in relation to the decline in the berry fruit industry in Tasmania and Victoria. The. Minister may be able to confirm that production has declined even further in the last period. Might I quote a comment of one producer in relation to the position now, following the fires that have occurred in Tasmania. He said:
The total devastation is unbelievable and will take years to restore. Many of our fruit growers have suffered the complete loss of their homes and belongings, and in many cases orchards of berry fruit plantations have been badly burned. Without being unduly pessimistic at this stage we can foresee serious shortages next year.
I ask the Minister: Has there been any plan to stimulate and restore what was already a declining industry?
– I think that we are all aware that the devastation caused by fires in Tasmania, particularly to orchards, was very severe indeed. So far as I know this matter will be considered by not only the State Government but also the Commonwealth Government in association with the measures that are to be provided for relief and the restoration of the orchards.
page 231
– I desire to ask the Minister for Education and Science a question in relation to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which he administers. Will the Minister discuss with the head of CSIRO whether that Organisation will set up a section to combat weeds in water? My attention has been drawn to this matter by a statement by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission in Victoria concerning the tremendous expense to it of keeping water channels open and free of weeds. No doubt this is also one of the irrigation problems throughout the nation.
– Undoubtedly there is a problem in relation to the blockage of irrigation channels by such weeds as cum.bungi. No doubt lakes also become infested with weed growths which make them less pleasant for people who wish to sit on the shores and to engage in water sports. At the suggestion of the honourable senator I will talk to the head of CSIRO on this matter. I believe - and this is a topofthe.head answer at this point in time - that while no specific section has been set up in the Organisation to deal with this matter there are numbers of people who are working on the problem in other sections of CSIRO. I will find out what the head of CSRIO has to say regarding this suggestion and inform the honourable senator of his reply.
page 232
– by leave - I lay on the table the following paper:
I seek leave to make a short statement.
– There being no objection, leave is granted.
– In accordance with the requirements of the Repatriation Act, I have tabled the report of No. 5 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, which was established on 11th November 1965, and ceased its operations on 31st January of this year. During 1965,I became concerned about the increased number of entitlement appeals awaiting hearing, and about the resultant delay to appellants in having their appeals heard. It became evident that an additional tribunal on a temporary basis was needed to reduce the number of appeals on hand to a reasonable level, as the four permanent tribunals were fully occupied dealing with the normal rate of intake. I envisaged that the appointment of a temporary tribunal for a period of twelve months would suffice, and I am pleased to be able to inform honourable senators that this has proved to be the case. Outstanding appeals havebeen reduced to a minimum practicable level. I confidently expect that the permanent tribunals will now be able to maintain the appeals at the present satisfactory level. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government’s appreciation and thanks to Mr J. Serisier, the Chairman, and Messrs Graham and Brunsdon, the members of this Tribunal.
– by leave - I move:
That the Senate take note of the paper.
I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 232
(Question No. 9)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:
What is the estimatedtotal cost of the construction of the new Australian Embassy in Djakarta?
– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:
The estimated total cost of the new Embassy building in Djakarta is $1,532,232.
page 232
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henry) read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
As announced in another place by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) last week, the Government has decided to proceed with the referendum proposals that were embodied in the two Bills passed by both Houses towards the end of 1965 and to add a further proposal with respect to section 51 (xxvi). Because of the requirements of section 128 of the Constitution relating to alteration of the Constitution, the Bills that were passed in 1965 with a view to their submission to a referendum have lapsed and fresh Bills must be passed before the alterations they propose to the Constitution can be submitted to the electors. The Bill now before the Senate is, in its substantive provisions, identical with the Bill on the same subject passed by both Houses in 1965, except in one significant respect. That is the substitution of ‘85,000’ for ‘80,000’ in sub-section (3) of proposed new section 24. I will come back to this alteration later.
This Bill, as honourable senators will be aware, is the Bill to break the present link between the size of the Senate and the size of the House of Representatives. This link or nexus is provided for by section 24, the first paragraph of which reads:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.
Unless the requirement that the number of members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators, is deleted from section 24, any increase in the House of Representatives must be accompanied by an increase of half that number in the Senate. While this provision is not to be interpreted with exact mathematical precision - indeed, the present House consists of slightly more members than the 120 that results from a strict doubling of the number of senators - it is nevertheless clear, and it has been the consistent view of constitutional advisers over many years, that it is not open to the Parliament to increase the size of the House of Representatives by a very small number without at the same time increasing the number of senators. Such a limitation is not imposed on other Parliaments and it is, I believe, the view of a large majority of this Parliament that, while the substantial growth in population will make some expansion of the House necessary and desirable, it should not follow that the number of senators be increased proportionately.
Unless some measures are taken soon to increase the size of the House of Representatives, it will become impracticable for members adequately to perform the functions on behalf of their electors that are expected of them. As Sir Robert Menzies said when introducing the corresponding Bill in November 1965:
The problems being looked at by honourable members today are three or four times more weighty and more complex than they were when I first came into this House. I know this at first hand. I am not an idler; I have worked all this time and I know what it means. . . We have the supreme duty to represent our people and to represent them effectively. To represent them effectively, there must be a proper proportion between the number of members of this House and the number of the electors in the nation as a whole.
As the Prime Minister mentioned in the House last week, there is, I believe, agreement among all members of both Houses that, because of the disproportion which has developed in the numbers represented in certain electorates, a redistribution should be made before the next general elections. Some electorates in the same State have less than 40,000 voters, while others have in excess of 100,000, and the disparity will have widened by the time of the next election, whenever that may be. It would clearly be imprudent to set in motion a redistribution until the views of the people on the question of breaking the nexus have been ascertained. Further, not only has the number of voters in some electorates now become very large, but as suggested by Sir Robert Menzies in the speech from which I have just quoted, the burdens of members have increased considerably. Government in Australia today is active in many more fields, and the range of problems which this has created has had a significant impact on the duties of the people’s representatives.
Additionally our population contains a growing proportion of young people and of migrants. The future of our country lies to a significant extent in these people, and they have therefore been the subject of special attention by the Government and its agencies, through social services and other means. Although the young people and many of our migrants have no vote, their welcome presence in the community has the effect of adding significantly to the burdens of those who represent the electorates in which they live. These all suggest the need not only for a redistribution, but for power to make increases deemed appropriate in the size of the popular House. Unless the nexus is removed, a significant increase in the House of Representatives cannot be made unless the number of senators is also increased proportionately. To enable the Senate to continue to operate on a basis similar to that on which it is operating at present - that is, with an uneven number of senators standing for election on each occasion in each State - the minimum increase is twenty-four. This would require an increase in the size of the House of Representatives of some forty-eight members. No-one in this Parliament - nor any member of the public - would want this result. Nor do we as a Government.
There have been suggestions - and no doubt they will be made again - that the object of the proposed changes in section 24 is to permit an excessive increase in the number of members of the House of Representatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the proposal is to. seek approval from the electors to alter the Constitution so that, as the growth of the Commonwealth’s population demands, this Parliament can legislate for a modest increase in the size of the popular House, without having at the same time to increase the size of the Senate.
If carried, our proposals will permit the smallest increase that we consider to be consistent with effective representation. Indeed, as I will explain later, there will for the first time be introduced into the Constitution a provision which will have the effect of placing an upper limit upon the members of the popular House. The Government, I may say, has considered other suggestions that have been brought forward to effect an increase in the size of the House of Representatives and at the same time enable an increase in the size of the Senate but without having the considerable jump in numbers that would follow if we maintained the present system of voting. But we have concluded - as indeed Sir Robert Menzies concluded - that none of them offers a wholly satisfactory solution under the system of proportional representation, a system which experience has shown to be the best that has so far been devised. We have looked in particular at a proposal that the Senate be increased by a total of six, with one additional senator for each State, making eleven senators for each State. This would mean that at alternate elections there would be six senators voted for on one occasion and five on the other. It might prove necessary to have six senators elected in some States and five in others at the same election. The possibility of a deadlocked Senate could be increased, and there are other factors which in the view of the Government make this a less desirable course than the more simple and clear cut proposition to increase the House of Representatives to the required extent without the requirement of a corresponding increase in the Senate. I think I should observe that even if the proposal that the Senate be increased by six were adopted - and this could be done without a constitutional amendment at all - the result would be that we would be faced with a total increase of some eighteen senators and members. In other words, to provide for the addition of twelve or thirteen members of the House of Representatives - if that were the number considered necessary - the size of the Senate would have to be increased by six, even though it might be generally agreed that at the time there was no adequate reason for an increase in the size of the Senate.
There are two things I want to say about the position of the Senate. The proposed amendments of section 24 will not in the view of the Government in any way erode the role of the Senate. Nor will they preclude a future increase in the size of the Senate, should that at any time be considered desirable. As to the first matter, we believe that the Senate, as at present constituted, is well able to discharge, and to discharge effectively, the role designed for it by the Constitution. We are well aware that some fears are held that the prestige and authority of the Senate may in some manner be diminished as a consequence of this proposal, and the role it can perform as a house of review and custodian of the rights of the smaller States be weakened. We do not accept these views as having practical force. Moreover, two protections to the position of the Senate will be afforded by the present proposals. Firstly, State representation will be protected by guaranteeing to original States - that is, all the existing States - a minimum of ten senators, in lieu of the six senators guaranteed under the Constitution in its present form. Secondly, as a guarantee against excessive increases in the size of the House of Representatives, the Bill provides that the number of members of that House is to be ascertained by dividing the number of people of the States by a number determined by the Parliament, but not being less than 85,000. The 1965 Bill provided that the number of people was to be divided by a number not less than 80,000.
On reflection, the Government has decided that the higher minimum figure is to be preferred. Adoption of 85,000 as the population quota would permit a total increase of thirteen or fourteen members of the House of Representatives by about 1969. This, I stress, is a maximum increase, not a minimum increase. I recall that, at the time of the first Parliament in 1901, the average population per electorate was about 50,000. By 1947 it had risen to over 100,000, and the size of the House of Representatives was then increased from 74 members to 121 members. By the 1949 elections the average population per electorate was some 67,000; by 1969, we expect this average would rise to a figure in excess of 94,000. I point out that, if the Government’s proposals embodied in this Bill become law, it will be the first occasion on which the Constitution has imposed an upper limit on the total number in the popular House.
I commend the Bill to the Senate. 1 believe that the proposals contained in it should be approved by the people, and that if they are, this will constitute a significant advance in the efficient working of our parliamentary system.
Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.
page 235
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill bc now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to make alterations to the two provisions of the Constitution which make explicit reference to people of the Aboriginal race. One alteration - that proposed by clause 3 of the Bill - is designed to repeal section 127. An identical proposal was passed unanimously by both Houses of the Parliament in November 1965. Section 127 provides that, in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The Government continues to believe that this section should be repealed.
The principal reason for including section 127 in the Constitution was the practical difficulty of enumerating the Aboriginal population at that time. No doubt in 1900 this was a very substantial problem. It is, however, no longer a serious difficulty, and the basis for the existence of the section consequently does not now exist. I should emphasise that section 127 does not affect the qualifications of Aboriginals to vote at Commonwealth elections. Section 41 has always guaranteed an Aboriginal the right to vote at elections if he has a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State in which he is a voter, and this Parliament itself has removed all disabilities in respect of voting at Commonwealth elections so far as Aboriginals are concerned. They are now entitled to enrol and to vote and should, in the view of the Government, be counted as part of the population of the Commonwealth, or their State or Territory, for any purpose. The simple truth is that section 127 is completely out of harmony with our national attitudes and modern thinking. It has no place in our Constitution in this age.
The second alteration, which is contained in clause 2 of the Bill, is the deletion of the words ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’ from paragraph (xxvi) of section 51. Section 51 of the Constitution reads:
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: -
The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.
Since the Government’s earlier proposals for constitutional alterations were put before the Parliament, a great deal of thought has been given, both inside and outside the Parliament, to the constitutional provisions relating to the Aboriginal people and there has been much activity by the Government, and by private members and organisations concerned with the welfare of the Aboriginals. In the light of this activity and the many representations that have been made, the Government has reviewed the position and has decided that an amendment of section 51 (xxvi), as provided for in the Bill, should be put to the people, in addition to the proposal for the repeal of section 127. In coming to this conclusion, the Government has’ been influenced by the popular impression that the words now proposed to be omitted from section 51 (xxvi) are discriminatory - a view which the Government believes to be erroneous but which, nevertheless, seems to be deep rooted.
An effect of omitting these words will be the removal of the existing restriction on the power of the Commonwealth to make special laws for the people of the Aboriginal race in any State if the Parliament considers it. necessary. As the Constitution stands at present, the Commonwealth has no power, except in the Territories, to legislate with respect to people of the Aboriginal race as such. If the words ‘other than the Aboriginal race in any State’ were deleted from section 51 (xxvi), the result would be that the Commonwealth Parliament would have vested in it a concurrent legislative power with respect to Aboriginals as such, they being the people of a race, provided the Parliament deemed it necessary to make special laws for them. It is the view of the Government that the National Parliament should have this power. If the proposals relating to Aboriginals are approved by the people, the Government would regard it as desirable to hold discussions with the States to secure the widest measure of agreement with respect to Aboriginal advancement.
I think I should say a few words about the suggestion that has been made that we should include a constitutional guarantee against discrimination on the ground of race. Such a proposal was put forward in another place in a private member’s bill. The recommendation to include such a guarantee in our Constitution has the obvious attraction of providing evidence of the Australian people’s desire to outlaw discriminatory practices of every kind. But the disadvantages of the inclusion of such a guarantee are so substantial that the Government does not believe that it should be pursued. Such a guarantee could provide a fertile source of attack on the constitutional validity of legislation which we, at this point of time, would not consider discriminatory. The extent of litigation that has arisen from section 92 provides a serious warning of the ramifications of an apparently straightforward constitutional guarantee. Moreover, such a guarantee would operate only to limit government action. It would not affect actions by individuals. Racial discrimination, if it exists in a community, is the outward manifestation of beliefs rooted in the hearts and minds of some men and women. I do not believe that such beliefs are to be found on any significant scale in this country; but even if it were otherwise, I do not think the position could be remedied in practice by a constitutional guarantee.
Accordingly, the Government believes that the best course, the most effective course, for the Commonwealth to adopt is to seek the amendments proposed in the Bill. It proposes to submit them at the same time as the referendum on the nexus provision - section 24 of the Constitution. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.
page 236
Motion (by .Senator Henty) - by leave - proposed:
That so much of the Standing Orders bc suspended as would prevent motions being moved, forthwith, for a call of the Senate on Tuesday next in connection with the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1967 and the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967.
– This is a motion to suspend the Standing Orders so as to make it unnecessary to give the customary notice for the call of the Senate. The nub of the motion is the words ‘on Tuesday next’, because as I understand the Standing Orders - I was in the process of studying them when I came to the chamber this morning but by reason of the fact that other business came on I discontinued my study of them - they ordinarily require three weeks notice to be given to members for a call of the Senate. I rise not because I will not be available to respond to the call and fully equipped to answer it but only to say that the purpose of the Standing Orders in giving time is, of course, to meet the possibility of obligations, public and private, which senators might have, and also to meet their individual circumstances, particularly illness. In this instance I think it only fair that I should mention that one of the senators who voted against this legislation when it was before the chamber in 1965 - Senator
Bull - is now ill and in hospital, but that within the compass of three weeks he would be available to give his vote.
– How can the honourable senator guarantee that?
– He will speak for himself. I take the liberty of mentioning his name only because I have every confidence that his attitude to this legislation is the same as it was before, lt is not the mere matter of recording a vote, Mr President. Under the Constitution Alteration (Referendum) Act those who vote No in the chamber have a statutory right to put their names to the No case. That is a matter of public responsibility in presenting their point of view to their electorate and also a responsibility that each senator would like to discharge, having regard to his obligations to the Constitution.
I am not saying that 1 am voting against this proposal but 1 have risen to put this circumstance before the Senate, hoping that it would generate some comment in the chamber. I do not know what the practical solution is. 1 have considered that any person who is entitled under the statute to sign the No case could be authorised by an absent senator to use his name in some way to indicate his adherence to it. That of course, would lessen the disadvantage that any such absent senator who wishes to identify himself with the No case suffers by not being able to be here at this prompt call on Tuesday, whereas under the Standing Orders he could be expected to attend, if available, within the time that the Standing Orders prescribe.
– Is the honourable senator suggesting that if he does not vote he is prevented from putting his name to the case?
– I merely say that the statute gives the right only to those who on the passage of the Bill vote in the chamber against it. I have indicated that at the present time I think that probably those who have that statutory right would be entitled to concur in other people appending their names, or at any rate other people who are absent from the call and want to identify themselves with the No case could be woven into the text so that they would get that advantage.
– Quite easily.
– I am not one who rushes into these conclusions - ‘Quite easily’ - without consideration. I have seen such change even in these Bills since 1965 as shows that it is the most fantastic so-called reasons that govern not only the phrases, the detail and the content of a bill but also the manner of its presentation that I for one do not subscribe ‘to the interjection Quite easily’. 1 put my proposition, saying that I think it is probably a matter that we could meet by a proper recognition of any absent senator’s desire to be identified with the No case, but I wanted to bring before the chamber the fact that this standing order is there for a particular purpose to guard a statutory right that any senator is bound to exercise as a part of his responsibility, that is, to be on one side or the other in relation to a constitutional change and to be identified with it. I do not think that I would bc justified, having regard to any individual case to which I can bring my mind to advert, in opposing the motion. I rose to direct the Senate’s attention to this matter because in a democracy, especially, a legislative chamber’s true quality is to be assessed by its attitude to minority point of view and when we talk, as we do, against other forms of government the great thing that is invoked as the value of democracy is that it regards the rights of minorities. I am directing to the attention of the Senate a right of one minority point of view in this instance.
– As the name of one of my colleagues has been mentioned in relation to this matter, I should just like to say that I have been in touch with Senator Bull quite recently. He is in hospital at the present time and, indeed, his view is established by the fact that he told me that his temperature rose quite a deal on hearing of debates in another place. He holds the view that he held, and I know that he would wish to be associated in this instance with the view that he took originally.
– I rise to concur in the points made by Senator Wright. 1 deplore and condemn the indecent haste that is associated with the referendum legislation. If the Government thinks the need to submit the referendum on these questions to the Australian people is so urgent, it is difficult for me - 1 believe it would be equally difficult for any member of the community - to understand why the Government, having passed similar legislation in 1965, did not proceed with the referendum as scheduled. Had it done so it would have saved the taxpayers of this country in the vicinity of $200,000, that being the amount that was expended in the compilation of pamphlets and other matter in preparation for the pending referendum which was subsequently postponed because the Government believed that the time was not opportune to proceed with it.
Now a new enthusiasm has arisen in the minds and hearts of members of the present Government to pursue what I described last night as one of the worst confidence tricks that any government had played on the Australian public. This referendum arises out of a conflict between the Liberal Party and the Country Party on the question of redistribution.
– Rubbish.
– That is its origin. Furthermore, if there is any necessity for it because of an imbalance between electorates, that exists because the Government has failed to carry out a redistribution as it is required to do following a census. I object very strongly to this motion. I also object to it on behalf of my absent colleague, Senator McManus, to whom leave of absence was granted recently because of illness. He would want to be here. I believe that the Senate owes some consideration to honourable senators who are absent and who will be absent on Tuesday, because of circumstances beyond their control, if this call is proceeded with then.
– I find it very awkward to stand up and speak on this motion when the Government has not given clearly the reasons why it wishes to proceed with a call of the Senate next Tuesday. Therefore, we can only go on suppositions. We are indebted to Senator
Wright for putting clearly the reasons why we should not support this motion. As far as I am concerned, there is only one reason - and that is a political reason - why we must proceed with haste. Since 1965 nothing whatever has been done about this referendum. But today it is urgent. Today we must have a call next Tuesday to decide this matter. There is no reason why we should not wait for a period of three weeks, as provided for in the Standing Orders. No counter suggestion has been made to Senator Wright’s point that an honourable senator must be present and vote against the motion if he wishes to have his name on the case for a ‘No’ vote. There may be an answer to that point; but I do not know. We have not been given any information on it.
It seems to me that the object of this motion is just to achieve another political purpose. There is no weight behind it. I do not know what the Opposition intends to do about it. It is absolutely absurd that, in spite of the matters that Senator Wright has raised, we should be prepared to go on and not give certain honourable senators a chance to vote. As Senator Gair pointed out, two people, including the second representative of the Democratic Labor Party, would like to be here, but they will be denied their rights because the Government wants to have the referendum before the next Senate election. That is the basis of the whole deal. The Government knows that the people are opposed to this referendum and that that opposition may be reflected in the Senate election. There is no need whatever for this matter to be raised sooner than in three weeks time. Yet I understand that members of the Opposition, because they support the referendum with their tongues in their cheeks, will support this motion. I have seen no sign of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) standing up to oppose it. In fact, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) was about to close the debate a few minutes ago. Apparently the Opposition is not prepared to allow justice to be done to honourable senators who wish to be present. Members of the Opposition, in their haste, are supporting an injustice to two honourable senators. They are denying those honourable senators their rights by this unseemly rush to get the referendum through. I oppose the motion.
– I wish to discuss very briefly two or three of the suggestions that have been put before the Senate. Before 1 do so, 1 point out that, contrary to the impression that one would gain from listening to some of the honourable senators who have spoken, there is nothing unusual at all in this proposal to suspend the Standing Orders in order to enable a call of the Senate to be made earlier than otherwise provided for in the Standing Orders. On two occasions in comparatively recent years when Bills to alter the Constitution have come before the Senate it not only has suspended the Standing Orders in order to enable a call of the Senate to be made in the following week but has suspended them in order to enable the business to proceed immediately. So there is nothing unusual in this proposal.
A good deal has been made of the standing order which is at present on the books and which provides for a call of the Senate to be made not earlier than three weeks after the order for it is made. What is the reason for thai provision? Tt is not suggested, I hope, that there is some deep constitutional reason for it. The reason for it is quite clearly set out in the book written by the Clerk of the Senate. It is that when this provision was introduced it took about three weeks for some senators to gel here by rail or sea from various parts of Australia.
– Then the standing order should be altered.
– The book written by the Clerk of the Senate states:
When the Standing Orders were being considered in 1903. it was originally proposed that the term of notice should be fourteen days, but an alteration was made to twenty-one days because it was considered that in the case of Senators from the distant States fourteen days was insufficient notice. In this agc of air travel, the term of notice could no doubt be somewhat reduced.
So this provision has remained in the Standing Orders since 1903. Senator Turnbull asks me why it has not been altered. I would not argue with him on whether it should be altered. I believe that it should be. But I certainly would argue that there is no need to adhere slavishly to a standing order that was included for no constitutional reason, but merely because it took some senators a very long time to get to Canberra back in 1903.
Another point that was made was that if an honourable senator is absent from a call of the Senate he loses some statutory rights. Of course, it must be perfectly clear to everybody who considers this matter that, if the call was made three weeks from today, three weeks from next week or three weeks from the week after that, there would always be the chance of some honourable senator being ill. If the proposition is that we should not do anything until we are certain that every honourable senator will be healthy and fit to appear, we would not do anything.
What is this right that is supposed to be lost? As I understand it, the relevant Act provides that there is to be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer a case prepared by those people who are for the proposal and a case prepared by those people who are against the proposal. The latter case has to be sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, authorised, as 1 read the Act, not by everybody who voted against the proposal but by a majority of those who voted against it. For the life of me, T can see no indication anywhere that the majority of those who voted against the proposal cannot bring into their deliberations somebody who was unavoidably absent at the time of the call and associate him with them in preparing a case to go to the Chief Electoral Officer. T suggest to the Senate that the reasons put forward by those who have spoken against the action proposed are not really worthy of deep consideration and acceptance.
– We of the Opposition will not oppose this motion because we believe we should facilitate the expeditious passage of the main legislation so that the people can exercise their choice and say whether the Constitution should be amended or not. We believe that the spirit of the Constitution, and perhaps the letter of the Constitution, were not observed when the Government failed to proceed with the referendum after the previous legislation had been passed through both Houses. However, let me say that we do not agree that what is proposed now is not unusual. We think that it is unusual, and ought not to be adopted as a practice. The provision that a certain period of time should elapse before a call of the Senate is made is intended for the protection of senators. This’ is a deliberative chamber. A call of the Senate is one of the solemn acts of the Senate. It is intended to be used in connection with such great matters as an alteration of the Constitution. These matters should not be dealt with in haste. We do not think that what has been proposed on this occasion is a correct procedure. The Government should have proceeded a long time ago, in the proper way and without haste.
The position now, however, is that there has been a lengthy delay in submitting these proposals to the people. It is the desire of the Opposition that there be no further delay. We take the course of not opposing this motion to suspend the Standing Orders because, with minor exceptions, the referendum ‘ proposals have already been fully canvassed in both Houses. People have had an opportunity to state their views and it has been indicated here that really their views will not change. It is in the belief that there should be no further delay that the Opposition will facilitate the passage of these measures, but by no means does that mean that the Opposition believes this is a correct way to proceed or that this procedure should be followed in the future.
– The Senate owes a debt to Senator Wright for bringing this matter forward. A call of the Senate is a very important action. In this case, an alteration of the Constitution is involved. We heard the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton), one of the most intelligent members of the Ministry, express some views. I do not know that he was expressing what he really feels in this matter. We know that Cabinet Ministers and Ministers generally are often confined in their expressions of opinion. Knowing some of them, I have doubts as to whether what they say really expresses their personal views. The proposed alterations of the Constitution are of great importance to the Senate and to the people of Australia. To suggest that these measures should be rushed is to suggest a negation of democracy. We in the Liberal Party are always talking of democracy. If the Australian Labor Party had done what is pro posed now, we would have been the first to yell to high heaven about it. Yet we propose to do the very thing about which we would complain. Let us be consistent in this matter.
I say that an early call of the Senate should not be made only because, due to faster means of transport, senators can get from their homes to Canberra more quickly than in former days. There are other considerations. People could be away; they could be not even in Australia. There might be many reasons why senators could not be present, it is very important that they should be present for a call of the Senate when a constitutional alteration of this character is before the House. What the Minister said is correct. Somebody might be sick today and well next week, whereas somebody who is well now might be ill in a week or two. That is one of the misfortunes of life. However, there might be other reasons to prevent a senator from being present. Therefore, it is a safeguard to provide that a reasonable time must elapse before a call of the Senate is made. I believe the Government is acting hastily in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) is a man learned in the law. Having regard to what he has said, he really must be stretching the long bow, probably because of commitments that he has elsewhere. He stated that this matter had already been canvassed.
– He does not mean what he says either?
– I do not think so. He had to say what he said because of his party. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a very high regard for the standards of Parliament. I have always held the view that what goes on in the other House has nothing to do with this House. Legislation should be considered and dealt with by honourable senators when the legislation comes before them. What happens before it comes to this House is of no concern to us. Therefore, we should have time to study legislation as from the time notice of it is given in this chamber. I am sure that if I talked privately with the Leader of the Opposition on this matter he would agree that that is the correct attitude to take and is in line with the highest standards of parliamentary conduct.
One of the proposed amendments to the Constitution is extremely Important arid could be a crisis point so far as the Senate is concerned. It is a matter of great importance to the people of Australia. I make no bones about saying now, as I have said before, that I am diametrically opposed to the proposal. 1 will talk against it and fight it in every way.
– The honourable senator is no respecter of persons.
– I think about things just as Senator Cormack does, but because I do not agree with him, that does not mean that I do not have some logic in my thinking. 1 am quite sure the people of Australia do not want any more parliamentarians. We have too many in Australia already. This is a very important issue, and to rush these measures through does not reflect credit on the Government. This is a case of panic. The Government thinks the nexus proposal will be accepted, but it has not the ghost of a chance of success. It is an insult to ask us to agree to a call of the Senate within a matter of two or three days. If the Government were really acting in accordance with the highest parliamentary traditions it would allow a decent interval to elapse before the call and would give honourable senators every possible opportunity to be here. As I have said, we are under a debt to Senator Wright for bringing this matter forward. When a matter of such concern to the Senate is before us, we should not act on the basis of political expediency. That is the only reason why the proposal has been brought forward, and I will say that publicly anywhere.
– I listened with interest to Senator Wood. I do not agree with him that the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton) spoke with tongue in cheek. 1 refute that statement completely. The Minister gave a lucid explanation of the reason why it was provided that the Senate should be obliged to take twenty-one days to exercise a call, lt was so that senators in distant States lil.e Western Australia could have sufficient notice to enable them to get to the Senate. The Government on this occasion, although anxious to have Parliament pass the legislation decided that it would extend the time for the call of the
Senate from today till Tuesday of next week. Now, let us examine wh’at Senator Wood and the Minister for Education and Science have put up.
– Senator Wood did not mean what he said.
– I do not know whether Senator Wood meant what he said or even whether he knew what he was talking about. But I know what I am talking about. I want to put this to the Senate: the Government, in this day and age when fast travel is available to honourable senators, is allowing a longer period for people to travel from Western Australia to attend the call of the Senate by comparison with conditions in 1903 when twenty-one days were allowed for those honourable senators who had to come to Melbourne by ship. There was no East-West railway then. At that time it would take at least a fortnight to come from Western Australia to Melbourne. The people who wrote the Constitution said - at least, our Clerk. Mr Odgers, says - that when the Standing Orders were being amended in 1903 it was originally proposed that the time of notice to be given to honourable senators for a call of the Senate should be fourteen days. It was agreed then that a fortnight was .not sufficient time to enable honourable senators from Western Australia to attend a call of the Senate. If a telegram was sent from Melbourne to an honourable senator in Western Australia in 1903, how could he get to the Parliament in fourteen days? But an honourable senator can do so today. He can get here by air in a little over six hours. Because of the long travelling time involved, the -period for the call of the Senate was extended in 1903 from fourteen to twenty-one days. The Government has extended the time on this occasion from one day to four days - in other words, from today until Tuesday next. The Government realises that it will take an honourable senator in Western Australia only five hours or six hours from the time he receives a telegram to attend a call of the Senate to travel to Canberra for that purpose. Therefore, I think that the Minister is quite right in his analysis of the situation. 1 feel that Senator Wood is quite wrong.
Senator BRANSON (Western Australia) either from the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) who will be replying to the debate shortly or, perhaps, from you, Mr President. I am at a loss. Standing order 287 provides:
The names of all Senators who do not answer when called shall be taken down by the Clerk–
That is clear:
This is what prompted me to rise: let us assume that I am in the precincts of the Senate and do not wish to answer the call of the Senate. Standing order 288 takes care of this because it provides:
Senators not attending in their places on the same day, may be ordered to attend on a future day.
The Standing Orders are completely silent on the matter thereafter because they proceed to deal immediately with ‘Select Committees’. What I want to know is: what happens to a senator who under standing order 288 is ordered to return and who decides that he will not return? What does the President do to him?
– in reply - Mr President, I wish to make one or two comments on the debate. I think that Senator Wood, on reflection, will realise that this legislation was before the Senate some months ago. There is no difference between the legislation before the Senate then and the legislation that we are to consider except that the figure of 80,000 in the former legislation is now, 85,000 in the legislation we are considering. That is the only difference. The Government is not rushing through the Senate something which the Senate has not had a chance to consider for a long time. I wish to remind the Senate that on 31st October 1950 and 12th July 1951 the Senate made no provision for a call at all. It did not even suspend the call of the Senate for the three or four days, as the Government proposes to do now. Senator Wood was here both times and acquiesced in the procedure followed when no calls were held.
In reply to the matter raised by Senator Branson, I think that the Senate would deal with the senator who refused to come back to the chamber. I understand thatis the position. I do not think the point raised is relevant to this particular case. The case that the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton) made regarding the period of three weeks is unanswerable. This period was granted in order that honourable senators in distant States could be in Melbourne in time for the call of the Senate. Today, honourable senators can get here in a few hours. That is the position. Of course, an honourable senator could become ill. Any of us sitting here today who believe that we win be able to attend next Tuesday for the call of the Senate might not be able to do so because of illness. What a tragedy it would be if Senator Wright who is so opposed to this legislation were not able to be here next Tuesday to vote because he was ill! Bless him, I hope that that does not happen. Quite frankly, I do not think that there is any substance in the argument raised, and that the call of the Senate shouldtake place next Tuesday. All honourable senators will be so advised by telegram.
Question put:
That the motion be agreed to.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)
AYES: 47
NOES: 4
Majority . . 43
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed:
That there be a call of the Senate on Tuesday, 7th March 1967, for the purpose of considering the third reading of the Constitution Alteration (Parliament) Bill 1967 and the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) Bill 1967.
– 1 rise for two purposes. The first is to make quite clear that my vote against the previous motion was solely because we know that two honourable senators who intended voting No in this instance are ill and precluded from attending.
Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 243
Debate resumed from 23 February (vide page 90), on motion by Senator Gorton:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– This Bill has been described as a machinery Bill and so it is. lt is aimed to amend the Public Service Act simply to provide for the words ‘Department of Education and Science’ to be inserted in the list of departments in the Schedule to the Act and also to provide for the title of the Secretary of the Department to be inserted in the Schedule dealing with permanent heads of departments. Because it is simply machinery designed to facilitate the establishment of the new Department of Education and Science in pursuance of the proposal to set up a Ministry of Education and Science, we support the Bill.
In doing so I would like to say that the
Minister has failed to inform the Senate of the proposed functions of the new Department. He has given no indication of the proposed establishment - the number of persons to work in the Department. He has given us no indication of the ways in which it is proposed that the Department should co-operate with the States so that the proper constitutional division of legislative powers will be observed. None of these things has been explained to the Senate. One would think thai as a matter of courtesy lo the Senate these matters ought to have been dealt with. Either the Government did nol know what was in its mind when it decided to establish the new Ministry as outlined in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt), and in that event the proposal is not very well thought out, or it does know the answers to these questions. If it does know the answers, the Senate ought to have been informed. If it is not intended to so inform the Senate at any stage of the debate, then I think the Minister ought to indicate that the Senate will be informed at some early point of time on these matters. I refer to the establishment, the functions of and the manner in which the Department will operate, especially so far as its relations with the States are concerned.
– I find that the Public Service Bill is couched in expressions the operative effect of which is to write into the two Schedules of the Act, in one case the words ‘Department of Education and Science,’ and in the other case ‘Secretary of the Department of Education and Science*. The operation of that is to key into the general structure of the Public Service Act a new department and a new head of that department. Of course that means that there is placed under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board a department employing about 800 officers who hitherto had been under that jurisdiction as members of the Office of Education, a branch of the Prime Minister’s Department. By virtue of this legislation, they come under a new department and under the authority and jurisdiction of the Public Service Board.
In common with Australian thinking evolved in the 1920s, Public Service Acts were constituted to give to the public services of the governments of Australia independence from political interte –.ce. However, in the Commonwealth Public Service a tremendous strength leis developed in the Public Service Board which fixes the terms and conditions of employment of public servants, and attends 10 appointments lo the Public Service, adjudication upon the dismissal of public servants and the general administration of the rules pertaining to Public Service conduct.
The Public Service Board is given power by regulation to alter salaries and thereby create from time to time an unnoticed but quite significant increment upon parliamentaryappropriations. I say nothing againstthat system.Ionly state it to help myself understand the purposes of this Bill. In 1949 we were spending on Public Service salaries about £74m annually. In 1966 we were spending on Public Servicesalaries about £226m annually. Giving proper recognition to the inflation that has taken place and to the expansion of the proper activities of government, it is still our duty to consider from time to time the justification for the charge that the Public Service represents upon the revenues we exact from taxpayers.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I speak with a great appreciation of what has been done, especially under the influence of the present Minister for Education and Science, in the federal sphere for the cause of education. I also speak in the very earnest hope of supporting the cause of education generally, if for no other reason because of the little I was able to receive from it and for whichI feel indebted. I think the Minister might have put before Parliament, instead of what I hope I can refer to without causing offence as a sketchy few lines’ given in explanation of the Bill, details of the present thinking of the Government as to its constitutional functions, first in the field of education and secondly in the field of science. I think that Parliament is entitled to that information.
Great limitations are placed by the Constitution upon the Government’s activity in the field of education. In our deliberations I think we should take into account just what positive authority we have - plenary in respect of the Territories - with respect to the appropriation of moneys for any of the educational functions discharged within the States. Having regard to the imbroglio that is coming on the vexed question of Federal and State financial relations, a tremendous opportunity is offered by this Bill for officers to be instructed to put forward a study of the 1967 thinking in Canberra as to the ambit of the constitutional power residing in the Federal Government under the heading of education.I would have thought that this was a unique opportunity for the Senate to seek from the Ministry a proper analysis of the position that the Department, of Education and Science will occupy among the other
Federal instrumentalities that are already established in this field.
It would be of great interest to me to have resolved the co-relationship in administration that will be expected to exist between the Department and the Australian National University.I would like some elucidation on this matter. My own view is that the Australian National University will in no way be affected by the constitution of this Department. I should like the Minister to make some observations upon the relationship between this Department and the Australian Universities Commission, which is an institution that we established not many years ago. The Commission was established with very special functions, having regard to the traditional special rights of universities to be free from interference by governments in the management of their finances and also, as has been mentioned in the course of debate this week, to their traditional right to be free from interference or restraint in the research activities in which they engage.
The Australian Universities Commission was established with a recognition of the traditional outlook of Oxford and Cambridge Universities and which was modified only after three royal commissions extending from as far back as about1860 - I speak very roughly as to dates - to 1920 or 1922. The Universities were very reluctant to accept government finance lest that should import the right of government interference. We established the Australian Universities Commission on the recommendations contained in a most pregnant and stimulating report that had been prepared for us by a visiting British professor who occupied a great place in the British. Universities Commission.
I do not enter this debate simply for the sake of speaking. In the last few months I have taken the occasion to warn - if that is not an inappropriate word - of the dangers that could come from a misconception of the functions of the Australian Universities Commission. The dangers are growing because of the way in which State governments dealt with the Commission last year and the way in which reciprocally the Federal Government, in agreement with the State governments, has matched their thinking. This is not the occasion on which to debate I he matter, but it would have been of great help to me if the Bill bad indicated a viewpoint on the proper relationship between the new Department of Education and Science and matters that come within the functions of the Universities Commission.
Further, by passing a statute in 1945 this Parliament made the first legislative intrusion into the field of education. That was an Act under which the Commonwealth Office of Education was constituted. Also, a Universities Commission was established but in the light of subsequent developments this name was a misnomer and we changed it to the Australian Scholarships Board. The statute under which the Commonwealth Office of Education was constituted was the subject of some political debate at the time. Criticism was expressed of the Commonwealth’s intrusion on Stale rights. This Bill does not refer to the Commonwealth Office of Education. 1 suppose that reference will be made to it in other legislation. If that is so, 1 would like Hie Minister to indicate it to us. I cannot find any reference in this Bill to the future position of the Commonwealth Office of Education. 1 imagine that it will be taken over wholly by the new Department of Education and Science and that it will be the chief constituent of the new Department.
This may not be the occasion on which to raise these matters. Perhaps it would be more appropriate lo raise them when we are debating the matters of which Senator Murphy .gave notice yesterday. I simply mention them to indicate my persisting interest in them. We have before us the report of the Advisory Committee on Educational Television Services to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and also the report of our own Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television. I mention the report of the Senate Select Committee because those of us who served on it will always pause in admiration of the spirit which the late Senator Vincent displayed when he knew that his days were numbered. On that Committee I took the view that the opportunities for educational television were unique. Since that report we have had the report of the Advisory Committee on Educational Television Services.
Having regard to the fact that it has now been established by the Hight Court of Australia that television services are within the constitutional power of this Parliament, it seems to me that the gift of those services as an adjunct to education is the predominant gift that is within our power to confer upon the cause of education, especially having regard to the Australian structure and the diffusion of the people in the outback areas who need more ready access to educational facilities than they have at the present time. I have in mind the great external courses that are administered by the University of New England. I think that as many as two-thirds of the number of students at that University receive their instruction by correspondence and television.
If this is not the occasion on which to raise these matters, I would like the Minister to indicate to me when such an occasion will be offered to the Senate so that we can put all the matters into perspective and get an understanding of their relationship. I have mentioned the Australian National University, the Australian Universities Commission, the Commonwealth Office of Education and the functionaries within the field of education that discharge Federal authority. I would like to know the function of the new Department of Education and Science relative to all of these other bodies. lt was laid down by an Act of Parliament that there should be a Commonwealth Office of Education and that its functions should be:
Cb) to establish and maintain a liaison, on matters relating to education, with other countries and the States;
– How long ago was the Act passed?
– It was passed in 1945. The point I am making is that the
Government, when submitting to the Parliament a proposal to establish the Commonwealth Office of Education, set out the ambit and functions of that Office. Now the Government seeks to translate that Office into a department. I submit that this is an appropriate occasion on which to state the functions of that department. Having regard to Parkinson’s law, when a department is established we should have a statement of its constituent branches, its functions and the number of its personnel, not in detail but within certain limits, so that we may know what financial responsibility we are accepting. 1 hesitate to rise to my feet in relation to a matter about which I am quite inexpert, but I do so in a persevering effort to get, by means of discussion in the Parliament, an understanding of . what we do when we participate in the country’s business. 1 want it to be thought that we have a sense of responsibility. I do not want the Minister to treat my remarks as being critical. I hope that they will evoke a cooperative response. I leave that entirely to the Minister’s judgment. I simply submit the proposition that, when we arc asked to endorse the creation of a department, we should be given >a statement about its constitutional outlook, its relationship to other Commonwealth functionaries, its functions, powers and authority, and its likely impost upon the Budget. ] hope that nobody is so blind as to deny that, whatever constitutional limitations exist, it is the imperative duty of the Commonwealth Government to take a persistent interest in the development of science. Science is vital to our defence and development, and therefore to our standard of living. I do not want it to be thought that I am putting forward these legal matters as in any way frustrating the cause of science. As 1 indicated a little earlier, I am only endeavouring, by discussion within the Parliament, to produce an understanding of what we are doing and to seek information about the duties of this new Department. I am not in any way suggesting that those duties will represent an interference; on the contrary, they will be for the advancement of science and therefore for the advancement of the interests of this country.
I support the Bill, but my support is tempered by a feeling of disappointment at the fact that the Bill is sketchy and that the Minister’s second reading speech is uninformative. I should think that the cause of the Bill would have been greatly advantaged if the measure had contained the provisions to which I have referred.
– This is a simple Bill. 1 propose to make a few pertinent remarks about it. Over the years representatives of the Government in the person of Ministers, particularly members of the Cabinet, have been cavalier in their approach to the rights of members of the Opposition in both Houses of the Parliament. Perhaps they think that, in the light of the results of the last election, they are justified in adopting that attitude. But this attitude is not new; it has been characteristic of them over the years. However, irrespective of what Government senators think their rights are or what they regard as being a proper attitude to adopt towards honourable senators on this side, the fact that the Bill is simple does not entitle members of the Opposition to treat Government senators as simpletons. We are not entitled to say that they are incapable of understanding an explanation of the Bill, its significance, and what it will ultimately mean. The Government adopted a cavalier. disdainful and arrogant approach to another piece of legislation last week. I tolerated the attitude of the Government when it introduced the Ministers of State Bill and simply presented this chamber with an explanation extending over half a page of print, ls the Government of the day. through the Cabinet, entitled to treat this House in such a way as to suggest that it does not want it to exist for much longer? My assessment of the Government’s approach leads me to believe that that is the attitude it adopts. 1 have repeatedly remonstrated with Ministers and have asked them to observe the rights of the people assembled in this chamber. On some occasions brilliant men on the other side have done likewise. If we are not given an explanation of legislation, how can the people grasp the significance of any move that is made either in this chamber or in another place?
Let us look at the Bill now before us and the significance of it. Are we to be given an explanation of the activities of the new Department of Education and Science? No indication of its activities has been given by the Minister for Education and Science (Senator Gorton) or the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt). Thus far we have had an Office of Education, which has come under the control of the Prime Minister. The administration of that office has been in the hands of Senator Gorton, who was the Minister for Works. May I say that in his approach to the rights of the people lo be educated and in the manner in which money provided by the Government was to be spent, the Minister did the best of which he was capable.
Education is a fundamental requirement in any country, because in the near future the standard of living of people will be dependent on the educational standard that is provided for the young and the old. If the provision of a higher standard of education means that higher taxes will have to be levied, then the Government must face up to that fact. Those who provide the taxes, whether they be companies, corporations, financial institutions or individuals, will benefit from the asset that is created. This country will be greater and its people will be happier and more contented as a result of the provision of improved educational facilities to develop the talents with which people are endowed. This Government is now. allegedly under section 96 of the Constitution, assisting in education. 1 do not know whether the Minister for Education and Science was acting under instructions or whether he did so of his own will when he decided not to provide us with any information about the activities of the new Department of Education and Science. The Leader of the Government in this place (Senator Henty) certainly provided us with little or no information last week as justification for increasing the number of Ministers. I agree that, by implication the Prime Minister conveyed to the people before the last election the idea that another Minister of State would be appointed. He certainly said that a Minister for Education and Science would be appointed. He did not state clearly that it would involve the appointment of an extra Minister. But I am fair enough to the Government - and never have T been unfair. Mr Deputy President, as you know-
– Hear, hear!
– There may be ribald laughter and lack of appreciation of my sincere, sensible, intelligent and intellectual approach.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! I suggest that the honourable senator come back to the Bill.
– I am coming back. This comment applies equally to this Bill. The Minister is not prepared to be frank. I think it is parallel with the attitude over the years during which they have been disdainful and arrogant-
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I think the honourable senator is beginning to contravene the Standing Orders.
– Excuse me, Mr Deputy President. In what way am 1 contravening the Standing Orders by using the expression ‘disdainful and arrogant’?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The honourable senator is making a reference to Ministers in those terms.
– I will make it lo the Cabinet collectively. Will that be appropriate and applicable? It is just as applicable as it is appropriate. Let us go on. This is a simple measure, as I said. Cabinet, through ils Minister, treats its supporters as simpletons, incapable of understanding an explanation - that is as it appears to me - or they do not demand an explanation. Perhaps the fault is theirs, and they have never stood over their selected representatives. We find that the Bill proposes just a simple alteration to two schedules, to the Second Schedule by adding a reference to the Department of Education and Science, and to the Third Schedule to provide for the appointment of a Secretary for Education and Science to be the head of the Department. I frankly do not think I missed much by listening, looking, reading, thinking and understanding, but never have I heard from the Minister espousing and sponsoring this Bill what are to be the functions of this particular Department and the responsibilities of the chief officer as distinct from the functions and responsibilities of what I might term, because of my limitations in the way of knowledge, a former subdepartment. Are greater responsibilities to be entrusted to the Department?
Is the Secretary for Education and Science to embark on new programmes? Up to the present there has not been an overall approach by the Commonwealth to education. Under section 96 of the Constitution certain limited sums of money have been provided for education. State governments, parents, older children, university staff, unions, graziers associations and farmers representative groups are really squealing - I hesitate to use the word and ordinarily in my own language I would say ‘complaining’. They have had assemblies all over Australia in recent years because of the complete incompetence in relation to the provision of educational facilities for the children, adolescents and adults of this country. Here we have this Minister, so disdainful and arrogant, coming into the Senate with a speech covering just a half quarto sheet, to introduce a Bill, not telling us what the new Department is going to cost, how many staff are to be involved, what are to be the responsibilities, or whether there is to be an expansion of activities. Now let me deal in the short time available to me-
– The honourable senator has plenty of time.
– Have 1 plenty of time? But what I say is not interesting to the Government. Honourable senators opposite are not interested. After all, I am of a sympathetic nature and I do not want to play them too hard. 1 just want to help them, as usual. The Government came into the field of university education, the only tertiary education then in existence. All credit to the then Prime Minister and to him in history credit will be recorded. Outside of that, I do not think that his footsteps will register other than in the quicksands of time. But all credit to him. He did come in when it was necessary and he did help the universities. Then in the process of time, seeking electoral support, whether it was convinced or not - and 1 do not impute improper motives to Government supporters or to the Cabinet - the Government came into the field of secondary education and granted money for scientific laboratories. Then it came into the field of technological education and subsequently into another field of tertiary education. Never has the Government said what it will do in the field of primary education, and I am entitled in my own limited way to assume that it is not interested. I do not intend to get off the track, Mr Deputy President, so you do not have to look at me as if to query me. I am dealing with the field of education and no one can take it from me.
The field of primary education is the foundation on which the future of the children who in the process of time become tradesmen, technicians, technologists is based. Becoming academically qualified, they make a contribution not only to their own self-fulfilment but also to a realisation of the potential assets of this country. The Government has not said one word about primary education, which is the field in which the need is really greatest. Schools are closing and the teacher-student ratio is completely unsatisfactory. Many children are still attending school in makeshift accommodation. I am not an educational expert - I want to make that quite clear - but I would know much more about the subject than the Minister who presented this Bill; I want to make that point, too, quite clear in my humility. How can anyone, if he believes the education experts, expect a satisfactory development in adolescents in the field of secondary, technical, tertiary, academic or technological training if we do not build a solid foundation? This country has a scattered population. No one would know better than you, Mr Deputy President, about the conditions of children living in the outback. So efficient has your representation of the State of Western Australia been that the Liberals could not unseat you.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The honourable senator must come back to the Bill
– I was only drawing to the attention of honourable senators your knowledge of and association and sympathy with the children of the outback. I should like to know what the Minister will say when he replies. He may not think that my statements are worth replying to or he may not have an answer. I should like to refer to something I read recently. I have to accept newspaper reports because I am not like Ministers. I do not have unlimited staff. I do not blame Ministers for having facilities for approaches to experts, but I do think they are comparatively mean, as small fellows like myself - physically, not intellectually - do not have access to the information that is available lo them. If Ministers are really interested in the advancement of education - this applies to other subjects - they could make research officers available. Perhaps the Minister will say that research facilities in the Library are being increased. I think there are five or six research officers there and 184 members and senators are trying to bell the cat and obtain information. The Government is talking of increasing the number of parliamentarians. So there will be fewer facilities for the ordinary back benchers, particularly members of the Opposition, including the members of the Democratic Labor Party and the distinguished independent senator from Tasmania. They are just as limited as we are, although the Government provides certain facilities for the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party.
When will the Government decide to rectify the inadequacies in the provision of education facilities for children, adolescents and adults? It has not said a word about primary education, where the need is greatest. I know of a class of eighty-two children. Classes of fifty and sixty are common. Forty is the usual number. But forty has been accepted by education experts as the maximum in the primary field, whilst twenty has been accepted as the maximum in the secondary field. I almost forgot science. I will have to come back to that, if time permits and if honourable senators are prepared to listen to me.
What will be the attitude of this Department? Are there to be increased responsibilities? How many people will be employed in it? What amount of money will be involved? Frankly, I do not know the answers to those questions. I do not think the Government knows them either. The establishment of this Department was an election gimmick. I want to make certain that honourable senators understand that Sir Robert Menzies is entitled to tribute for the comparatively small interest that he took in university education. He realised the need and that the States could not meet it. Every State Premier says that he has not enough money for education. Increased facilities have to be provided for the education of the people of Australia, particularly the young people.
– Will the honourable senator speak up? We cannot hear him.
- Senator Scott will not lead me off the track that way. He will not whip me up if he is as inefficient in trying to whip me up as he is in whipping up honourable senators on his own side.
– He has not lost a division yet.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Dittmer has the call.
– Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President, for that prolection, f need it when (he honourable senator from Western Australia interjects. Let us look at the field of science. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, research grants and research scholarships are now the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science. But prior to the election on 26th November they were his responsibility as the then Minister for Works and the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in matters of education and research. The then Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister, through an unfortumate set of circumstances. 1 do not deny that we got a hiding in the election.
What will be the new responsibilities in the field of science? Will a national science foundation be established, as has been done in many other countries, for the assistance the Minister could stand up and say that Commonwealth scholarships are available. Commonwealth scholarships are available. Many brilliant students matriculate hut cannot afford to accept a Commonwealth scholarship either because the sum involved is not large enough or because of familial circumstances. Will brilliant students who graduate be accepted and permitted to go on to obtain masters degrees, say, in arts? It is peculiar that the name of the Department is the Department of Education and Science, as though science were something apart from education. There is no reference to the humanities, for instance. Let me get back to the field of science. Will graduates in science be accepted? Will graduates in engineering, industrial chemistry and so on be accepted? I would think so. The field is wide open. What will happen to men who graduate as masters in their particular fields? Will this Department sponsor training and research so that men and women may gain Doctor of Philosophy degrees? Or will it allow such people to just drift along?
Apparently the Government is seeking refuge in the fact that some States cannot afford to match the grants that the Commonwealth says it will provide. But that is no satisfaction to the students and does nothing to meet the national need. Students, whether they are in their twenties or their thirties, are entitled to the provision of suitable and adequate education facilities. What does the Government intend to do? Will it just create an opportunity for an extra Minister, a new secretary whose salary rises and an extra department with an increasing number of employees but doing no more than was done previously when these matters were handled by a subdepartment?
Do you not think, Mr Deputy President, that the Minister had a responsibility to the Parliament? Here is a field in which there appeared to be a real, new endeavour with expansionist ideas, which was not only demanded by but necessary for the country and its people. Yet the Minister brings along a speech of a paltry half-page. J suppose there are twelve lines of typing, not closely spaced. That represents the Government’s approach to the creation of a new department, with a new head, in response to a demand that is of such paramount importance that the nation cannot afford to have it neglected. Nor can the denial of people entitled to the provision of education facilities and amenities be justified. Will the Government learn a lesson?
I beg members of the Government to approach their tasks with a sense of responsibility. Irrespective of what happens in the other place, I hope that the Cabinet, which is so contemptuous of this chamber, will be prepared to give complete and satisfying information to us who are interested in doing something for the welfare of this country and its people. For too long have we seen the arrogant approach and disdainful attitude of various Ministers who have come into this chamber with half a brief. I do not want to particularise. 1 do not do so because I am a friend of all the Ministers. I like them all personally, although sometimes I do not admire their ability because they do not possess much. I say that a Minister, when he brings down a Bill in this place - irrespective of what happens in the other place, which is a matter for the people assembled there - has a responsibility towards the people assembled here. If Ministers are not prepared to show a measure of courtesy and consideration to honourable senators on this side of the chamber, at least in loyalty they should do so to those who sit behind them.
I wonder whether this new Department of Education and Science, administered by a Minister and a Secretary, will establish a national foundation of science. We know that there is assistance, limited as it may be, for students by way of Commonwealth scholarships and that there are a few postgraduate training schemes. We know also that a sum of money, comparatively small in relation to the gross national product of $21 billion or more, is provided for research. Is the Minister prepared to investigate the possibility of establishing a national science foundation? I do not want a simple answer yes or no. I want to know how the scheme would be implemented and how the body would be established. How much money would be provided? How much would be given to brilliant undergraduates who otherwise would be denied facilities for getting degrees? How much would be provided for those who want to proceed to a masters degree and how much for those who want to get higher degrees or even to travel overseas? I am not altogether opposed to placing such people on a bond on their return. Recently we saw how the amount of money made available for research was cut down. The Government takes refuge in the excuse that the States will nol provide the money that the Commonwealth demands, but this is not a question for the States. Everyone knows that in the functioning of the nation and in providing for the people the States are disappearing instrumentalities.
I suggest that the Government give serious consideration to the establishment of a national foundation of science. Such a body is not unusual. Belgium has had one for forty years, and Belgium is a small country with a population equal to ours. Supporters of the Government might say that I am Socialistic and want everybody tied to the State, but if they understood the
Australian school of Socialist thought as propounded by the Australian Labor Party they would not be so frequently guilty of misrepresentation. In many countries, as in Belgium, governments assist brilliant undergraduates. They train them for research and when they have finished their training they are not tied to the State. They can go to private industry, so beloved of supporters of the Government. This is a worthwhile suggestion.
I would not be opposed to the new Minister for Education and Science travelling abroad to investigate national science foundations in other countries. .1 would not be opposed to the expenditure involved. I know the Minister is of an economical turn of mind. He is intelligent, though limited by the environment in which he moves. If he went abroad as I have suggested, he would absorb some worthwhile information and could make a real contribution to Australian education when he returned.
I humbly beg of the Minister to remedy the deficiencies to which I have been referring. There was a paucity of information in the second reading speech, and honourable senators are entitled to an explanation of what is proposed for this new Department. 1 will admit that this is a simple Bill but the Minister should no* class even those behind him as simpletons. He has a duty to those who support him and to the Opposition to provide an explanation. Honourable senators should demand to be satisfied that the measure before the House meets a real demand and that what it provides is not just a replica of something which previously existed - a replica in respect of which there will be an extraordinary increase in expenditure. The proposal involves the appointment of a new Minister and of a new Secretary to administer a new department. The department must have a staff. The staff must be paid and in addition there will be travelling expenses, the cost of motor vehicles and so on. I do not oppose new departments if they work an l fulfil the requirements of the nation, but the Minister must satisfy not only the Senate but also the people that the Government is justified in establishing this new Department with its new administrators.
In his reply the Minister should tell the Senate what expansion of activity is pro posed. We should know what measure of association there will be with the States. As my friend from Tasmania would say, the States’ rights are determined by the Constitution and are jealously guarded. However, the States could be assisted under the provisions of section 96 of the Constitution. What does the Minister propose to do in the field of primary education? What are the aspirations of the Government in this matter? Are they consistent with the legitimate demands of the children of Australia? The Minister should tell us what he proposes to do not only in science but also in the field of the humanities, languages, psychology and associated subjects. Limitations apply there just as much as they do in the field of science. The demands for finance might not be so great but the limitations apply.
What is going to be the Minister’s attitude lo the Australian Universities Commission and to adult education in a country such as Australia where the population is so scattered? The people of the outback are entitled to educational facilities so far as we can provide them within the limitations of finance. What is the Minister going to do in the field of science? Will he provide more money? I understand that another Bill is to be introduced to prove assistance for the establishment of science laboratories in certain schools. In many cases these laboratories are provided in schools which could well afford to provide them from the generosity of the parents of the scholars, but often they are denied to children attending schools which do not have much money.
What would happen if we had 100,000 science laboratories and no science teachers? What does the Minister propose to do about training science teachers? What does he propose to do to enable graduates to teach science rather than persons who have just matriculated at Leaving Certificate level in physics and chemistry, have never done geology or botany and have not spent two or three years at a university? There are many such people honestly attempting to meet the demands of students who are eager to embark on scientific careers.
The Minister thought this was a simple measure. I have admitted that it is a simple measure, but honourable senators are entitled to have an explanation of its implications. The people outside are entitled to know what is intended. They are entitled to know about the matters that are important such as the amount of money that would be involved, the number of staff that would be employed or perhaps even requisitioned, the amount of money required to meet the cost of travelling by car, for example, and the cost of the stationery and whatever else goes with it. But they are entitled to know also ‘what is the approach of this Government through the newly appointed Minister to the future of this nation and to the adolescents and adults who require education in particular fields. They are entitled to know what the plans of the Minister are for the future of this country of which he is so proud as he is entitled to be so proud.
– in reply - Mr Deputy President, to return to the Bill-
– No. Do not start that now.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!
– I do not care. He is not going to do that to me to start with.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!
– I said that we would return to the Bill. Senator Dittmer has been way off.
– That is a reflection on you, Mr Deputy President. I am not going to cop that.
– Listen to the larrikin.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!
– Cut that out. I will lake the honourable senator outside.
– Any time you like.
– Oh, I thought it was Senator Lawrie. You are too small.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I will have to name the honourable senator if he continues in this manner.
– Forget it.
– As I was saying, to return to the Bill, I want to put before the Senate precisely what the Bill does and to emphasise what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) said, that this is a machinery Bill, lt is not in fact a Bill to establish a Department of Education and Science. The Department of Education and Science was established under section 64 of the Constitution, which section gives the Executive the authority to establish such a department. It was in the mind of the Parliament some time ago, the Executive having this authority, to make it automatic for a new department so established to become part of the Public Service structure. In .1932 the Parliament passed a Bill which it undoubtedly intended to have this effect. The effect was that once the Department was established by Executive action it automatically became part of the Public Service structure. To emphasise that effect in the minds of honourable senators I will read, if 1 may, part of the second reading speech made when that Bill was considered in 1932 in another place. The speech reads in part:
It is intended to amend the schedules, to bring them up to date and, at the same time, to provide that the schedules may be amended, without recourse to an amending bill, whenever administrative changes may make that necessary in future . . Clause 3 inserts a new section 7a, which enacts that when any of the departments specified in the second’ schedule is abolished, or another department is established in lieu of a department so specified, or an additional department is established, or an alteration is made in the name of any department so specified, the second schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.
The speech went on to say that the Third Schedule would be amended accordingly. This was intended to have the effect of enabling the Department established by Executive action to be part of the Public Service structure. But the AttorneyGeneral’s Department believes that the intention sought to be put into effect at that time is open to legal question. In order to put the matter beyond doubt, we have brought in this Bill to amend the Schedule specifically.
I wish to refer to some points made by the Leader of the Opposition. In spite of the fact that this is a machinery measure to make the already established Department a part of the Public Service structure, the Leader of the Opposition wished to know what the functions of the Department were to be. The functions of the Department, I would not want, and I think on reflection he would not want, and I hope Senator Wright would not want, to be spelt out in a way such as the functions of the Commonwealth Office of Education were spelt out because that is a limiting factor unless from time to time there are some alterations made to the functions of the Department if they are spelt out in that way. They are to take over to run all those operations in which the Commonwealth Government has been involved in regard to education through a section of the Prime Minister’s Department. I have previously gone to the trouble of publishing a booklet and distributing copies of it to all honourable senators setting out exactly in the field of education part by part where the Commonwealth is involved and what it is doing. In regard to education, all those functions will be taken over. Once the possible technical legal requirements which this Bill seeks to cover have been enacted by the Parliament - if they are - I would be happy to answer any questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) or any other honourable senator as to exactly what the establishment of the Department then is or at any future time will be. It will appear, of course, year by year in the Budget papers showing both the establishment and the number of people employed, which are different very often one from the other. Of course, any increase or decrease in the size of establishment that may take place will be only after the Public Service Board has exercised its own prerogatives given to it by this Parliament.
As to the relations of the Department with the States, these will be the same as the relations of the Commonwealth with the States have been in this field of education where more than one Government is involved. In some fields, the operation will be for the provision of sums of money for specific purposes, given by the Commonwealth and not requiring any matching grants by the States. The sums will be given under conditions which the Commonwealth will lay down and for purposes which the Commonwealth will advise. This Parliament, having examined the proposals, the conditions and the purposes of the grant, can under section 96 of the Constitution make that type of grant. This is now being done in the case of science blocks, technical schools and capital for teacher training colleges. I give those as examples. In other fields, it will be a matter for agreement and for joint action in the various ways.
Senator Wright raised a couple of specific questions which I am glad to endeavour to answer now. The senator raised the point as to what authority we have in the field of education. In the field of education in the States, 1 would say, without intending it as a properly considered legal definition, that we have authority as we have in any other field to provide grants under section 96 for educational purposes just as we have authority to provide grants under section 96 for other purposes. We have authority to place such conditions on the making of these grants as the Parliament requires.
– As Parliament determines.
– That is right. We have constitutional authority to appropriate money for those purposes. The relationship between the Commonwealth Government as such and the Australian. National University - putting aside for the moment the question of which department of the Commonwealth we are talking about - cannot in any way be affected by the passage of this Bill. The relationship between the Department and the Australian Universities Commission is a very important point. We must again have clear in our minds that this Bill has nothing to do with the Australian Universities Commission. The Australian Universities Commission is in existence now. It is a statutory authority. It is not a department of the Government. It exists. The only way I can see that this Bill, when it becomes an act, could effect the Australian Universities Commission is that the Minister who is the sort of spokesman for it and who is responsible for answering for it to the Parliament will be the Minister for Education and Science whereas, previously, it was the Prime Minister assisted by the Minister who. under the Prime Minister, was responsible for matters relating to education and science. However, the Australian Universities Commission is not a part of the Department of Education and Science.
In passing, and because of some comments made by Senator Wright, let me point out that the Australian Universities Commission was set up by this Parliament as an advisory body. It was set up to advise on the balanced growth of Australian universities. It was not set up as a body with the right to decide what portion of the national resources should go in any particular direction. It was set up purely as an advisory body, whose reports and advice must come to the Parliament. It was not intended to be a law unto itself in the sense of saying: ‘These are the resources required; therefore these are the resources which must be provided’. As I have said it was set up as a body which would present advice to the Government and the Parliament. The Government and the Parliament decide the allocation of resources.
The Commonwealth Office of Education, to which Senator Wright also referred, will not be affected by the passage of this Bill as such. All this Bill does is to put beyond doubt the legality of setting up by executive act the Department of Education and Science. However, the Department having been set up, a proposal will be coming before the Parliament in another measure to amalgamate the Commonwealth Office of Education with the Department.
Having regard to what the Bill does,I do not think it is appropriate or proper to endeavour to cover the whole field of educational activity. One honourable senator seemed to cover quire a lot of it. Certainly I have no intention of evolving future policy in a debate on a bill of this kind, or indeed in any debate unless such debate is in relation to a bill which sets out considered policy. To reiterate, this Bill is brought before the Senate to ensure that a Department already established in accordance with the Constitution is a part of the Public Service structure. The Department having been established,I will endeavour to answer any questions that are raised relating to its operations and to the field of education generally, just asI think I can claim to have done while I have been Minister in charge of education.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
-I have noticed lately that in calling for applications for employment in the Commonwealth Public Service certain
Ministers and departments have, in my view, stepped outside the rules of the Public Service. Will the Minister inform me whether in seeking employees for this new department any approach will be made to organisations such as J. Walter Scott and Associates? Recently Ministers have sought staff through such agencies in Sydney.
– A department or a Minister sought a secretary through that organisation.
– That is right. The agency selects an employee and the Minister or (he department concerned then decides whether that employee will be appointed. That seems to me to be a revolutionary departure from the established method of recruiting for the Public Service. Will that method be adopted in recruiting staff for the new Department?
– I do not really know to what the honourable senator is referring, butI am sure that the rules governing the Public Service of the Commonwealth and the Public Service Board’s responsibilities are quite clearly laid down and cannot be contravened. There is nothing to prevent action which is not precluded by the rules. However,I am not clear on the matter.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a third time.
page 254
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed from 1 March (vide page 223), on motion by Senator Cotton:
That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
– The exercise in which the Senate is now engaged provides an opportunity for honourable senators to discuss matters contained in the Speech presented to the Parliament by His Excellency the Governor-General. Having regard to the great diversity of subjects there presented one obviously could not attempt to cover the whole field. We are also given the opportunity to raise matters in relation to which we have some particular interest or concern. I join with my fellow senators in extending to the people of Tasmania my deepest sympathy for the tragedy and disaster which befell them as a result of the recent fires. We in Western Australia remember vividly the way in which Australians came to the assistance of people in similar circumstances in our State. We are proud that the Australian character is such that Australians respond to calls of this kind.
I have noted that a body has been set up to inquire into the cause and circumstances of the fires. It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to prejudge the matters that it will consider, but 1 cannot resist joining in approval of Senator Lillico’s remarks about the fires. He expressed the opinion that all the fire fighting apparatus in the world would be ineffective in a situation where the forests are allowed to accumulate debris to a great extent. That has been the experience of Western Australia. After many years of conflict between the farmers in the forest areas and the Forests Department which for years attempted to keep fires out of the forests, the Department eventually agreed that the only way to protect the forest was by regular preventive burning. This year the Western Australian Forests Department has used aeroplanes and incendiaries to carry out as great an area of protective burning as possible.
I have noted with approval many of the actions foreshadowed in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. I would like briefly to touch upon one or two of them. I believe that the increased allocation for beef cattle roads is a constructive use of our resources lo develop our cattle country. I have noted, too, the increased allocation for education. A great deal has been said this afternoon about one aspect of education. This is a field in which there is a great interest and I should think that the Government’s action in this field is appreciated.
The increase in the number of Commonwealth scholarships is welcomed. I have noted that an amount of $24m is to be made available for the construction of teacher training colleges. I welcomed also the intention to raise the means test limitation to permit the earning by pensioners of another S3 a week. This will be a considerable help to pensioners who will be affected. lt is particularly pleasing to me to note that the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) intends to bring forward legislation to improve the operation of the Homes Savings Grant Act. 1 look forward with great anticipation to seeing the terms of that legislation. The provision that local government authorities may now participate in the operations of the Aged Persons Homes Act is another distinct advance in social service legislation.
I have noted with great interest the reference to the development of our mineral resources and that a growth rate of 5% is expected. That rate is expected to double in the next few years. It is natural that a Western Australian would be interested in this aspect, particularly in relation to our vast increases in exports of iron ore and the discoveries of nickel fields of great potential wealth. However, one facet of our exports of mineral resources gives me grave doubts. I refer to our increasing exports of coking coal. It was very gratifying to me to read recently that it has been established that Queensland, for instance, has considerably greater coal reserves than had been apparent. But having regard to recent increases in exports one must lake note of the facts as set out in the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Joint Coal Board, for 1965-66. 1 draw the attention of honourable senators to paragraph 2.29 on page 15 which states:
Elsewhere in this Part, a prediction is made that in thirty-four years time, by the year 2000, the annual fuel requirements to generate power in New South Wales alone will be equal to all the primary energy used for all purposes in Australia in 1963 or double the quantity used in New South Wales for all purposes in 1963-66. In the same period the coking coal requirements for the iron and steel industry in Australia are likely to rise to five times the present figure. But Australia is also exporting energy. In the five years to June, 1966, Australia’s exports of coal totalled 23,683,000 tons, rising from 3,454,000 tons in 1961-62 to 7,916,000 tons in 1965-66 and as mentioned earlier the market opportunity for export is likely to continue to rise at a rapid rate. Whether Australia has sufficient cheap coking coal to encourage the growth of the Australian iron and steel industry on tho scale that thu market will otherwise permit and, at the same time, permit unrestricted export is a matter which is causing the Board much concern.
On page 14 of the Report figures are set out which show that Australia has the lowest coal resources of any major country. On talcing those figures in conjunction with the part of the Report 1 have quoted, 1 question the wisdom of allowing unrestricted export of our cheapest available coking coal when we need to have coal resources to match our iron resources if we hope ever to build a steel industry commensurate with those resources. If it was ever desirable for the Commonwealth to place restrictions on the export of iron ore, certainly it is much more necessary to look very carefully at our coal resources - particularly coking coal - if we are to develop our steel industry and make use of our iron ore resources.
I have said that Australia’s coal resources are the lowest in the world. I wonder whether the Australian public realises what that really means. Australia’s estimated coal reserves, measured, indicated and inferred, total 12,844 million metric tons. If we take those reserves as one, Japan has reserves of one and a half, yet we are exporting coal to Japan. India has four times our reserves: Canada five times; Poland five times; United Kingdom ten times; Germany seventeen times; Russia 356 times; United States eighty-four times; and China seventy-eight times.
A situation can be envisaged where immediately our cheap and easily available coal resources are mined and shipped abroad, Japan, our big customer, will direct its attention elsewhere. The Australian people and the Australian steel industry will be left with our most difficult and expensive coal reserves with which to try to develop a market in the face of competition we will have set up against ourselves. Therefore I urge the Government to look very closely at this situation.
– What is the source of the honourable senator’s figures?
– The Nineteenth Annual Report of the Joint Coal Board. I believe that this is very serious matter which should cause the Government grave concern.
Another subject about which much has been said during the course of this debate is Federal-State relations. If the Senate is to carry out its intended role of watch dog of Federal institutions and to exercise its responsibility towards the States within the Federation, surely this is the right place in which to examine this very vexed and topical question. A number of my colleagues have referred to this matter and I offer no apologies for returning to it because I think that this is one of the matters on which we must take positive steps in the very near future.
If Australian Federation is to survive and not to be replaced by a completely centralised government we all need to have a close look at what has happened since Federation and more particularly at what has happened in recent years. Alfred Deakin stated that the States were legally free but financially bound to the chariot wheels of the central government. The passing of the years and judgments of the courts have borne out his contention about the States being financially bound to the chariot wheels of the central government but have somewhat discounted the idea of the States being legally free. Courts consistently have ruled in favour of the Commonwealth, to the extent of declaring that the payroll tax is not a tax when paid by State instrumentalities and that sales tax is an excise tax and therefore not available to the States. It is interesting to compare the situation in other Federations, notably the United States of America and Canada, where sales tax is one of the main sources of State revenue. But in Australia the courts have ruled that sales tax revenue is not available to the States.
During the course of this debate I have heard exclamations and interjections from honourable senators opposite which would indicate that the members of the Australian Labor Party, or a majority of them, favour centralised government and the destruction of the entity of State governments. When one considers the trend of this Government’s policies one could have doubts whether there is any true desire on this side of the chamber to maintain the Federation as a real partnership. As things stand, it is becoming more and more apparent that the States are to have no financial independence whatever and consequently no policy powers as provided for in the Australian Constitution. They will be reduced to a minimum of administrative functions.
This is not the Australian Country Parly’s policy on this matter, lt states:
The Australian Country Party believes in the maintenance of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia under the sovereignty of the Crown to protect the rights and privileges of till Australian citizens; the sovereignty of the States and the preservation of the bi-cameral legislature of the Commonwealth, lt recognises the need for a continuing review of the Constitution to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the community and to ensure the maintenance of a balance of responsibility between the Commonwealth and the States in the light of economic and social development.
I stand (irmly in support of this statement of policy. If we look at the trend in this field of Federal-Stale relations we find that Federal and State Governments have great and increasing responsibilities. But the Federal Government has had the financial means to meet its responsibilties and the State governments have had less and less means to do so. Consequently, the complete failure of the States to match their responsibilities with their financial ability to meet them has meant that the public, realising the position, has brought more and more pressure lo bear upon the Commonwealth.
We find that in health, education, roads, development and many other fields the pressure has been upon the Commonwealth to find the money. The Commonwealth has done so having first imposed as a matter of policy its judgment upon these matters. The field of responsibility of the States is continually being eroded away. This situation is not good enough for those who believe, us I do, that there should be a maintenance of responsibilities as envisaged by the Constitution. If we look at what has happened in the field of public debt, this situation is revealed very clearly. The Commonwealth public debt in relation to the total debt owing by Commonwealth, State, local, semigovernment and public authorities has fallen from 40% of the total in 1955 to 21 % of the total in 1965. To reduce it to the actual figures, over the same ten years the Commonwealth’s public debt has fallen from £1,998,795,000 to £1,566,998,000 while the debt structure of the States has increased from £1,923,141,000 to £3,091,160,000. Over that ten year period the Commonwealth’s debt has fallen approximately. £400m while the States’ debt has increased approximately £1 ,000tn.
– Has the honourable senator figures to show what the position would have been if the Commonwealth had paid for all its public works out of loan moneys?
– No, I have not got those figures. There is a wealth of statistics on this matter, and 1 am trying to reduce it lo the elements of the situation. When Commonwealth public works can be financed largely from revenue while State works and housing have to be financed by either public loans or Commonwealth loans, one cun only assume that the Commonwealth is using the financial big stick unmercifully and doing violence to the Federal concept.
Examination of the various government financial publications provides an interest* ing aspect on another of the subjects which have already been discussed during tho course of the debate. I refer to the matter of capital inflow and the rapid increase in overseas ownership of Australian assets in industry and commerce. Honourable senators opposite frequently refer to this matter, lt is one of very great concern. It was examined in detail by the Vernon Committee of Economic Inquiry. On page 284 of the Committee’s report it is estimated that one-quarter of all company assets arc controlled abroad and that onethird of all manufacturing assets are so controlled. The following statement on page 289 of the same report can hardly be treated as being other than factual:
If exports cannot be expanded sufficiently to pay for imports and meet other overseas obligations, either the rate of economic growth will be reduced or, if it is maintained with increasing overseas investment behind it, industry will come increasingly under overseas control.
I said that this should be treated as a factual statement, but if it is true it predicates continuance of policy with regard to the raising of moneys for investment in the government sector, and nowhere in the Vernon Committee’s report did I see any reference to that policy. Possibly the Committee thought that it was outside its province to comment on government policy of this sort.
Let us look at the flow of overseas investment. Australia needs more money than is available from her gross national product to promote a desirable rate of development. The present overall rate of saving is fairly high in comparison with that Of other countries. The rate in Australia is 25%. Foreign investment is necessary if development is to continue and the Australian saving rate cannot be increased. This must result in foreign ownership and control of Australian industry. 1 do not intend to argue at the moment whether or not that is undesirable. 1 am merely trying to set out the facts of the situation as I see it.
Two forms of development finance are necessary - finance for the public sector and finance for the private sector. In other words, we need finance for industry as well as for government works etc. Therefore, as a matter of Government policy we can elect to borrow from abroad for use in either or both sectors. But we note that to an increasing degree the Government has elected to raise money for capital works by taxation and by loans raised within Australia. To this extent Australian investment funds have been unavailable for Australian industry, lt seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. If we look at the financial papers that are available to us, we note that in 1933 the debt redeemable overseas amounted to 48% of our total public debt. In 1950 the percentage was only 16.75; in 1955 it was 12.7; and in 1964-65 it was only J 0.2. From 1955 to 1965 there was a rise of approximately £4, 152m in our total indebtedness while our overseas indebtedness rose by only £206m. Our indebtedness within Australia has risen at an average rate of £41 5m per year while our overseas indebtedness has risen by only £20m a year. Herein lies the basic reason why capital inflow into Australia has been directed towards the securing of our industry resources. Relatively no money has been available in Australia for the Australian people to invest in their own industries. As 1 indicated earlier, it has been taken over by means of government loans or taxation.
Surely there is some road between the dangerous situation that existed in the 1930s and the situation which exists today. Surely we can revise our attitude to a situation in which we are allowing our capital inflow to take the form of private investment in Australian industries.
– But when that capital comes here it is under our control. When we commit ourselves to external public borrowing we have no control over the manner in which it is to be repaid.
– When we borrow money abroad, the manner in which it is used within Australia is within the control of the Australian Government. When private money comes from abroad we have no say in the way in which it is invested or in the control which is exercised over that investment.
– It has to be invested according to our laws.
– We have no say in whether it is to be invested in development or simply used to purchase existing Australian businesses. That is the crux of the criticism that is advanced by the Leader of the Australian Country Party. This is the problem that is worrying a great number of Australians. We realise that we need more money and that we have to get it from abroad. But why should the Government entirely desert the field of overseas borrowing? Why should all this money be accepted into the private sector?
I come now to the possibility of increasing savings for investment. I draw attention to a form of taxation which I believe is increasingly acting as a bar to investment in Australian industry. I refer to probate duty. In his annual report, the Commissioner of Taxation publishes statistics which show the proportions of total probate and estate duty that are paid by different sections of the community. The last report revealed that 36.6% of the total amount of probate paid by Australians was paid by people engaged in primary industry. This form of taxation is placing a load on primary industry. 1 do not intend to deal with the complexities of the many and varied reasons why this disproportionate amount of lax should be paid by primary industry. I am merely submitting, as I said a moment ago, that it is reacting unfavourably on primary industry.
I should now like to deal with a subject that was dealt with by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen). I had great pleasure in congratulating the honourable senator upon his recent appointment as
Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 1 listened to his speech very carefully, but quite frankly I was very disappointed with it. I have since read the speech and I found that my disappointment was justified. I realise that it is the task of the Opposition, particularly of its leaders, to attack the Government for its failures. Senator Cohen did that. However, inherent in any right to criticise is a responsibility to put forward some positive and constructive thoughts. Senator Cohen spent a great deal of time referring to the degree of poverty that exists in Australia. He quoted certain authorities, including lecturers in economics, who had conducted surveys in the community. We recognise the truth of much of what has been revealed by those surveys. However, I waited in vain for some constructive suggestion from Senator Cohen.
– What about starting off with a survey?
– He came up with a suggestion that we should have another survey.
– ls not that constructive?
– I doubt it. In view of the authority of their surveys and their authenticity, I imagine that, something more positive could reasonably have been expected. Although the Government was vigorously cirticised on this ground, there was not one constructive suggestion to remedy the matter.
– If the Government will accept responsibility there will be plenty of suggestions.
– We would like to hear them. The Opposition in this Parliament has a very real task, not just to attack the Government for its failures but to put forward for the consideration of the public some constructive ideas so that we can weigh the merit or otherwise of its suggestions. This attack on the Australian Government for its failure - there was scant recognition of the positive things that the Government is doing - was really a lamentable failure on the part of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make constructive suggestions.
– Does the honourable senator agree that poverty exists?
– I agree that poverty exists.
– Then the Government should do something about it.
– Poverty has always existed and always will. The only way to overcome the problems of poverty is to lift the ability of the people in this country to earn a living. This has been done in a massive way by the Government over the years, lt is easy to fiddle with details and try to bring in little ameliorative measures. The real task is to make it possible for persons in the community to lift themselves from areas of poverty. If we try to do this by legislative action, by this and that patching measure, the economy as a whole will suffer and the people as a whole will suffer. We need to look at this matter as a problem affecting the whole community rather than as a repair and patching job, which seems to be the aspect that has been put forward by the Opposition. It was interesting to hear this criticism of the inability of the Government to help these people who are suffering from poverty, when one hears suggestions for lifting the means test to spread our available resources in the direction of people who need no help, thereby reducing our ability to help the people who are really in need. This seems to me to be a complete contradiction. However, it does give me very great pleasure to support those who so ably moved and seconded the motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply.
– Whilst I often criticise the Government, I never hesitate to praise it when I think it is doing something right. Admittedly, this is not too often. But once again J must come to the party and praise it for its speedy action in regard to the Tasmanian bushfires. I think that this was much appreciated by the whole of Tasmania - especially the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt). lt must have heartened the people to know that he took a personal interest.
Having said that much for the Government, 1 now want to criticise it a little. The first point I want to raise is the question of VIP aircraft. This is a subject that may raise some hostility. I want to say at the outset that I believe that VIP aircraft are a necessity for the Government, but I do not go all the way with the Government in view of the fact that it has ordered two BACIII and six or seven executive jets. But it is not so much the fact that the Government has ordered these aircraft at a cost to the Commonwealth of some millions of dollars as the use, or rather the abuse of these planes, to which 1 want to direct attention.
– How many does the honourable senator say there are?
– I think there are two Viscounts at the present moment but the Government has ordered, I understand, two BACIII aircraft which are pretty expensive and as big as the Boeing 707.
– No.
– Nearly as big. They may not hold as many people. They are bigger than the Viscount. The Government has also ordered six or seven executive jets. There is very little information about the subject and I cannot find out much about them. This is the very point that I want to raise, lt is not only indecent, it is outrageous of the Government to try lo hide the cost of these aircraft in the defence vote. Obviously when it tries to hide something like this, the Government must be ashamed of it. There can be no other answer than that it is ashamed or frightened or that it knows that it is doing wrong. i»o the idea is to hide this expenditure. 1 think no-one in Australia would object lo the provision of VIP aircraft if the expenditure were set out in a separate vote, as has always been done in regard to overseas trips by the Prime Minister or Ministers. These expenditures are specified under the Prime Minister’s vote and everyone knows what the trips cost. The same thing could be done with regard to VIP aircraft. No-one knows to what extent they are now being used. I think that there is often a necessity for urgent trips, when something crops up and someone has to get somewhere quickly, and the domestic airlines have not a suitable timetable. Then there is some justification, and there is justification if there is an economic load. This is a case in which it is justifiable to use a VIP aircraft, but it is not justifiable to use such an aircraft to send one Minister and, I think, two - or was it three - depart mental officers to Tasmania. This is not justifiable at all.
It was not only a matter of using the aircraft. Also involved were the Air Force crew, their salaries, their time, their board - the whole works. The costs all added up. I think it had a crew of five. 1 am not too sure of that: at least there would be a crew of three, if not five. These men took the aircraft to Tasmania for one Minister and - 1 think it was two but it may have been three - departmental officers for three days. 1 do not think this is justifiable for election campaigns. This, of course, is open to debate, but if it is to be allowed in an election campaign why is only the Government allowed to use the aircraft? Why is the Opposition not allowed, or any other party, or even the independents? It was monstrous, J think, that a Viscount should be taken up for a by-election in Queensland and trailing along was a DC3 aircraft, not with anyone in it but to be in the electorate to take the campaigners around to smaller airports at which the Viscount could not land, ls this a correct use of public money? ls this the reason why the Government is hiding this expenditure? Is the Government too ashamed to bring it out in the open and let the people know what the costs are? If the Government is to allow this sort of thing, the Opposition is just as much entitled to the use of VIP aircraft.
– lt did have one to take federal delegates to the conference in Perth a year or so ago.
– lt was probably a sort of quid pro quo if that was done; I do not know whether it was. If it was, I still think that it is quite improper for these aircraft to be used for any electoral purposes whatsoever. In an election campaign it is quite proper for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to have the use of these aircraft but nobody else should. We find that VIP aircraft are being used to take ex-members of Parliament from Melbourne to Adelaide for a test match and are flown from Melbourne to Sydney to pick them up on their return from overseas. Admittedly, there is a good excuse if people are going to Canberra and an aircraft is going there anyway, so it might as well be loaded up. But 1 doubt very much whether there was any reason for an aircraft to go from Melbourne to
Sydney lo pick up the ex-Prime Minister. 1 know that he would not want that done. Some honourable senators may recall that in 1959, when the Richardson report was presented, he would not have a bar of ils recommendations on the use of cars. On this matter he said:
In fact, there has been so much argument about it that anybody who stands a chance of being a beneficiary from it would, if he is like mc, sooner be without it. Therefore, we drop it. lt flutters to the ground like a dead leaf, lt is gone. I hope that that knowledge will give everybody great comfort, and I part with it, myself, with no sorrow at all.
Apparently he has changed his mind since he left the Parliament and has had a speedier vehicle than a car.
– He has a car allocated to him.
– I know that he has a car as well. 1 merely raise this matter. There may bc justification for it; 1 do not know. The point is that it is time guide lines were established by the Government for the use of VIP aircraft, lt is essential that this be clone. There is also the problem of overseas travel and how far these VIP aircraft should go. They have been used twice already for overseas trips. On one occasion the Prime Minister quite rightly, I think, used one of the aircraft when he took a big party to New Zealand. Here again the economics factor enters into the question. It may be cheaper for the Prime Minister to take his own aircraft overseas when he takes a big party. That may be justified. On the other hand, the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck) took a VIP aircraft to Indonesia. Is there justification for that? We do not know how many officers he took with him. There might be justification for it if he took a big party with him.
– Does not the honourable senator think that a trip to Indonesia is important enough?
– Of course it is important enough. I am not denying that at all. But is it not important enough when the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) goes to New Zealand? I do not know whether he went on a VIP aircraft. In my opinion, that trip is just as important as Mr Hasluck’s trip to Indonesia. It would be just as important if the Minister for
Health went lo London for some reason. These are all government jobs. The point that 1 am trying to settle is that there should be guide lines so that we know what is happening in respect of VIP aircraft. Senator Scott may say that it is important for the Minister for External Affairs to go to Indonesia. I may believe that il is important for the Minister for Health to go to London for some reason. But is that what these aircraft are for? Why does not the Government state a policy and tell the people what they are to be used for in both domestic and overseas services? Senator Scott was not here when I started to speak on this matter. I believe that we should have VIP aircraft. .1 am merely querying the method of their use.
I am glad to see that, for a change, we are to buy British aircraft. I hope that when the Government finally decides on its purchases it will buy executive jets. Whit the Government needs is a lot of executive jets that will carry five or six people, because that is the number of people who usually go on a ministerial trip. 1 believe that Ministers are entitled to these executive jets. 1 do not think VIP aircraft should be used for the private business purposes of former members of the Parliament. Nor do I think that a big VIP aircraft should bc used when a commercial aircraft can provide the same service. 1 raise this point in the hope that some guide lines will be established.
I come to the final point on this matter. lt has upset me right from the start. That is why I raise it. 1 refer to the outrageous use of the defence vote for this purpose. How can the Government say that this is a legitimate charge against the defence vole? Does it not make honourable senators opposite blush to think that the Government that they support is doing this? 1 do not know what it costs to run the VIP aircraft. It certainly costs more than half a million dollars. The cost will increase year after year. This money is coming out of the defence vote, which is so low that it should make honourable senators opposite blush.
– If that is a fact, has the Auditor-General ever commented on it?
– 1 do not know. I know that I raised it in this chamber towards the end of last year. But there was no response from the Government.
– There was no reply.
– No. One never receives a reply. The Ministers are never interested in the debates when they are sitting in the chamber. They are far too busy doing something else. I do not know what it is. Invariably one Minister, and one Minister only, is present. When we are debating a technical Bill involving one Minister’s department we need only one Minister here. But when we have a general debate, such as the debate on the AddressinReply, I believe that it is an insult to the Senate that the Ministers are not here to listen to queries about their departments and at least to take some notice of what we say.
I do not think 1 have been saying completely stupid things. Some honourable senators may think I have. But the people do not think so. They are just as outraged to think that these aircraft should bc used indiscriminately and that the cost of using them should be charged against the defence vole, which is so deplorably low. For members of a government to keep on saying what they have done for defence and how they have spent more money on defence, on the one hand, and to take money out of the defence vote for their own private use, on the other is outrageous. I think it stinks.
While I am on the matter of the abuse of public funds, 1 wish to mention a place called the Wentworth Hotel. J point out to honourable senators that a person is very lucky if he can get into this hotel because not many people would be able lo afford to stay there. 1 thought the Senate would be interested in hearing my experience of this hotel which has been built, if not with government funds, then certainly with funds guaranteed by the Government. I think we passed a Bill to enable Qantas Empire Airways Ltd to build this hotel, lt is the most hideously designed boarding house in which I have ever been. It is a monstrous thing. If it is true - J have not quite got to the bottom of this yet - that Qantas had to obtain the services of an American architect, that reflects very severely on Qantas. It is always telling everyone: ‘This is Australia’s own airline. Use Australia’s own airline’; but it pays an American architect to design its hotel. 1 realise that this subject may not be one of national importance, but it is such a waste of public money that surely there must be some control of semi-governmental bodies such as Qantas to prevent them continuing with the monstrous waste that they have inflicted on us. ( went into this hotel and booked a single room. 1 wanted to see it. I was given a little ticket at the desk. It said: ‘Single room’-
– A suite.
– No, 1 just wanted a room. What 1 got was a little ticket saying that the charge was S 14.50. My son was with me. I said: ‘My son is not staying. The room is for me alone’. I was told that the charge was SI 4.50. That is not a bad price. 1 said: ‘But you must have cheaper rooms’. The reply was: ‘You will not get a view’. This was at 7 or 8 o’clock at night and I was going at 9. o’clock in the morning. So 1 did not really want a view if I could get a cheaper room. I was given one for $11.50. That is a pretty high price, but it is fair enough for Sydney. Of course, there was no television or anything.
When 1 got to my room I found that 1 could not make up my mind whether the architect who had been employed was antisexual, plain sadistic, puritanically minded or lived in the Orkneys. Those honourable senators who know about the people who live in the Orkneys will know that it is so cold there that the people have a system called bundling. People are allowed to do their courting in bed provided they have a big wooden bolster between them to prevent them getting near each other. That is exactly what it is like in the Wentworth Hotel. I saw a couple of other rooms. Between the two beds there is this huge divider 18 inches or 2 feet high above the bed. If a man wanted to talk to his wife he would have to sit up and say ‘Hi’ and she would have to sit up and say ‘Hi’ to him.
– Was not the honourable senator in a single room?
– I was. Unfortunately for the honourable senator, most hotels now have very few single rooms. They give a person a single rate in a double room.
– What did the honourable senator have to growl about?
– He could not jump over the bolster:
– That is right. The hotel did not provide anyone for the other bed, if the honourable senator wants to know. There is virtually a bolster between a man and his wife. If there is anything more ridiculous, I should like to know what it is. 1 wanted to use the telephone but it was in such an inaccessible place that even with my long legs 1 had to kneel on the bed. My wife, who is shorter than I am, would have to climb on the bed to get to the telephone. These may be little things, but they represent sheer stupidity.
– It sounds like an interesting night.
– 1 could go on for hours about this. Then there was the bathroom. 1 was not in a high-priced room so I had only a shower, which is fair enough. The bathrooms are small, and are made smaller by being built on the round. The designers have cut off the corner’s, which make the bathrooms smaller and dearer lo build. Here we have a semi -governmental institution spending our money as extravagantly as it can. The foyer is nearly as big as the Senate chamber. There are three seats on each side and they were empty on that Sunday night, although they might be busier during the week. This is probably a good hotel if you can afford to go there. If I could afford a big bedroom it may be that I could afford to have the bolster taken out and would be able to say ‘hello’ to my wife. This is so fantastically stupid that one wonders why such an architect was engaged. If he was an American architect, I would like to know why we could not engage an Australian architect. This is a case of government money being wasted on producing a show place - which it is.
I want to raise again the question of national insurance or superannuation. I shall touch upon this subject at every session of the Parliament. Senator Prowse said we should not abolish the means test. I do not agree. I think we should abolish the means test but I say that everybody should pay a weekly contribution to an insurance fund so that all would be entitled to the same benefits. 1 do not agree with one select section of the community being provided with superannuation when they retire while people in the professions, farmers and country people have no superannuation. Twentyfive per cent or more of the wage earners in Australia are in superannuation schemes but they moan and say: ‘We have to pay so much for our units’. They forget what they get at the other end. Employees of the Launceston City Council pay a pretty small contribution and when they retire they go out with a lump sum of £10,000 or £15,000. This would take a lot of saving by people who work for themselves. lt is reprehensible that the Government has not done something about this matter. The abolition of the means test is partly bound up with it. We do not have to rush. We can afford to do it. If we can afford a superannuation scheme for the Public Service, we can afford one for those who work, and work hard, such as people on the farms and in the professions and those who carry on private businesses. They have no help from the Government to get superannuation pensions later in life. T shall keep on flogging this question in the hope that gradually I will wear somebody down and get a national insurance scheme.
I was rather amused last night to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) criticise the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) for a lack of principles. The Leader of the Government said that one day the Labor Party had certain principles and the next day it changed them. Of course, there was a change of leadership in the Labor Parly, and that goes a long way towards bringing about a change in principles. The Opposition is entitled to change its principles. While I am on this point let me remind honourable senators that the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, resigned from Cabinet thirty years ago, stabbing the then Prime Minister, Mr Joseph Lyons, in the back. He said: ‘I am resigning on principle; you have not implemented a national insurance scheme’. Do supporters of the Government forget that? Sir Robert Menzies, who was then Mr Menzies, walked out of the Cabinet and formed his own government. If that was not stabbing Joe Lyons in the back, what was it? That was done on a matter of principle.
J do not have the relevant quotation now, but 1 have referred to it previously in the Senate. Sir Robert Menzies said he resigned from the Lyons Government on a matter of principle - because it had not introduced a national insurance or superannuation scheme. Provision for such a scheme was on the statute book but the Lyons Government had not put it into force. After this Government has been eighteen years in office without introducing national insurance, the Leader of the Government in the Senate mocks the Opposition about a change in principles. The former Prime Minister was in office for nearly seventeen years. Does the Government intend to do anything now about this matter of high principle which its former leader talked about in the past? ls it not time we got down lo something along these lines? Could not the Senate do something really useful and set up a select committee to investigate how a national insurance scheme could be introduced, so that everybody would be entitled to the same benefits as public servants?
If we do not have a national insurance scheme, this affects our exports. We say repeatedly that we must export more, but some of the firms which produce goods for export have their own insurance schemes and this adds to the cost of their products. They have to compete on outside markets, and the added costs are detrimental to us. My final point on this matter is that unless we have a true national insurance scheme many good people are unable to accept employment in other Stales or with other organisations. They are in superannuation schemes and if they take up other positions they lose their superannuation benefits. So the absence of a national insurance scheme blocks the promotion of men who wish to improve their status in life.
Now 1 want to raise again the question of medical and hospital benefits. The Senate could do a good job by appointing a select committee to investigate this whole question. An honourable senator on this side of the House recently asked whether one of the companies engaged in hospital benefits insurance had bought an aeroplane. If it did, that was a monstrous thing for it to do. All the organisations concerned are ploughing profits back into the businesses and building up colossal reserves. I may be wrong, but I believe the total of the reserves now is about $20m, or even more. This building up of reserves is being fostered by the Government, which puts the finger on the societies and tells them they cannot increase their benefits. This is shocking.
When you ask a medical and hospital benefits insurance organisation why it cannot pay more for each item it points out that the Government will not allow it to do so. I understand the reason for this is that there are some pretty weak insurance companies and if they had to pay out more they would go to the wall. Let them go to the wall if they are so inefficient and unfinancial. They should withdraw from this field. The people of Australia should be entitled to receive benefits equal to the contributions they pay. It is nonsense for the Government to tell the companies that they must not increase their benefits. The other point is that with increases in the basic wage costs are going up, but the Government contribution stays the same. There has hardly been an increase since the inception of the scheme. One wonders why the Government which introduced the scheme has not done anything further in regard to it. The insurance companies can do something about it. They just will not. In the first place the insurance companies said that they had to build up reserves. This stand was supported by the Government. Now the insurance companies say - I believe that they are quite right - that the Government will not allow them to increase their benefits. 1 think that we should abolish all these insurance companies, lt is time the whole lot went to the wall. All the money that has been spent on buildings and all the money that is paid to their staffs should be used as contributions. We should have a national compulsory insurance scheme to which contributions are made together with our superannuation schemes. If Lie Government established a national compulsory insurance scheme everybody would have to be insured. These companies with all their employees would be clone away with. There would be only one collector of these taxes, the Commonwealth Go vet nment, which is the tax collector now. 1 want to make a plea for another project. This concerns blind people and the suggestion that the Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast sessions for the blind. I do not know which Minister is responsible in this field. Only one Minister is present at the moment, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson). 1 hope somebody reads these remarks. Somebody must read them because I hae been very happy to notice that a couple of suggestions that I have made have been taken up. There are 360 blind people in Tasmania. A rather strange thing in this regard is that I cannot find how many blind people there are in Australia. I rang the Commonwealth Statisticians office. I was told that in 1933 a count was made of the number of blind people in Australia. Since then, the Statistician has not been asking how many people are blind. The Statistician could not tell me how many blind people live in Australia. But there are 360 blind people in Tasmania, so there must be over 3,000 blind people in the whole of Australia.
To these people television is of no use whatsoever. What I am asking on their behalf is that the Australian Broadcasting Commission conduct a weekly programme for them. This could be a programme of ten or fifteen minutes. This is something that blind people would appreciate. Such a programme is broadcast in Japan. It is done extremely well and quite expertly, lt has been suggested to me that this programme could be divided into three 5-minute talks. The first five minutes could deal with handcrafts. The blind could learn handcrafts in their own homes. The second five minutes could consist of a review of various books that the blind receive. Often the blind do not know of their availability and what is really in them. If reviews of these books were given, blind people would know what would interest them. If this programme was of fifteen minutes duration, the third five minutes could be devoted to a talk on what is being done for the blind in Australia and other countries, f make this plea to the Minister who represents the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme). I hope that he will take this up with the PostmasterGeneral and ask the ABC seriously to consider my plea. No-one would begrudge the ABC providing even two fifteen minute sessions a week on behalf of blind people.
On Wednesday of last week, I asked a question concerning nuclear weapons. My question may have sounded facetious to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty). I asked the Minister whether he had read the comments in the American scientific journal ‘Technology Week’ by Dr Edward Teller regarding the use of nuclear power in developing Australia. I do not know whether any honourable senators have read this article. I think that it is time that we all read it. This applies especially to those honourable senators who are interested in the development of the north. As honourable senators may remember, Dr Teller was the father of the H-bomb. Dr Teller has been advocating the use of nuclear power in regard to the blasting of deep water ports and the making of inland dams in catchment areas. I would like to quote a few of the points that he made in this regard. Referring to Australia Dr Teller said:
Nuclear explosives seem to be appropriate tools by which Australian land could be made habitable and productive before the arrival of great numbers of people.
He envisages:
This part of the world could become productive and rich if sufficient capital became available and enough manpower could be attracted to it.
Dr Teller has written a very good article. He goes on to say that the iron ore development at Hamersley needs a bigger harbour in order to accommodate bigger ships. After all, not very much work has been done on Hamersley and there is still a good deal of iron ore there. Bigger ships will probably be required. Nuclear power could be used for blasting a deep water port there. Dr Teller points out also that nuclear power can be used for damming rivers. He refers particularly to the Fortescue River, the Ord River, the Fitzroy River and the Darling River. All of these rivers have catchment areas.
In case people should be worried about the use of nuclear power for these purposes, Dr Teller says in his article:
The advent of fission has made it possible to control radiation to an extent where the use of Project Plowshare -
Project Plowshare is the name given to the operation for the use of nuclear power for agricultural and other purposes; in other words, the harnessing of the atom for peaceful uses:
I raise this point because this is whatI feel we need in Australia. Here is something that the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority could put its teeth into and handle extremely well. It would be advantageous to the rest of Australia if we took some interest in this project and did something about it. I refer not only to the operations associated with Project Plowshare. As honourable senators know, I strongly believe that Australia should develop its own atomic bomb. In the meantime, if the Government does not agree with having its own atomic bomb for defence, at least it should agree that we will get the knowhow about handling nuclear material if we use nuclear power for developmental purposes. I put this matter to the Minister with the suggestion that he gets his fellow Ministers to read this article. It may interest them regarding the development of the Northern Territory and north west Australia.
As the Minister present in the Senate is the Minister for Customs and Excise, I must say to him that I have been extremely heartened by the announcement that he has made that Australia will do away with that iniquitous and so old-fashioned Customs declaration and that a trial will be given to the oral declaration scheme. But I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to one matter. While I was in New Zealand, I was attacked by three members of the New Zealand Parliament at a luncheon at the New Zealand Parliament House. They complained about the treatment given to New Zealand members of Parliament - and, they assume, therefore, to all New Zealanders - in transit from overseas through Australia to New Zealand. These members of Parliament actually blamed Qantas. But it was the Department of Customs and Excise, and not Qantas that was to blame. These New Zealand members of Parliament landed in Australia. The regulation says that all luggage must be declared. They could not care less. They said at the airport: ‘Put the luggage on the New Zealand plane. We do not want to see it.’ But, no, the regulation stated that when a person has landed in Australia his luggage must be searched. I understand that this procedure has stopped now. But this sort of thing irritates travellers. It certainly irritated these New Zealand members of Parliament. I have written to the Clerk of the New Zealand House informing him that members will not have to worry any more as the Australian Minister for Customs and Excise has attended to their problem.
I have raised these points. I hope that they will be relayed to the proper authorities and that some good will come out of the suggestions that I have made. Although my remarks may contain criticisms of the Government, I think that they are constructive criticisms and suggestions on how we can improve our lot in Australia.
– In view of the lateness of the hour, I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Senate adjourned at 4.44 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 March 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19670302_senate_26_s33/>.