Senate
21 November 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2183

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC MEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and industry which follows a question I asked yesterday regarding the issue of patents to produce synthetic meats in Australia. Will the Minister ban the production and importation of synthetic meats so that the Australian meat industry, one of Australia’s main industries, will not be adversely affected?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Mr President, I do not think I could say at question time that the Government will impose a ban as requested. As I understand it, the honourable senators’ question relates to a matter referred to by him yesterday regarding imports of pig meat from Denmark and Sweden.

Senator Young:

– No. My question refers to the production of synthetic meats.

Senator ANDERSON:

– If it is a simple question relating to the imposition of a ban, obviously I shall have to ask that it be put on notice so that it may be referred to the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 2183

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will he undertake to obtain from the Prime Minister a clear and unambiguous statement of the Government’s policy on defence expenditure? I ask this question because of the confusing and contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister on this matter over the past 5 weeks, as evidenced by the following four excerpts from his speeches during this period: Firstly, an excerpt from the speech of the Prime Minister at the Flinders electorate Liberal Party Luncheon at Mornington, Victoria, on 14th October 1968:

I do not propose to provide as much as some of our opponents or some of our - I don’t know what they are - some of the people who stand between us and our opponents, would require to be provided foi- defence because I believe we need to build up the nation as well.

The second is an excerpt from a speech by the Prime Minister, Mr John Gorton, delivered at a Liberal Party dinner at Terrigal in the Robertson electorate, New South Wales on 18th October 1968. lt reads:

So, we find ourselves requiring not $400m for our own defence but in this year $ 1,250m, and we will find as the years go by that the amount of money -

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to a point of order.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Mr President, I rise to a point of order and I ask -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I will take the point of order from Senator Cormack first.

Senator Cormack:

– Mr President, I rise to a point of order not to deprive the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party of his undoubted right to ask questions but to point out that I do not think that the phrasing and the form of this question come within the Standing Orders, which do not permit questions without notice or questions on notice to give information or to seek verification of newspaper reports which cannot be verified.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wheeldon, is your point of order on the same matter?

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, Mr President. I was called to order by you 2 days ago after having, in explanation of a question, spoken for precisely 2 lines in Hansard. The Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party has spoken now, I would estimate, about ten times that length without having been called to order. I ‘ask you for an explanation of this situation.

Senator Byrne:

– I rise to a point of order. Is what Senator Wheeldon has said a reflection on the Chair? If so, he is out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Wheeldon was so much out of order when he was asking his question that I propose to let that matter go by. I think he would have noted what I said with regard to the way in which he was framing his question. To you, Senator Gair-

Senator Wheeldon:

– Mr President, I was asking in what way I was out of order. I seek some clarification. I thought the position was made fairly clear by you the other day when you said that no statement could be made in explanation of a question however brief that explanation might be. Yet I find this morning that that approach is not being followed in the case of Senator Gair. I am asking you merely whether Senator Gair is out of order. If he is not, can the matter be clarified? I am not reflecting on the Chair.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Gair is asking a prepared question. When you asked your question the other day, Senator Wheeldon, it was not prepared. You framed your question as you went along. There is a big difference. I say to Senator Gair that his references to newspapers are too long. Prior to the point of order being taken, I was about to remind him that references to lengthy extracts from newspapers are not in order when questions are being asked. I suggest that the honourable senator should abbreviate those quotations. Determination of the worthwhileness of the question is the responsibility of the Minister who is to answer it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I rise to a further point of order Mr President. Can you refer me to the standing order which requires questions to be prepared?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do not want to discuss this matter further with you. I call Senator Gair.

Senator GAIR:

– Mr President, I bow to your ruling. I will not proceed with my question. I sincerely apologise to those whom I have embarrassed by the quotations.

page 2184

QUESTION

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, refers to a statement made to the Royal1 Institute of Administration by Professor E. A. Rudd in which the professor, while agreeing that there was a need for foreign capital, said, or is reported to have said, that it does not follow that a mineral deposit should be given in return. Can the Minister indicate whether or not there is a continuing need for large quantities of foreign capital for mineral development in Australia? Can he say whether there are any plans similar to those referred to by the professor which call for long term notice to foreign companies with a possible 60% Australian ownership?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator asks a question which quite clearly is concerned with a matter of Government policy. That policy has been propounded by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer. In relation to the need for and the desirability of Australia having all the advantages of a degree of overseas capital investment, I think it is axiomatic that at this time in our history we need all the assistance we can get through overseas investment. Questions as to the degree and application of the investment involve matters of policy and therefore do not attract answers at question time.

page 2184

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations has decided to investigate the extent of political interference in Australian Broadcasting Commission television programmes? Is the Minister further aware than an officer of that body, when announcing the decision to call for reports from the ABC Staff Association and Announcers Equity said that ‘Four Corners’ is being emasculated, Bob Sanders is being pressured out of the ABC, the top rated programme ‘This Day Tonight’ is being attacked by the Government, the objectivity of the ABC is being undermined, and that certain Federal and State Ministers are behind the move? In view of the alarm shown by responsible bodies, will the Government agree to an inquiry by an independent tribunal into the morale of the ABC and into suggestions that political pressure is being brought to bear upon the Commission?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will place the honourable senator’s question before my colleague the PostmasterGeneral.

page 2184

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Yesterday I asked the Minister for Housing two questions about the entitlements of national servicemen. I now ask the Minister whether replies are yet available. If not, will they be available before the debate on the War Service Homes Bill is resumed? It is at present at the Committee stage.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– If my memory servers me correctly the queries raised by the honourable senator relate to the numbers of people whose applications for war service home loans had been rejected and the numbers who had received assistance.

Senator Keeffe:

– There are two questions. They are listed on the notice paper as questions 787 and 788.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am sorry that 1 cannot tell the honourable senator when I will have that information. I will get it as soon as I can.

page 2185

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– T ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the fact that many members of this Parliament will be engaged on committee meetings in the early part of next year, during the forthcoming parliamentary recess, can the honourable gentleman give the Senate an indication of when the dates for the resumption of Parliament next year will be announced? Will they be announced before the end of this sessional period?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– T am not in a position to give the precise date of the announcement of the time when Parliament will resume next year. As soon as that information is available to me, I will make it available to all honourable senators. In the normal expectation. Parliament would resume towards the end of February or the beginning of March. However, T will obtain a precise answer and make it available expeditiously.

page 2185

QUESTION

POSTAL WORKERS CONFERENCE

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked the Minister a question about the high handed refusal of the Department of External Affairs to allow Mr Joseph, a trade union official from Ceylon, to attend as an observer a conference of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union. The Minister undertook to let me have a reply. I understood that the matter was being considered by the Minister for External Affairs. What is the present position? Is it a fact that Mr Joseph has now been granted permission to attend the conference? What was it that held up that permission?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have some information on that matter but I would prefer to give it after question time as it is necessary for me to gather some facts. 1 will take a later opportunity to give the honourable senator further information on the matter.

page 2185

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– ls the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that the Mount Newman iron ore company has recently entered into a contract to sell to Japan an additional 37.5 million tons of iron ore? ls he aware that the contract of sale will have the effect of reducing the sale price of iron ore sold by the Mount Newman company to Japan below that set out in the sale price guidelines laid clown by the Government? What effect will this reduced price have on negotiations for increased sales by other iron ore companies? Can we now accept the fact that in the future Australia’s iron ore resources will be disposed of at giveaway prices?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answer to the last part of the honourable senator’s question is that there is no such suggestion. I suggest that, the other parts of the question be put on the notice paper so that I may obtain a detailed reply for the honourable senator.

page 2185

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WHEELDON:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Army been drawn to a pamphlet which allegedly is being circulated among Australian troops in Vietnam and which reads: ‘Soldiers of Australia! Unite against PMG strikes! Punch a postie on RTA. Sock it to ‘em diggers!’? Apparently ‘RTA’ means return to Australia. Will the Minister ascertain by whom these pamphlets are being distributed - if they are being distributed - and take appropriate steps to prevent incitement to violence among Australian soldiers against members of Australian trade unions9

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

– I have no knowledge of the facts as outlined by the honourable senator. I am glad to see that at long last he is displaying some concern for our soldiers in Vietnam.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Mr President, I ask for a withdrawal by the Minister for Repatriation of the statement that at long last I am showing some concern for our soldiers in Vietnam. I regard that statement as a gross reflection on me. I ask for a withdrawal by the Minister of what he said, and for an apology.

Senator McKellar:

– If I stung the honourable senator on the raw, 1 withdraw.

Senator Wheeldon:

– 1 do not regard that as an apology. I am asking for an apology for the reflection upon me by the Minister for Repatriation. There has been a withdrawal but no apology.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has withdrawn the remark.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, it was not an unreserved withdrawal. I ask that you request the Minister to withdraw the statement unreservedly.

Senator Wheeldon:

– And to apologise.

Senator McKellar:

– For the sake of peace and quietness, I withdraw and apologise.

page 2186

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT AMMUNITION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply. Is it a fact that negotiations between France and Australia have resolved the dispute in connection with the proposed manufacture in Australia of ammunition for jet fighter aircraft? If so, when is Australian production likely to commence, and under what terms will the ammunition be manufactured in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Senate has displayed some interest in this matter in the past. Indeed, during the discussion on the estimates for the Department of Supply, reference was made to the manufacture in Australia of 30mm ammunition for the Mirage aircraft. The Senate will recall that there are two agreements involved. Both are with French organisations. The larger of the two is with a private firm, the Manurhin company, and covers the production of hardware such as the cartridge cases, projectiles, and so on. The other agreement is with a government organisation known as Service Des Poudres and covers the propellants and explosive. The Manurhin company, on the basis of a Commonwealth letter of intent which was accepted in June 1968, has supplied most of the required technical data already and, at the same time, granted permission for Commonwealth engineers to enter its establishments. Consequently the time taken formally to execute this agreement has not affected the production planning effort of my Department. I should indicate, too, that the agreement with the Manurhin company was signed on 15th November, which was a few days ago, in Paris.

The agreement with Service Des Poudres was formally executed on 15th October 1968, and since that time the Commonwealth has received practically all the required technical data for the propellants. Australian engineers are being given every assistance practicable by the French organisations and are confident ‘ that Australian production can proceed as planned. Production of the ammunition will be undertaken in Department of Supply munition factories in Victoria and New South Wales and will involve the creation of additional plant capacity. Private industry will manufacture the primers. An initial order for 30mm D.E.F.A. ammunition has been placed on my Department by the Department of Air and it is expected that volume production for the satisfaction of this order will be achieved to the timing : required. So the matter is now completed in terms of the agreements with the two French companies, which is a very good development.

page 2186

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. I have previously asked questions- on the secession movement in Papua and New Guinea, and received answers that indicated that the matter was of little importance. In view of the speech made by the Minister for External Territories at Lae, and his implied threat of economic action against those areas that sought to secede, can the Minister now advise whether the’ situation in the Territory is worthy of concern?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– If would be unfortunate if the honourable senator ever got the impression that the situation in the Territory was not worthy of concern. All that was indicated by the Minister was that there was a firm adherence to the view that the unity of the Territory must be preserved. That was the viewpoint that the Minister referred to in the speech at Lae to which reference has been made.

page 2187

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation. I ask: Are servicemen and servicewomen killed in Vietnam eligible to be buried in war cemeteries if their families request that course to be followed? Secondly, are comparable repatriation benefits granted to those who served in Vietnam as are granted to those who served in Korea?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I am sure the honourable senator is aware that the Government’s policy is that wherever possible the bodies of soldiers killed in Vietnam are brought back and buried in Australia if the relatives request this course to be followed.

Senator Willesee:

– Are they buried in war cemeteries?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– I am not sure. This does not come under my jurisdiction but I will make some inquiries and inform the honourable senator accordingly. Our men who are fighting in Vietnam are in a special area of service. Therefore they come under the provisions of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act and receive repatriation benefits comparable to those extended to men who served in Korea.

page 2187

QUESTION

MEAT

(Question No. 565)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

With reference to the restrictions imposed by the United States Administration on the importation of Australian meat, and in view of the importance which the Government places upon the American alliance, as evidenced by the sending of Australian troops to Vietnam, I ask: Did the Government, in its approaches to the United States Administration concerning this damaging action to an important Australian export, draw attention to the sacrifices made by Australia as a party to the alliance and ask for some reciprocity from the United States of America?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– -The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer:

Imports of meat into the United States during 1968 rose to such a level as to create the risk of quotas being imposed under United States domestic law. The relevant United States legislation requires the President to allocate quotas among supplying countries if it is estimated that imports of certain meats - principally beef and veal - will equal or exceed a pre-determined level. In order to avoid the formal imposition of quotas, the Australian Government and the meat industry agreed in September last to restrain exports of beef and mutton to the United States for the remainder of 1968. As a result of this arrangement, United States imports in 1968 of Australian meat subject to the legislation mentioned above will total some 215,600 tons, which is higher than any year since 1963. This arrangement was the subject of a full and frank exchange of views between the two governments.

page 2187

QUESTION

RADIO AND TELEVISION

(Question No. 594)

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. What are the licence requirements and programme standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board regarding the broadcasting of local news (as distinct from syndicated national and state news broadcasts emanating from capital cities) by country radio and television commercial stations?
  2. How many country radio and television commercial stations are there at present in Australia?
  3. In country areas, has the Australian Broadcasting Control Board any policy on commercial radio and television stations buying news services from a local newspaper, bearing in mind the dangers of having the gathering of news concentrated in the hands of a single organisation in a comparatively small area?
  4. On average, what is the percentage for country radio and television stations of total daily broadcasting time on (a) week days, (b) Saturdays, and (c) Sundays given to the broadcasting of local news as distinct from syndicated bulletins of national and State news?
  5. What percentage of its daily broadcasting hours on (a) week days, (b) Saturdays, and fc) Sundays is given by CTC7 Canberra to the broadcasting of local news of Canberra as distinct from syndicated national and State bulletins and, similarly, what percentage of broadcasting time is given to the broadcasting of local news of Goulburn and Cooma through Canberra Television Ltd’s translator stations in these areas?
  6. What percentage of the daily broadcasting hours of 2CA Canberra on (a) week days, (b) Saturdays, and (c) Sundays is given to the broadcasting of local news of Canberra, as distinct from syndicated national and State news bulletins?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answer:

  1. There are no requirements in broadcasting and television station licences regarding the broadcasting of news. The programme standards of the

Broadcasting Control Board contain certain provisions applying specifically to broadcast news and newsreel programmes. There are some slight differences in the provisions applying to broadcasting and television respectively, but, in general, commercial broadcasting and television stations are required to comply with the following:

  1. News should be presented accurately and impartially.
  2. Commentary and analysis should be clearly distinguished from news.
  3. Good taste should guide the selection and presentation of news. Morbid, sensational or alarming details not essential to factual reporting, especially in connection with stories of crime or sex, should be avoided. News should be broadcast in such a manner as to avoid panic, unnecessary alarm, or distress to individuals. These provisions apply particularly to news flashes.
  4. News or newsreel type programmes which include actual or recorded descriptions of events, or interviews, require particular care in preparation and presentation to avoid such undesirable forms of presentation as unnecessary sensationalism.
  5. No advertising matter should be offered as news, or included in the contents of a news broadcast. This does not prevent the broadcasting of short advertisements during natural breaks between recognised sections of a news programme; but no advertisement in the form of a ‘story’ or which could be mistaken by listeners for a news item, should be broadcast.

The television programme standards also require that pictorial representation of news should be carefully selected to ensure fairness and should not be misleading or sensational.

  1. There are 88 commercial broadcasting stations and 29 commercial television stations outside the State capital cities and Canberra. There are also 30 commercial television translator stations in country areas.
  2. No; the selection and arrangement of programmes, including news programmes, is primarily a matter for licensees.
  3. The details which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board compiles on the programmes of commercial broadcasting and television stations do not include this information and it is not readily available.
  4. The following information has been obtained from the licensee:

The licensee adds that in 3 days selected at random in October 1968, 67 items were telecast in the main bulletins comprising 10 international, 32 national, 17 Canberra, 6Goulburn and 2 Cooma items. As part of the company’s policy to expand local news and news film coverage, fast film processing and film printing equipment has been installed and new film camera equipment brought into operation. The news staff is being expanded particularly, at present, in the Canberra area and plans are in hand to improve the coverage from Cooma and Goulburn early in 1969. In addition to news services, CTC televises two 5-minute segments per week under the title of ‘Close Up’ which deal with topical local subjects.

  1. The following information has been obtained from the licensee of 2CA:

Week days - 26 minutes of local news per day on average, being approximately 2%;

On Saturdays - 17 minutes of local news per day on average, being a little under 1%;

On Sundays - no local news is presented.

The licensee adds that the above information does not take into account the comprehensive local coverage given to local activities, usually in interview and documentary form or, of course, the community service announcements which are broadcast in relation to local events. This type of local news information average’s in excess of 30 minutes per day. The station intends to appoint a journalist and upgrade and increase local news from 1st February 1969. .

page 2188

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 626)

Senator YOUNG:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister give any information on the meeting of the Australia-Northbound Shipping Conference, comprising Japanese, British, Scandinavian and Dutch shipowners, which was held in Hong Kong during the week ended 12 October?
  2. Is it a fact, as reported, that the Australian National Line made a request for a 25% share of the Australian-Japanese trade but was refused?
  3. Did the Flinders Shipping Co., an Australian service, also make representations at this Conference? If so, with whatresult?
Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer:

  1. The Australian Government was not directly represented at the meeting of the Far Eastern Shipping Conference held in Hong Kong between 7th and 9th October and it is not the practice of shipping lines to release details of Conference proceedings. 2 and 3. I understand that both the Australian National Line and the Flinders Shipping Co. participated in this Conference discussion and submitted a case for a share’ of the AustralianJapanese trade. Decisions on future shares of the trade are to be taken, it is believed, at a subsequent meeting.

page 2189

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 758)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

What is the total number of helicopters possessed by the Navy?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answer:

page 2189

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL RESERVES

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On Wednesday, 13th November 1968, Senator Keeffe asked me a question in the following terms:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I preface it by reminding the Minister that the Queensland Aboriginal and Island Affairs Department makes it extremely difficult for persons other than Government representatives to visit Aboriginal reserves in Queensland and this has now been extended to the non-availability of boats for transport between Thursday Island and Moa Island on 22nd November when a co-operative bakery is to be opened on the latter island. Will the Minister advise the Senate whether the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister responsible will take the appropriate action to ensure that a boat is made available for this very important occasion?

Senator Keeffe raised this matter again yesterday and I have now been advised by the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs in the following terms:

Inquiries have been made of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs which has advised that the portion of Moa Island where the co-operative bakery is situated is not under the control of that Department and persons wishing to visit there should communicate with the Anglican Church authorities at Thursday Island. It is not within the province of the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs or the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs to provide transport on the occasion of the opening of the bakery on Moa Island.

page 2189

QUESTION

POSTAL WORKERS CONFERENCE

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Earlier Senator Cohen asked me a question in relationto a Mr Joseph.

Senator Cohen:

– I asked it yesterday.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, and I gave an answer in part yesterday. I said I would give more details. The information supplied to me is that the nomination for a Colombo Plan training fellowship submitted by the Government of Ceylon for Mr H. W. Joseph gave no indication of his interest in union affairs or his own role in the Postal and Telecommunications Union of Ceylon. Mr Joseph did not inform the Department that he was the general secretary of the union. No invitation for him to attend the annual conference of the Australian Postal Workers Union was received by the Department. His request to attend the conference was therefore refused on training grounds only, in view of the fact that he would spend 2 months in Melbourne from 15th December 1968 to 17th February 1969. I have now been informed that the Postmaster-General sent a telegram to Mr Slater of the APWU yesterday saying that Mr Joseph could attend the conference if he wished, and Mr Joseph will attend the conference on Friday.

page 2189

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1968-69

Pursuant to leave granted by the Senate on 20th November, Senator Keeffe incorporated in Hansard questions that he asked during the consideration of Proposed Expenditure 1968-69, and the answers thereto since provided by Ministers.

Department of National Development

page 2189

DIVISION No. 392- NORTHERN DIVISION

All items - Information herewith. A specific question on item 04 of sub-division 2 was answered on 6th November but fuller information on this item is included.

Burdekin River Dam - Question answered 6th November.

page 2189

DIVISION No. 394- DIVISION OF NATIONAL MAPPING

page 2189

DIVISION No. 396- BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Statement (year 1967-68) has been published and will be tabled in Parliament shortly. The information on 1967-68 expenditure is included in a table in the Statement.

Expenditure in 1968-69 is estimated to be $8,000,000 against liabilities brought forward on 1st July, 1968 and $3,000,000 against new subsidy proposals to be approved in 1968-69 and expected to be completed prior to 30th June 1969 - a total of $11,000,000.

Item 01.- Travelling and subsistence- $30,000

This item provides funds for travelling, camping and meal allowances, rail, air and other fares, transfer expenses and allowances, allowances for the use of officers’ private vehicles for Departmental purposes, the hire of Commonwealth and other passenger vehicles and vehicles used during field operations, and allowances payable to officers who are unable to obtain suitable quarters (Public Service Regulations 96 and 97).

Details of the 1968-69 estimate compared with 1967-68 expenditure are:

page 2190

DIVISION No. 398- FORESTRY AND TIMBER BUREAU

page 2190

DIVISION No. 392- NORTHERN DIVISION

Under this sub-division provision is made for the administrative expenses of the Northern Division of the Department.

Travelling and camping allowances - $8,300

Field work by officers of the Northern Division involving camping is expected to be about half that for 1967-68, but more travelling will be undertaken in connection with wider responsibility given early in 1968 in the development of northern Australia; this will include increased travelling to and within the Northern Territory.

Fares- $18,200

Travelling in 1968-69 will involve longer trips and a resultant increase in expenditure on fares. In addition to Northern Territory visits, the Ord River project will be visited more frequently and trips to the Gascoyne watershed will be undertaken.

Vehicle and car hire - $2,600

Expenditure on the hire of vehicles for use in field operations will be less in 1968-69 but the wider responsibility of the Division will involve its officers in an increased usage of hired cars for travelling in rural and mining areas.

Meal allowances - $100

Expenditure is expected to continue at about the same rate as in 1967-68.

Regulation 97 allowance - $800

Only one officer of the Northern Division was receiving this allowance at the 30th June 1968 and provision has been made for payments to him at the rate of $15.40 a week to continue for the full year 1968/69.

Item 02. - Office requisites and equipment, stationery and printing- $3,700

This item provides for the purchase of general office stores and stationery, the purchase and hire of office machines and equipment, the purchase of text and reference books, subscriptions to newspapers and periodicals and the printing of stationery and forms.

A comparison between the estimate for 1968-69 and the expenditure in 1967-68 is:

Library- $600

Because of the additional responsibility of the Northern Division, expenditure on new text, reference and year books for the library is expected to increase.

Office requisites, etc.- $2,700

Expenditure on normal and special office supplies, stationery and printing is expected to continue at about the same rate as in 1967-68.

Item 03. - Postage, telegrams and telephone services $9,000

This item provides for postage and private box fees; telegrams, phonograms, cablegrams and registered telegraphic addresses; installation, extension, alteration and maintenance of telephone and teleprinter services, rental and call charges.

A comparison of the estimate for 1968-69 and expenditure in 1967-68 is:

The Central Office of the Department and the Northern Division are both located in Taxman House, Canberra. Expenditure under this item is made initially under Division 390-2-03 and a portion of it is allocated to Division 392-2-03.

It is expected that the amounts allocated to subitems of this item will be about the same as in 1967-68.

Item 04.- Contract investigations - $150,000

This item provides for investigations by consultants of projects which will contribute to the development of northern Australia.

The estimate for 1968-69 provides funds for a feasibility study of the development of port and harbour facilities in the Darwin (N.T.) region.

Relatively minor expenditure of this kind in 1967-68 was recorded under a sub-item of what is now Division 392-2-05 but the estimated expenditure in 1968-69 warrants the creation of a new item.

Item 05. - Incidental and other expenditure - $9,300 Provision is made under this item for administrative expenditure which is not included in other items of this sub-division.

A comparison of the 1968-69 estimate and 1967-68 expenditure is:

Freight and cartage- $450

Most of this expenditure is for freight on soil samples sent in by field parties and on documents by officers conducting field surveys. In 1968-69 officers of the Resources Data Branch and the Agricultural and Pastoral Section will work in areas more distant from Canberra than those visited in 1967-68.

Minor new works and repairs and maintenance - $50

Only minor work will need to be arranged as most of the alterations required to partitioning etc. in Tasman House will be carried out by the Department of Works with funds provided on the Current Works and the Repairs and Maintenance programmes.

Publications- $2,400

Because of the delay between the time an order is placed for the printing of a publication and the completion of the work (and the receipt of the account for payment), this sub-item is treated on a ‘programme’ basis. Estimated expenditure in 1968-69 has been calculated as follows:

At an appropriate time Treasury approval to incur liabilities in excess of appropriation will be sought.

Another booklet dealing with the Ord River project may be required. Reports on regional surveys carried out by the Northern Division will be published but initiallythey will be produced within the Department. It may be desirable that at least some of these reports be printed. Should these matters eventuate, an application will be made to Treasury for additional funds in 1968-69 for commitment and expenditure.

Aerial photographs and pholomosaics - $1,000

New areas of interest to the Northern Division will be surveyed during1968-69 and expenditure on aerial photographs or photomosaics is estimated to be about $1,000.

Purchase of maps- $200

This sub-item provides funds for additions to the map library established within the Northern Division. New maps are obtained from the appropriate authorities as they become available. Many of the maps to be purchased in 1968-69 will be of areas of Western Australia.

Motor vehicle repairs and running costs - $4,000 Running expenses of light vehicles on shortterm hire, and the modification, running expenses, maintenance and running repair of vehicles on long-term hire used by the Division’s field parties are provided under this sub-item. The hire of the vehicles is provided in a sub-item of Division 392-2-01.

Expenditure on vehicles used by field parties is expected to decrease in 1968-69 but, because of wider responsibilities of the Northern Division, expenditure on vehicles on short-term hire is expected to increase.

Stores materials and minor equipment - $600

This sub-item provides for the purchase or replacement of minor items of field and camping equipment and miscellaneous chemicals and other consumable stores used mainly by field parties; purchases are limited to items of a unit cost not exceeding $6.00. As there will be less field party activity in 1968-69 expenditure should decrease.

Miscellaneous - $600

This sub-item provides for sundry other (mainly minor) expenditure. Some charges against it in 1967-68 will now normally be met from Division 392-2-04.

DIVISION No. 392- NORTHERN DIVISION 3.- Other Services- $186,000

Provision is made under this sub-division for expenditure which arises from the Northern Division’s responsibilities but which is distinct from its running costs.

The Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia have agreed to provide up to $372,000 a year, by equal annual contributions, to meet the capital and operational expenditure of the Kimberley Research Station. In addition each Government agreed to meet the salaries, including overtime and living subsidies where applicable, of its salaried personnel. The current agreement is for a period of five years commencing in 1968-69.

This item provides the Commonwealth contribution.

The annual budget for the Station is prepared by the Supervisory Committee of Commonwealth (C.S.I.R.O. and Northern Division) and State officers. It requires the approval of the Kimberley Research Station Policy Committee which is composed of more senior Commonwealth and State officers.

The new budget provides funds for 11 research scientists and their support staff to work in the fields of cotton breeding, cotton agronomy, sorghum, winter cereals, rice, miscellaneous crops, soil chemistry, animal nutrition (irrigated crops and pastures), animal husbandry, entomology, and an officer-in-charge.

In addition to expenditure on Administrative expenses and other services, the Northern Division also carries responsibilities under the State Grants (Beef Roads) Act (No. 44 of 1968) and Western Australia - Ord River Irrigation Act (No. 50 of 1968). These special appropriations are under the control of the Department of the Treasury and estimates for them are shown at pages 27 and 28 of the document ‘Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, ‘1969’. The Division also assisted with investigations which led ultimately to the introduction or the extension of the Queensland - Brigalow Lands Development Act 1962-67 and the Queensland Grant - Maraboon Dam Act (No. 35 of 1968) (ibid).

DIVISION No. 394- DIVISION OF NATIONAL MAPPING

  1. – Administrative Expenses

Item 09 - Contract Mapping - 8640,000

This item provides for contracts to private enterprise for some of the basic investigations and processes of map compilation - for example the astronomical determinations of latitude and longitude and the photo-identification of selected points, airborne profile recording, third order levelling for height control, the preparation of template assemblies, etc.

page 2194

DIVISION No. 396- BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Item 07 - Aircraft - Maintenance and running expenses - $105,000

Provision is made under this item for the modification, repair, maintenance, overhaul, registration, licensing andcrewing of aircraft owned by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and for the purchase of fuel, oil, lubricants, stores and spare parts required for their operation and servicing.

Two aircraft are operated by the Bureau - a DC3 (VH-MIN) and an Aerocommander (VHBMR). Crews are provided by T.A.A. who also service the machines and either carry out or supervise the periodical overhauls and any repairs that are necessary.

A comparison of the 1968-69 estimate and 1967-68 expenditure is:

A Cessna aircraft (VH-GEO) was withdrawn from service and offered for sale after the new Aerocommander (VH-BMR) was delivered. Operating costs of VH-BMR will be about double those of VH-GEO, but during 1968-69 the aircraft will be operating for shorter periods than in 1967-68-

Expenditure in 1968-69 is estimated to be:

The estimates for this item are based on the rates operating as at 30 June 1968 in the contract with T.A.A.

page 2194

DIVISION No. 396- BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES

Item 09 - Contract investigations- $1,300,000

Under this item, provision is made for soma work which is carried out for the Bureau by competent outside contractors; included are the hire of computer time, contract draughting, scientific investigations and analyses, rotary drilling and coring, auger drilling and hire of aircraft (fixed wing and helicopters). The work provided for under this item is in addition to that carried out by the Bureau with its own staff; where necessary a member of the Bureau’s staff is located on site to supervise and direct the work done by contractors.

The estimated expenditure in 1968-69 has been calculated as follows:

Estimated expenditure against liabilities brought Forward on 1 July 1968 and new contracts to be let in 1968-69 is:

A summary of new contracts to be let in 1968- 69 is attached.

page 2195

DIVISION No. 398 - FORESTRY AND TIMBER BUREAU

Item 09 - Purchase of seeds for sale- 912,000

Provision is made for the purchase of seeds from Forest Services and other agencies in the States for resale pursuant to the Bureau’s function as a clearing house for orders from overseas countries for seeds of eucalyptus and other Australian forest tree species. Seeds of Australian and exotic species are also purchased under this item for research purposes; prior to 1968-69 they were provided under a sub-item of Division 398-2-06.

It is expected that seeds purchased in 1968-69 will cost $12,000.

Proceeds from the sale of seeds are credited to the miscellaneous revenue of the Department.

page 2195

DIVISION No. 398- FORESTRY AND TIMBER BUREAU

Sirex noctilio was first found in Tasmania in 1952, but remained undetected in Victoria till December 1961. It has not been found in any other States or in Commonwealth Territories, although all pine plantations are closely watched for signs of infestation.

In Tasmania, Sirex has spread to virtually all areas of the State where pine plantings exist. In Victoria, Sirex, which was originally found in an area north east of and close to Melbourne and in Gippsland, has now been locatedin a wide area south of the Dividing Range, stretching to Ballan, Bacchus Marsh and Bannockburn in the west, Sale in the east, and the sea coast in the south.

The actual cost to the Australian Timber Industry in terms of trees destroyed and in carrying out quarantine measures has been small. The cost of research and survey and control work on Sirex has, however, been very small compared to the potential damage to plantations and loss to the industry which might have occurred in the absence of control measures.

In Victoria, survey and control teams administered’ by the. Forests Commission and financed from the Sirex Fund have since 1962. searched all pine plantations and individual farm trees for Sirex. They have accurately located and mapped the extent of Sirex infestation, and by felling and burning infested trees, have controlled its spread. This mechanical control (by felling and burning) is continuing, pending the establishment of insect parasites of the Sirex wasp which are expected to bring the wasp under control. The survey teams are keeping close watch on plantations and individual trees around the perimeter of the infested area.

In Tasmania, where it was considered that Sirex had become more firmly established than in Victoria, biological control of Sirex - by breeding and releasing Sirex parasites- has been the main instrument of control. Two insect parasites of Sirex were introduced into Tasmania between 1957 and 1960 by the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture and Forestry Commission. These introductions have been most valuable in establishing control of Sirex.

Quarantine measures administered by the Department of Health Plant Quarantine Division and enforced by that Department’s Inspectors in Tasmania, and by Inspectors employed under the National Sirex Fund in Victoria, include:

Plant Quarantine inspectors keep a vigilant look out at the ports for Sirex in imported coniferous timber, and have in many cases ordered fumigation of consignments of imported timber.

The long-term effective control of Sirex depends on the successful establishment of parasites of Sirex in Australia. This work has, since 1962, been under the control of the C.S.l.R.O. Division of Entomology, which has instituted a virtually world wide search for parasites of Sirex, other than those introduced between 1957 and 1960 into Tasmania, and has located a dozen other possibly suitable insects and other forms of parasite. Some of these have been tested and have been released, others are still under investigation. The Victorian Forests Commission has for some years bred the two parasites introduced previously into Tasmania, and has released them in large numbers.

Much other fundamental research work into the physiology of Sirex attack is being carried out by Regional Stations of the Forestry and Timber Bureau in Tasmania and Gippsland, by the C.S.l.R.O. Division of Entomology and by the Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Adelaide.

Recent reports of the National Sirex Fund Committee express optimism that the control measures instituted and the research work done have already resulted in substantial control of the pest, and indicate that if research already in progress is carried through to completion, the pest will finally be controlled.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Submarine for Sea-bed Study

A deep-sea submersible research vessel will be used from December to April in a joint AustralianJapanese study of the sea-bed off Northern Australia and along the Great Barrier Reef.

Announcing this today, the Minister for National Development, Mr Fairbairn, said the Japanese submersible the ‘Yomiuri’. would be brought to Australia for the project.

Australia will pay part of the operating costs, and will share scientific data, in what will be a unique study of the Australian sea-bed’, Mr Fairbairn said.

The Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department is drawing up a joint programme of research with the Japanese scientists who will accompany the submersible to Australia.

A team from the Bureau will use the “Yomiuri” for a programme of basic research on the geology of the Continental Shelf.

It will also study the structure of the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

In addition, it will provide the opportunity for eleven other Australian scientists to conduct individual research projects including studies of seabed sediments, the biology of life on and near the Reef and the Crown of Thorns pest’, Mr Fairbairn said.

The Bureau of Mineral Resources and the group of Australian scientists will have the use of the Yomiuri’ for one month each, while the Japanese scientific team will conduct research and photography in Australian waters for a further two months.

The “Yomiuri”, owned by a Japanese newspaper of the same name, will be towed to Australia by its mother-ship, the “Yamato”.

It will be the first time the Japanese submersible, built in 1964, has operated in overseas waters.

The research programme will be conducted in the Arafura Sea, Torres Strait and the Great Barrier Reef area.

During the Barrier Reef studies, the “Yomiuri” and its mother-ship will operate out of Townsville and Gladstone.

All the information obtained by Australian and Japanese scientists will be shared, and published’, Mr Fairbairn said.

Australia is delighted to have this opportunity to share in a first-class example of international scientific co-operation, and to have the use of such advanced equipment as the “Yomiuri” ‘, Mr Fairbairn said.

The ‘Yamato’ is expected to take thirty days to tow the ‘Yomiuri’ from Japan to Australia, and is expected to arrive in Darwin on December 20th.

The studies of the Great Barrier Reef area are expected to begin in the first week of January.

Notes on Deep-sea Submersible, ‘Yomiuri’

The submersible, or bathyscaphe, displaces 35 tons, and is about 45 feet long.

It can reach depths approaching 900 feet.

The ‘Yomiuri’ has a conventional diesel-electric power-plant, and a battery-driven screw for underwater travelling. Submerged, it has a speed of about two knots.

It operates independently of the mother-ship, and normally remains submerged for about four hours at a time. Its endurance in emergency is 60 hours.

The submersible carries a crew of four and two scientific observers on each descent.

There are seven observation ports, and external grasping equipment in the form of a mechanical hand which is capable of picking up rocks and other specimens, or catching fish.

Since it was delivered in July 1964 the submersible has made some 350 dives, totalling more than 1,000 hours of under-sea research.

In August 1964 the ‘Yomiuri’ made a one-hour direct telecast from 150 feet down in waters near Tokyo.

The programme was transmitted live to Japanese homes on the commercial television network of Nippon Television Network Corporation, a sister-company of the newspaper which owns the submersible.

Petroleum Search Subsidy Approvals

During May, this year, the Minister for National

Development (Mr D. E. Fairbairn) approved seven applications for subsidy under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-67.

The seven subsidies, two for geophysical surveys and five for drilling operations, total $1,436,681.

Five applications for additional subsidy approved by Mr Fairbairn in May total $118,530 taking the total incurred or committed under the Petroleum

Search Subsidy Acts to $78,381,166

Details:

Petroleum Search Subsidies now Exceed $77 Million

The Minister for National Development (Mr David Fairbairn) during April approved petroleum search subsidies totalling $1,161,152.

This took the total approved under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act (1959-67) to $77,045 million.

Details of the April approvals:

Canberra, 24th May, 1968

Petroleum Search Subsidies Now Exceed$75m

The Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) during February and March approved petroleum search subsidies totalling $1,510,207.

This took the total approved under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act . (1959-67) to $75.7m.

Details of February approvals.

Canberra 15th May 1968.

Petroleum Search Subsidies

Up to January 31 last the Federal Government had paid out or committed a total of $74.4 in oil search subsidies, the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) said today.

Mr Fairbairn released details of five new subsidies and two additional subsidies he approved in January under the provisions of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-67.

Canberra 18th March 1968

Timor Sea Drilling in Petroleum Subsidy List During November 1967, eleven (11) applications for subsidy under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act’ 1959-67 were approved. Five (5) were for geophysical surveys and six (6) were for drilling operations. These include the first wells drilled offshore from Australia in the Timor Sea and the South Pacific Ocean.

Ashmore Reef No. 1 well is being drilled at Ashmore Reef, Northern Territory to 12,500 feet for B.O.C. of Australia Limited, the maximum subsidy payable not, to. exceed $844,531. Australian Gulf Oil Company is drilling Capricorn No. 1 well, 125 miles east-north-east of Rockhampton to 10,000 feet and subsidy up to $478,984 is approved for this operation.

Esso Exploration and Production Australia Inc. has drilled Crayfish A-l, the first well to be subsidised off-shore from South Australia. Maximum subsidy payable for this operation is not to exceed $604,750.

The large U.S. owned company, Amoco Australia Exploration Company has commenced exploration for petroleum in Australia, its first operation, Towerhill A-l, in Queensland having been approved for a maximum amount of subsidy of $59,990.

Details of approved operations including those mentioned above are:

As a result of these approvals, the total expenditure incurred or committed under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Acts to 30th November 1967, is $72.6 million.

Canberra 16th January 1968

Offshore Well Receives $622,835 in Subsidy

Federal Government financial assistance for oil search now exceeds $70m. In October the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) approved 13 subsidies totalling $1,568,931, and this took the total assistance since 1957 under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act to $70.1 m.

Of the subsidies approved in October, 10 were for geophysical surveys and three were for drilling. The largest amount approved was $662,835 as subsidy to Shell Development (Australia) Proprietary Limited for Voluta No. 1 stratigraphic well located six miles offshore from Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, in the Otway Basin. Originally programmed to 10,500 feet, it has been abandoned at a total depth of 13,037 feet.

Bancannia South No. 1 stratigraphic well is being drilled in the far west of New South Wales, 60 miles north-east of Broken Hill, for the Planet Oil Company N.L. It was approved for maximum subsidy of $168,017. The only other new drilling operation approved in October was Bodalla No. 1 (test), Queensland, for B.P. Petroleum Development Australia Pty Ltd, for which the maximum subsidy approved was $103,450.

Esso Exploration and Production Australia Inc. are engaged in considerable marine seismic work. Under a second extension of the Otway Marine Seismic Survey offshore from South Australia,

Victoria and Tasmania, additionalsubsidy not to exceed $61,152 was approved on this company’s application. This brought the maximum subsidy payable for the whole operation to $360,183. A maximum subsidy of $194,035 was approved on a new application by the same company for a marine seismic and magnetic survey in the offshore area of the Otway Basin, south of the previously mentioned area. It also received approval in October for a marine seismic survey offshore Gippsland, the objectives of which were to continue a programme of structure evaluation of a relatively unknown area on the southern flank of the Gippsland Basin.

Also approved during October was an extension to the McLarty seismic and gravity survey in the Canning Basin, Western Australia, which the French Petroleum Company (Australia) Pty Ltd holds on an agreement with West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd. The objectives of the extension are to continue reconnaissance work on the eastern side and to investigate two structural features suggested by previous work during this survey. The additional subsidy is not to exceed $30,096, bringing the total for the whole operation to a maximum subsidy of $229,746.

Other details were:

Additional Subsidy -

The other applications for additional subsidy approved were:

Canberra 5th January 1968

More than 1,000 Petroleum Search Subsidy Agreements Since Scheme Began

Since the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act came into operation in 1957, the Commonwealth has entered into more than 1,000 subsidy agreements, involving payment of almost$68.6m in subsidies. Besides Australian companies, those participating in. the subsidy payments have been American, Canadian, French and German companies.

The Minister for National Development, Mr David Fairbairn, gave these facts when reviewing the first 10 years’ operation of the Petroleum Search Legislation.

He said 29 were supplemental agreements and the rest were for new operations covering every State and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Of operations approved to the end of September 1967, most - namely 208 drilling and 181 geophysical - were carried out in Queensland. These involved payments of $23.2m.

The rest of the States and Territories followed in this order:

Western Australia - 52 drilling and 140 geophysical, $16.6m.

New South Wales- 46 drilling and 80 geophysical, $4.2m.

Northern Territory- 22 drilling and 79 geophysical, $5.9m.

South Australia - 35 drilling and 45 geophysical, $6.3m.

Victoria - 26 drilling and 38 geophysical, $5. 3m.

Territory of Papua and New Guinea - 11 drilling and 18 geophysical, $5.6m.

Tasmania - 3 drilling and 7 geophysical, $1.5m.

As a result of these subsidised operations, commercial oil and gas fields have been developed in the Moonie, Alton and Roma areas of Queensland, Barrow Island in Western Australia, on the Continental shelf off-shore from the Gippsland region of Victoria, and in the Gidgealpa-Moomba area of South Australia.

Exploration is being carried out in all the sedimentary basins in the Commonwealth and exploration of the Continental Shelf has now become prominent. At present, extensive seismic surveys are being carried out over the shelf and five offshore rigs are drilling off Papua, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Another rig will be drilling off-shore from Queensland in November.

Subsidy Approvals for September - Two applications for subsidy under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act were approved during September - one for a geophysical survey and one for a drill- ing operation; two applications for additional subsidy were also approved.

Details are:

The survey area is in titles held by Associated Australian ‘ Oilfields NX. and Associated Continental Petroleum N.L. and is located off-shore on the eastern edge of the Bonaparte Basin.

The survey began on 21st August. Its objects are to locate structural developments in the Cape Hay and Keep Inlet areas.

Canberra, 9th November 1967

Petroleum Search Applications Exceed$1. 6m In Month

Applications for petroleum search subsidy approved for July by the Minister for National Development, Mr David Fairbairn, show a continuing interest in off-shore exploration.

There were 15 new approvals - 13 for geophysical surveys and two for drilling operations. Four extensions of previously approved applications were also listed. The newly approved surveys include three marine seismic surveys in the northern part of Australia and one of the two drilling operations is off-shore from Victoria.

A marine seismic survey to be carried out by Arco Ltd in the Sahul Rise area heads the list. The maximum amount of subsidy approved is $700,252. This area occupies part of the Continental ‘Shelf, north-west of Australia. It is held jointly by Arco Ltd and Australian Aquitaine Petroleum Ltd.

Arco Limited is also carrying out a marine seismic survey as a follow up detailing operation in the Lesueur area in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, in the north of Australia, for which the approved maximum amount of subsidy is $33,067.

In drilling operations, the application of Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd, for its Nerita No. 1 test well off-shore from Anglesea, Victoria, was approved, the maximum amount of subsidy being $306,494. This well was abandoned at 6,700 feet.

An operation approved for subsidy in the Trust Territory of New Guinea is an aeromagnetic survey in the Sepik district carried out by Australian Aquitaine Petroleum Pty Ltd. The maximum amount of subsidy is $8,509.

The approvals for the month amounted to $1,685,635 and brought the total expenditure incurred or committed under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Scheme to $66.7m up to 31st July.

Details of approved operations including those mentioned above are:

Four (4) applications for additionalsubsidy were approved during July 1967. They were:

Canberra, 28th September 1967

Department of the Interior

Question- Division 368/2/06- Rent - I refer to the appropriation for rent under Division 368. This year’s appropriation of $154,000 represents a considerable increase over the expenditure last year of less than $139,000. … 1 would like to know on what type of premises the allocation for rent is paid.

Answer - The Northern Territory Administration rents buildings for all Departments except the Postmaster-General’s Department, Departmental Business Undertakings operated through a trust account and statutory authorities.

The allocation covers the rental for buildings used mainly for office accommodation. Minor payments of rent are made also for a library, police station and stock inspector’s residence.

Question - Division 368/2/07 - Incidental - and Other Expenditure - The appropriation for incidental and other expenditure this year represents a decrease of about $7,000 on the expenditure last year. I would like to know what is the breakdown of the incidental and other expenditure.

Answer - The items provided for under this heading in 1968-69 are:

Question: Division 368/3 - What allocations will be made by the new Department dealing with Aboriginal Affairs towards the welfare of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory.

Answer - The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has announced that $5 million will be available this year for special education, health and housing programmes in the States and in the Northern Territory. Of this amount $1 million has been set aside for a special programme in the Northern Territory.In addition $5 million has been set aside for financial assistance to Aboriginalowned enterprises throughout Australia and applications for assistance ‘ from this fund will be received from residents qf the Northern Territory. $16,500 has already been approved for assistance to Aboriginals engaged iri, mining at Yuendumu.

Question - Division ‘ 368/3/01 - Maintenance of Aboriginals at Government ‘ Settlements - This year’s appropriation for the maintenance of Aboriginals at Government settlements is $1,800,000. Would the Minister obtain for me the details of the number of people to whom that sum of money will be applied and whether it includes provision for the building, if possible, of a better class of accommodation for the Aboriginals on the Government settlements? :

Answer - Proposed expenditure under Item 368/3/01 is for the maintenance of approximately 5,800 Aboriginals who live on Governmentadministered settlements, depots and outstations. No additional housing will be provided from these funds which are principally for food, clothing and allowances paid to Aboriginals and other costs of conducting the settlements.; There is already provision elsewhere in the estimates for expenditure to erect 39 new houses on settlements, and for the conversion of .34 existing houses to an improved standard. Tn addition, it is proposed that a substantial part of the Sim allocated for the special development programme for Aboriginal welfare will be devoted to, the construction of new houses for Aboriginals.. The estimates also provide for capital grants this financial year totalling $274,000 approximately to missions for Aboriginal housing.

Question - Division 368/3/02 - Maintenance of Aboriginals on Pastoral Properties- This year’s appropriation for the maintenance of Aboriginals on pastoral properties’ represents a decrease on the expenditure last year. Could. I have the complete details of. how that money is allocated, and if possible, the number of pastoral properties and the names of the pastoral property owners who are receiving these handouts , .from Commonwealth funds?

Answer - The Government has hitherto met half the costs of maintenance of the first child of an Aboriginal employee and the other costs of maintaining his family which would reduce the employee’s cash in hand below a prescribed minimum. It is estimated that expenditure in this regard in 1968-69 will amount to $192,000. These payments will cease in respect of Aboriginal employees who will be receiving award wages under the new pastoral award which comes into operation on 1st December 1968. In addition the Commonwealth, as part of its responsibility for the maintenance of health standards in respect of Aboriginals on pastoral properties, pays a subsidy to pastoralists where qualified nursing sisters and Aboriginal nursing assistants are employed. These subsidies are estimated to cost $28,000 in 1968- 69. A list of the pastoralists to whom these payments will be made is set out below.

There are 49 pastoral properties receiving assistance under 368/3/02, and details of station owners are as follows:

Question-Division 368/3/03 - Assistance to Missions -I ask a similar question (to the one asked on Aboriginals on pastoral properties) in relation to this year’s appropriation for assistance to missions, which shows a decrease of $36,000 on the appropriation for last year but an increase of about $20,000 over the expenditure last year. Could I have a breakdown of that appropriation?

Answer - The breakdown of the appropriation is as follows:

Question - Division 369/3/04 - Educational Services- The appropriation for educational services always confuses me . . . Perhaps this year the Minister will be able to find out what it represents and to which people or organisations this money is paid.

Answer - Item 368/3/04 provides for expenditure on the equipment of Aboriginal special schools which are conducted by the Government, by missions and by pastoral managements, for incidental expenses in the education of Aboriginal children and the conduct of training courses for post-school Aboriginals. The item does not include provision for salaries and allowances for teachers or capital expenditure. The breakdown of the item is:

Question - Division 368/4/07 - Transport of Stud Stock to the Northern Territory - Subsidy - I refer now to the subsidy for the transport of stud stock to the Northern Territory . . . Perhaps the Minister could obtain some information concerning that subsidy. The amount is only $50,000. Last year the appropriation was overspent by $19,688. Could we have an explanation of that over-expenditure?

Answer - The scheme to subsidise freight costs incurred on the carriage to the Northern Territory of good quality livestock for breeding purposes was introduced in 1936. The main purpose of the scheme is to stimulate productivity in the Territory’s cattle industry by genetic improvement of cattle herds. It is difficult to predict with accuracy the requirement for a financial year because the amount of subsidy payable depends on purchase price, place of purchase and mode of transport; these factors are not known until claims are received. Estimating is made more difficult still when delays of many months occur after stock movement before claims are submitted to the Administration for payment. The scheme was most important in the early post-war years in the rapid development of the Alice Springs District. More recently there has been considerable interest in upgrading cattle herds in other parts of the Territory, particularly the introduction of tropical breeds. The scheme has enabled property owners to maintain vigour and productivity of their herds by introducing new blood. In 1967-68 $79,688 was expended meeting claims for subsidy. Individual landholders are still interested in this scheme.

Question- Division 368/4/15- Town Services Outside Darwin - Could we be given an explanation of how the appropriation for town services outside Darwin is spent and in what areas it is spent?Is it fairly widely spread or is it spread over only a couple of the major centres?

Answer - This appropriation provides funds to meet expenditures on providing municipal services such as sanitary and garbage services, the wages of employees engaged in providing such services, the cost of operating vehicles’ and cemetery maintenance in towns outside Darwin. The information sought is as follows:

Question- Division 368/4/19 - Official Residences - Upkeep- Under Division 368, provision is made for the upkeep of official residences. How many residences come’ within this category, where are they situated and how many of them are occupied by Aboriginals?.

Answer - There are two’official residences’ in the Northern Territory viz. Government House, Darwin, which is the residence of the Administrator and the Residency, Alice Springs, which is provided for the use of the District Officer, Alice Springs.

Question - Division 368/4/20 - Darwin - Mosquito Control - Provisionis made for mosquito control in Darwin. Last year the appropriation was $34,000, of which about $23,000 was expended. The proposed appropriation this year is $25,000. May we have some information as to the area of the Northern Territory in which this money is expended? . . . How many cases of malaria and other mosquito-carried diseases were reported last year? Perhaps the Minister might take this opportunity to examine this subject and give us these details.

Answer - The Administration, in conjunction with the Department of Health, Service Departments and the Darwin City Council undertakes a programme aimed at eliminating mosquito breeding in and around Darwin. Control measures include clearing mangrove areas, maintenance of stormwater drains and insecticidal control. Machine fogging by the Administration is complemented by control measures carried out by the City Council, the R.A.A.F. and the Army. These organisations also possess fogging machines. The question relating to the number of cases of malaria and other mosquito-carried diseases relates to the responsibilities of the Minister for Health and has been referred to him for reply.

Question - Division 368/4/22 - Prisons - Maintenance - Item 22 . . . relates to the maintenance of prisons. An increase of $10,000 is proposed in the appropriation, which was slightly underspent last year … If there are to be some improvements we might have details of them.

Answer - This item covers only the maintenance cost of prisons in the Territory, the equipment of the prisons and the upkeep of prisoners. The estimates elsewhere include provision for improvement to facilities at the Fannie Bay gaol, including an additional ablution block and extensions to the kitchen/dining room. There is no segregation of prisoners on racial grounds. All prisoners sentenced to more than seven days imprisonment are required to be sent to prisons at Darwin or Alice Springs. Prisoners sentenced to less than seven days may be detained in police prisons at Tennant Creek, Katherine and Roper River.

Question - Division 368/4/27 - Railway Freight Subsidies - Provision is made, in Item 27 for railway freight subsidies. There is a slight decrease in the proposed appropriation in comparison with what was actually expended of the allocation last year. May we have details of the type of goods on which subsidy is paid?

Answer - Provision of these funds is made on the basis of estimates supplied by the Commonwealth Railways. A rebate may be paid, on application, on all goods (other than those listed below) consigned to townships, pastoral holdings and other localities in the Northern Territory, situated 150 miles and over from the nearest railway station. The rebate is as follows;

The rebate is not allowed on:

  1. Goods for Government Departments or employees of Government Departments,
  2. Goods consigned to general carriers,
  3. Goods consigned to persons or firms having business interests both within and beyond the 150 miles boundary, unless goods intended for destinations beyond the 150 miles boundary are consigned under a different title to those intended for destinations within the 150 miles boundary, and both titles are nominated by the customer at the time application is made for rebate to be allowed when goods are consigned,
  4. Private motor cars conveyed at the ‘accompanied’ (concession) freight rate,
  5. Livestock, (0 Motor spirit, fuel, oil and kerosene carried in bulk tank cars (except as specially approved),
  6. Fencing wire, barbed wire, wire netting and fencing materials carried to Alice Springs at the special concession rate of half ordinary goods rates,
  7. Perishable traffic conveyed in ice-charged transportable containers,

  8. Parcels traffic,

    1. Traffic, of any nature, despatched from the Northern Territory.

Question- Division 368/4/28 - Coastal Shipping Service - Subsidy - Subsidy for the coastal shipping service. The appropriation last year was $44,000 of which $38,650 was expended. This year the proposed appropriation is $24,000.

Answer - This subsidy is paid following the calling of tenders for the extension of a shipping service between Brisbane and Queensland ports to ports on the east coast of the Northern Territory. The ports concerned are Melville Bay, Umbakumba, Groote Eylandt, Roper River, Roper Bar, Rose River and Vanderlin Island. The subsidy is not paid on the basis of type of goods carried.

Question- Division 368/4/29- Bushfire Control - The provision for bushfire control is somewhat confusing.

Answer - Bushfire control in the Northern Territory is the responsibility of the Bush Fire Council set up under the provisions of an Ordinance relating to the Prevention and Control of Bushfires. The provision is to meet expenditure on the expenses of the Council, advertising, publicity, roadside notices, fire places, extension work, firebreak construction and control of wildfires. Expenditure in any year depends to some extent on the number of bushfires.

Question - Division 368/4/34 - Drought Relief - Freight Concessions Special Assistance - Flood Damage - Last year there was an expenditure of $1,700 for special assistance in relation to flood damage, and an appropriation of $50,000 for drought relief by way of a freight subsidy. The year before last I complained very bitterly in this chamber about the drought relief that was given by way of supply of grain and hay, which I think worked out at about two feeds per head of the cattle population for the year, taking into consideration only the drought afflicted area.

Answer - Expenditure of $1,700 was incurred in 1967-68 on special assistance to the Darwin City Council by way of dollar-for-dollar subsidy to repair damage caused by heavy storms to Bagot Road. In 1966 provision was made for a freight concession of 50% of the transport costs incurred in restocking properties in drought affected areas of the Northern Territory with breeding cattle. The scheme was to operate for 1 year. The shortage of breeding cattle made it difficult for pastoralists to obtain breeders at reasonable prices. The freight concession was extended, therefore, in restricted areas to June 1968. Expenditure in 1967-68 amounted to $49,906 and $10,000 has been provided in 1968-69 to meet claims expected to be submitted in this financial year in respect of transport costs incurred under the scheme.

Question - The final item under this heading to which I wish to refer is the contribution to the operational expenses of Commonwealth Hostels Limited. Last year the appropriation was underspent by almost 50%. No appropriation is proposed for this year. What happened? Did the Administration get rid of the hostel or is it now a paying proposition?

Answer- This item provided for loss on operations of Abbot House Hostel, Darwin, by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. This hostel was closed on 21 October 1967 and no further Commonwealth contribution is therefore necessary.

Question - For the Minister’s information, let me refer to paragraph 18 on page 3 (Notes for the 1968 Budget Debate). Reference is made to joint ventures in fishing activities. The document reads Three of the companies are joint ventures involving the use of foreign ships and foreign crews for periods not exceeding 5 years’. The following paragraph states that three companies have been given opportunities to select sites for shore processing plants on specified parts of the Northern Territory coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria. I was always under the impression mat this area, or a great proportion of it, was an Aboriginal reserve. Does this mean that only those companies which incorporate Japanese in their structure will be allowed to carry out business in normal tribal reserves?

Answer - The joint ventures will be based at Darwin only and are required to construct their shore processing plants at Darwin only. The other three companies which are to establish shore processing plants on the Northern Territory coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria from sites to be made available by the Administrator are Australian companies involving only Australian vessels and crews. As their shore processing plants could be on or near Aboriginal reserves there are special conditions of agreement with these companies which restrict and control their activities to ensure the protection of the Aboriginals and to simultaneously provide the Aboriginals with maximum opportunities to participate in the new prawning industry, including the development by Aboriginals of their own enterprises.

Question- Paragraph 25 of the explanatory notes reads: ‘Facilities to mine and ship 200,000 tons of ore per annum were commissioned in 1966’. This item refers to Groote Eylandt. Some considerable time ago I asked what was the possibility of establishing some sort of medical facilities in this very isolated area, to provide for a doctor within reasonable call if not established on the island. … Is the Department to take a humane outlook in relation to these isolated areas where it is not physically possible to bring in a doctor in an emergency? The Government is prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars in assisting mining ventures by way of subsidy, cheap land and cheap services. It ought to be able to spend a few thousand dollars in providing medical treatment in these isolated areas for the benefit of the unfortunate people who are compelled to work remote from medical services and civilised services generally.

Answer - This matter comes within the responsibilities of the Minister for Health and has been referred to him for reply.

Question - The explanatory notes state in paragraph 44: ‘To date the Northern Territory has been a net importer of timber products with local production meeting less than 25% of the Territory’s requirements’. . . The Government talks about providing training and employment for Aboriginals on reserves. I should like to know how many Aboriginals are employed on forestry reserves in the Northern Territory. What is their rate of wages and with what type of accommodation are they provided. How does the Administration propose to spend the appropriation for forestry in the current financial year? In what way is it intended to develop forestry services? I notice that there is a tremendous suggestion that the Administration is to develop cypress pine plantations to a level of 1,000 acres per annum during the current financial year. . . My information is that this area will not reach 500 acres. If I am wrong, I should like this to be corrected.

Answer- Most of the readily accessible standing forests were cut prior to and during the 1939- 45 war, and were not replaced.

The substantial timber resources remaining occur in more remote localities, and at this stage it is more economic to import sawn timber to the major centres. As new activities (e.g. mining) open up in remote localities, it may prove economic to utilize local timbers from these areas.

In the meantime, steps are being taken under the current forestry programme to establish commercial stands of timber at strategic locations by softwood plantings and also to upgrade and protect existing native forest resources to meet future requirements. At the moment no wood chips are being exported from the Northern Territory.

A number of development proposals is under investigation, and the actual price that may be obtained for any future wood chip exports will be established by negotiation. Senators will no doubt be aware of the recent decision to control the export of forest products, such as wood chips, announced by the Minister for National Development. The aim of control by the Government is to ensure that an adequate price is received for the wood chips and that a reasonable degree of processing will be undertaken in Australia.

The appropriation for Forestry Operational Expenses for 1968-69 is allocated as follows:

The forestry projects provided for under subitems 1 to 4 include -

Nursery productions

Plantation establishment, preparation and maintenance

Road construction and maintenance

Logging

Firefighting

Timber Stand Improvement

Enrichment Planting

Operations under sub-item 7 include functions similar to a State Forest Service such as -

Administration of the Forestry Ordinance and Bush Fires Ordinance

Utilisation and promotion of local industry

Resources (Assessment Surveys)

Investigation of Arid Zone problems

Training in forestry techniques (including Mission personnel)

Applied research

Softwood plantings under the approved fouryear forestry programme which commenced in 1966-67 were as follows - 1966- 67 - Approved programme 350 acres -

Planted: 439 acres cypress pine; 25 acres tropical pines

Survival: 95% 1967- 68 - Approved programme 750 acres -

Planted: 775 acres cypress pine; 3 acres tropical pines

Survival: 98%

The proposed level of planting of cypress pine for 1968-69 (1,000 acres) is expected to be achieved.

The main ways in which forestry services are being developed under the current four-year programme are by: increasing the rate of assessment surveys of native forest resources to determine timber types and volumes, continuation of classification of existing forests into:

  1. forests for intensive management (if accessible, high quality of cypress pine in economic localities)

    1. forests for extensive management commencing arid zone investigations, conservation measures such as:
    2. protecting existing forests and plantation areas from fire
    3. conducting timber stand improvement (e.g. thinning) enrichment planting of native forests, increasing the planting programme to 1,000 acres per annum (to include exotic tree species), increasing local production and promoting use of local species by:
    4. licensing of sawmills
    5. control of timber utilisation
    6. systematic logging for Welfare Branch requirements
    7. preparing and letting tenders for licences to private enterprise training of Aboriginals in forestry work as described above to be intensified, maintaining maximum employment for Aboriginals.

The number of Aboriginals employed on forestry projects varies but 85 positions are provided for, and the number occupying these positions as at 8th November 1968 was 65. Wages are paid in accordance with the Public Service Board Determination of 1961 for wages staff of the Northern Territory Administration. Forestry work is spread over 6 centres and housing is provided for workers at 4 of these areas. Housing is now being built for forestry workers at Murganella but at present Aboriginal workers there and at Gove are accommodated in camps and receive the special camping allowance.

Question - The explanatory notes go on to state: The expected role of forestry in the development of the Northern Territory is likely to undergo a major change during the next four years’. May we have some information from the Department as to how this change is to take place?

Answer - Forestry operations and a forest research programme for the Northern Territory were commenced in 1958 by the Forestry and Timber Bureau (Department of National Development). These functions (except for basic research) were handed over to the Northern Territory Administration in July, 1967.

Up to date, emphasis has been on assessment surveys to determine what resources were available and which areas warranted intensive management. The other major activity involved conducting research into: suitable species for plantation establishment encouragement of natural regeneration fire control possible uses of Northern Territory timbers.

As a result of accumulated research findings:

  1. suitable techniques have been determined for the establishment of cypress pine plantations and for the introduction of fast growing tropical pines
  2. it has been demonstrated that, by providing adequate fire protection measures, large areas of well managed forests of commercial species can be established at relatively low cost
  3. additional district projects have been set up (e.g. Murganella Creek)
  4. testing of the mechanical properties of northern cypress pine has led to its official upgrading to the same strength group as jarrah
  5. research on pulping properties of Northern Territory eucalypts has indicated the potential for wood chip production on a permanent industry basis.

In brief, the preliminary groundwork has been laid during the past years for the next phase of forestry operations in the Northern Territory - the development of the commercial potential of the forestry resources.

Question - I refer the Minister to items 56 and 57 on page 8 of the explanatory notes to the estimates for the Department. One of the big problems in the Northern Territory is the availability of cheap home building blocks around the town areas. Can the Minister tell us what the ruling prices are and what the Department is doing to reduce them so that the working people will be able to make reasonable bids and so that premiums on the blocks will not be too high?

Answer- At the last restricted auction in Darwin in June . 1968, 108 home sites were sold with premiums averaging$1, 768. The last auction in Alice Springs of 6 home sites in October, 1968, brought premiums averaging $143, while 25 home sites auctioned at Katherine in August this year realised premiums averaging about $600. The Capital Works Programme provides for servicing of land for additional home sites at Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek this financial year. In addition the Northern Territory Housing Commission provides houses in Darwin and other main towns for rental or sale to persons of limited means. The Housing Commission proposes to commence construction this year of 333 units in Darwin, 43 units in Alice Springs and 27 at Katherine. Demand for land for residential purposes is greatest at Darwin because of the rapid growth. A detailed examination is being made of land availability in Darwin including the question of servicing of land for private subdivision and the development of services including sewerage and electricity to meet the increased demand from rapid growth in this area.

Question - Item 57 in the notes refers to leaseholds such as pastoral, occupation development, pastoral homestead and mission leases … if possible I should like the Minister to give some idea of how many holdings are incorporated in the pastoral and other leases.

Answer - Details of holdings in the Northern Territory are as follows:

Of the Mission Leases: 3 are current. 8 expired and are under consideration for Special Purposes Leases. 2 are not to be renewed because, at the request of the Missions the Administration has assumed responsibility for these stations.

Question - Division 368/4/l0- Assistance to and Development of Mining Industry - Last year’s appropriation for assistance to and development of the mining industry was $31,000, but it was overspent to a very large degree. In fact, although only $31,000 was appropriated the expenditure was $187,133. This year the appropriation is $15,000. That is a scandalous over-expenditure on such a small appropriation. I hope that if there is to be an over-expenditure again this year we will receive an explanation in advance.

Answer -It is not expected that this kind of a situation will arise again. The honourable Senator’s remarks concerning an explanation in advance if there is to be an over-expenditure again are noted.

page 2208

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE ACT

Ministerial Statement

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

– In accordance with an order of the Senate of 25th November 1965I lay on the table the following paper:

An instrument dated 21 November 1968 made pursuant to section 5 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-66 declaring classes of persons to be approved classes of lenders.

I seek leave to make a statement relating thereto.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have laid on the table an instrument made pursuant to section 5 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-1966 declaring the following classes of persons to be approved classes of lenders: Solicitors who are practising in a State or Territory of the Commonwealth on their own account or in partnership with other solicitors; and persons who are trustees of provident, superannuation, pension or retirement funds. The Senate will recall that section 5 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act provides that approved classes of lenders for the purposes of the Housing Loans Insurance scheme are declared by the Minister and that individual lenders within these classes are approved by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation.

The range of approved classes initially declared at the commencement of the scheme was extended in July 1967. The further extension that I have now reported is consistent with the Government’s intention that the range of approved classes of lenders should be increased from time to time in the light of demand for the service offered by the Corporation and the Corporation’s capacity to handle a larger and more diversified range of clients. Although my declaration places no restrictions on the eligibility of solicitors to become approved lenders, I understand that not all the considerable volume of funds controlled by them are lent on terms which satisfy the Corporation’s criteria. I would, therefore, expect that only those solicitors interested in insuring conventional credit fonder type housing loans will apply to the Corporation for approved lender status.

page 2209

ELECTORAL

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Pursuant to the provisions of section 23a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, I present a copy of the report with maps relating to the fresh distribution of Queensland into electoral divisions, showing the boundaries of each proposed division, by the distribution commissioners for Queensland.

page 2209

QUESTION

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– by leave - I present the following paper:

Inter-Parliamentary Union - 56th Conference held at Lima, September 1968- Report of Australian Delegation.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CANT (Western Australia)- by leave - I move:

I commend the report to honourable senators for their study because the InterParliamentary Union is becoming a more important body internationally each year that it meets. On this occasion at Lima sixty-four governments were represented at the conference and a considerable amount of very useful work was done. A study of the report will reveal the quality of the Austraiian delegation at this conference and at previous conferences. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2209

EXPENDITURE FROM CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– Mr Deputy President. T present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee:

One Hundred and Second Report - Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the financial year 1967-68.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Honourable senators will recall that on 7th November, I presented to the Senate the One Hundredth

Report of the Public Accounts Committee which related to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for 1967-68. In my statement to the Senate at that time I referred to the combined inquiries that your Committee has conducted in recent years into expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer and the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This One Hundredth and Second Report relates to evidence taken in that inquiry in respect of the expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the financial year 1967-68.

During its inquiry into expenditure results, your Committee noted that, in a number of cases where departments had experienced shortfalls in expenditure, funds had been obtained in both the original Estimates and Additional Estimates but no attempt had been made by the departments concerned to explain the reasons for the additional appropriation. In this regard your Committee would make, it clear that when departments evidently require further funds late in the financial year and then experience a shortfall in expenditure the circumstances of estimating and expenditure on the items concerned must attract close scrutiny. Accordingly, we would expect departments when submitting evidence to the Public Accounts Committee to tender a clear indication of the expenditure position on the items under their administrative control at the stage when the Additional Estimates were formulated and the need for the additional funds as well as the itemised reasons that gave rise to the overall shortfall in expenditure.

Your Committee would also invite attention to instances where , departmental explanations relating to shortfalls in expenditure were lacking in detail and witnesses were not adequately briefed on matters of fact, in this regard we would commend to the departments concerned’ Public Service Board Circular No. 66/411 issued on 18th January 1966, which bears directly on this matter. As the One Hundred and Second Report shows, there are cases where shortfalls in expenditure have arisen from circumstances beyond the control of departments. Your Committee accepts the explanations of the departments in such cases. The report also notes cases, however, where estimates have been based on unjustified assumptions or have been formulated with considerable uncertainty as to the likely actual expenditure. In some cases shortfalls in expenditure have arisen from delays that occurred in the placing of orders and from administrative laxity and weaknesses in departmental procedures as well as from errors that occurred but had not been detected promptly. Your Committee will continue to cirticise these weaknesses in estimating and administrative practices whenever they occur. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Ordered that the report.be printed.

page 2210

REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Hospital Complex, Gove, Northern Territory

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

Hospital Complex, Stage 1, Gove, Northern Territory

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

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

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The summary of recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is as follows:

  1. There is a need for hospital facilities at Gove township.
  2. As a first stage of development, a 64-bed hospital with supporting services is appropriate to the needs of the Gove region.
  3. Attention should continue to be given to the possibility of nursing staff living outside the hospital environment.
  4. The site for the hospital is adequate and suitable.
  5. The Committee recommends the construction of the works in this reference.
  6. The estimated cost of the works when referred to the Committee was $5m.

page 2210

EVASION OF CUSTOMS DUTY

Ministerial Statement

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– by leave - On 26 February last, my predecessor made a statement concerning the legal action which the Government decided to take against some Japanese and Australian companies which it alleged had breached the Customs Act. At the same time he undertook to disclose the decisions and penalties, if any, to the Parliament. The Minister indicated that the evidence which had been obtained by the Commonwealth suggested that Japanese and Australian companies had entered into collusion on a large scale to avoid customs duties and to defeat the protection accorded to Australian manufacturers. Prices, quantities and descriptions had been falsified on invoices and false declarations made to the Department of Customs and Excise in relation to the importation of a wide range of goods. Quite apart from the evasion of duties involved, the practices of many companies suggested a systematic and deliberate evasion of whatever types of protection the Government had evolved in dealing with the difficulties of many important and sensitive Australian industries.

Because of the wide scope of the apparent offences and the large number of firms involved, it was not desirable, in the view of the Government, for the issues to remain in doubt for the time likely to be involved in a long series of court actions and possible appeals. The Minister said that the Government had decided to agree to requests from any of the companies involved for the cases to be heard under Part XV of the Customs Act. He explained that Part XV of the Customs Act prescribes that the Minister for Customs and Excise could deal with cases involving offences under the Act after an open inquiry. The maximum penalties which can be imposed under this procedure are identical with those which could be imposed by a court.

The Collector of Customs for New South Wales was nominated as ray delegate for the purposes of these inquiries. He has now reported to me, following a thorough and objective evaluation of all the facts presented to him by the prosecution and defence at open hearings into each case. In aH, 347 charges were laid against 14 companies. My delegate has recommended to me that the companies be found guilty of 318 charges. One company was found not guilty of any charge. The penalties recommended are listed in an attachment to this statement. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate them in Hansard.

Because of the volume of commerce into Australia, trade would be impeded if every importation had to be verified by customs officers. These officers must be able to rely on the truthfulness and accuracy of information supplied to them. Consequently attempts to avoid payment of duty must be dealt with severely. Some of the penalties recommended are substantial and 1 inform the Parliament that I had no hesitation in confirming the penalties recommended by my delegate.

page 2211

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES TRUST

Appointment of Trustee

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - Sir Walter Cooper was the government representative on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. Senator Kennelly is on the Trust. It has been decided that I should be nominated as the Government representative on the Trust. I move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-66, Senator the Honourable K. M. Anderson be appointed as Trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust.

Senator Murphy:

– I appreciate that it is not necessary for me to second the motion, but I do so in order to indicate that the Opposition is in agreement with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2211

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

-by leave - I would like to indicate to the Senate that later today, when I receive a Bill, or two Bills, I will want to intercede so that they may be taken to the second reading stage. I anticipate that I will then be moving for consideration of those Bills at a later hour this day. I merely give that information to the Senate at this stage.

Senator Murphy:

– That is not necessarily our approach.

Senator ANDERSON:

– No.

page 2211

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Since the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted in November last year to enable the introduction of permanent employment in the stevedoring industry, a number of ports - Sydney, Port Kembla, Melbourne, Adelaide, Fremantle, and Brisbane - have been declared permanent ports and approximately 75% of waterside workers are now employed under permanency arrangements. In the implementation of these arrangements, certain anomalies have arisen requiring amendments to the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act. There are three matters which all relate to section 7 of that. Act. They are: First, a matter relating to payments by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to the holding company in respect of annual leave, to which the waterside worker became entitled as a result of his employment as a casual waterside worker rather than as a permanent waterside worker; secondly, payments for redundancy purposes by the Authority to the Association of Employers . of Waterside Labour; and thirdly, the need to provide for a refund of part of the charge imposed by the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1967 to employers who employ waterside workers under special agreements for weekly hiring.

I will comment on these matters in the order in which I have just mentioned them. With regard to the first one, although permanent employment applies in the ports to which I have referred, it is still necessary for waterside workers to transfer to other non-permanent ports to meet either seasonal labour requirements, for example, transfers to Hobart for the fruit season or elsewhere where labour demands are high and transfers are considered necessary for the efficiency of the industry. In these circumstances it is inequitable that the holding company or the operational employer should pay for that portion of annual leave accrued by a waterside worker during his service on transfer, particularly as the employers in the casual port to which he has been transferred are paying a statutory levy which includes an element for annual leave. Thus the Bill provides an amendment which will give the Authority power to make payments for that portion of annual leave accrued by a waterside worker during casual service in any year in the circumstances 1 have just mentioned.

An anomaly has also arisen in another context concerning annual leave. Under the waterside workers award, casual waterside workers become entitled to annual leave on 30th J une in each year. The National Stevedoring Industry Conference agreed that employers should take over from the Authority the responsibility for payment for annual leave which accrued al 30th June in the year in which a port became a permanent port. The question of who should be responsible for the payment of pro rata leave for waterside workers who became permanent employees but who deregistered before 30th June in the year a port became permanent was not determined by the Conference. As section 7 (c) of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act is worded the employer is required to meet this obligation. Following the introduction of permanency some waterside workers have commenced work with an operational employer only to deregister and leave the industry a short time afterwards - in one case after a matter of days. It is unreasonable that the employer is liable for payment of pro rata leave even though he may have had the services of the employee for only a short period. It is proposed therefore to amend the Act to provide that where a waterside worker deregisters within 12 months of the port becoming a permanent port the Authority shall be responsible for the payment to the holding company of that proportion of pro rata annual leave attributable to his service as a casual waterside worker.

The second matter arises from the provision in section 7 (b) of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act enabling the Authority to make payments to the holding company for the purpose of meeting the cost to the holding company of payments to bc made to redundant waterside workers. Under the Conference scheme provision is made for both pensions and redundancy payments and the statutory levy contains components to cover both these provisions. The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, a registered organisation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, will have the responsibility for making applications to the Authority for redundancy declarations and it has already set up a redundancy fund. Doubts have been expressed as to whether the existing legislation authorises the Authority to make payments direct to the Association for this purpose and the Act is being amended to put this beyond doubt.

Finally, Mr President, I turn to the matter relating to the refund of part of the stevedoring industry levy to employers who employ waterside workers under special agreements. Prior to the implementation of permanent employment, there were small pockets of permanent employ ment in the industry under special arrangements negotiated between the Waterside Workers’ Federation and particular stevedoring employers. These special arrangements operated mainly in areas where continuity of operations was essential, for example, the Australian National Line terminals for roll1on roll-off vessels or drivers or operators of mechanical equipment at special wharf terminals. Before the enactment of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, as these employers met the costs of annual1 leave, sick leave, public holidays and long service leave for their employees, they were exempt from the payment of the statutory levy then in force in the industry.

As the reasons for this exemption no longer applied, the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act was amended to provide that in future these employers should pay the levy applicable to employers of waterside workers on weekly hiring. However, these employers do not draw upon labour from the holding company and they make no claims on it in respect of time when waterside workers are available for work but are not required to work as the employees are used on other duties. The conference recognised that some adjustment would be needed to meet this particular situation - which would only be equitable - and I should mention that only about 400 employees would be involved out of a work force of approximately 20,000.

The Bill, therefore, provides that the Authority be authorised to reimburse a registered employer for a portion of the levy paid by him in respect of class A waterside workers whom he employs permanently under special agreements in continuous non-permanent ports or in permanent ports. The amount to be reimbursed shall be determined by the Minister from time to time as this will vary with any change in the rate of the statutory levy. As permanent employment for waterside workers commenced in Sydney on the 27th November 1967, it is intended that these amendments to which I have referred should have effect as from that date. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 2213

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 5) 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a firsttime.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– Exercising my right under standing order 189, I desire to address myself, on this Bill which provides for taxation and the expenditure of taxation, to the all important question of the defence of this country.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator is out of order.

Senator Anderson:

– This is not an appropriation Bill.

Senator GAIR:

– Is this not an income tax assessment Bill?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- This Bill relates to taxation, but it does not impose taxation.

Senator GAIR:

– I contend that that is a very fine point. If it is a Bill assessing taxation, I argue that it is a money Bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-I have ruled that the honourable senator is out of order.

Senator Anderson:

– IfI might intercede, I should like to point out that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to enable the honourable senator to make the speech that he proposes. There will be found amongst the other Bills on the business paper a vehicle to enable the honourable senator to exercise his right to speak. There will be no attempt whatever to deny the right to speak to a money Bill when one is under discussion.

Senator GAIR:

– I have to be convinced that this is not a money Bill. It is a Bill which has for its purpose the assessment of tax. If it deals with the question of taxation, I contend that it is a money Bill and that under standing order 189 I have the right to speak. This practice of just brushing one off and saying: ‘You will have an opportunity some other time’, is not good enough for me. All too frequently I feel that, because I represent a minority Party in this chamber I receive -

Senator Anderson:

– I am sorry I spoke at all. I was only trying to be helpful, and I get a back hander for doing it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I gave a ruling. If the honourable senator wants to disagree with that ruling, there are avenues open to him for doing that. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has told the honourable senator that an opportunity will be given to him to speak later. I think it would be better if we proceeded with the second reading of this Bill now.

Senator Anderson:

– May I again intercede to make a point? There is on the business paper a Bill which is held at the first reading stage. It is a money Bill. It was held by Senator Murphy, and it will be competent for Senator Gair to exercise his right when that Bill is under discussion. It is Order of the Day No. 2 1 .

Senator GAIR:

– There may be a dozen Bills on the business paper, but I have to be convinced that this ‘ measure is not a money Bill.

Senator Anderson:

– That is a different matter. As Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister responsible for the conduct of business in the Senate, I am making the point that the honourable senator will have the opportunity to speak when the money Bill to which I have referred is brought on for discussion.

Senator GAIR:

– I have referred to ‘Australian Senate Practice’ by J. R. Odgers, and. on my interpretation of it, that authority supports me on this point.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

This Bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act to authorise deductions for capital expenditure on pipelines or other facilities used primarily and principally for the transport of petroleum obtained by mining in Australia or the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. It is proposed that the deductions will be available in equal instalments over a period of 10 years. The income tax law already contains a provision authorising accelerated depreciation for the capital cost of petroleum pipelines. This provision was enacted in 1963 and it permits the cost of a pipeline to be written off over a period of 5 years if construction of the line was commenced before 1st July 1968 and is finished before 1st January 1970. The write-off period of 5 years and the limited period of operation of that provision were, of course, set at a time when only limited discoveries of petroleum had been made.

In reviewing the taxation allowances of the cost of petroleum pipelines the Government has regard to two major factors.

Firstly, as a result of the important discoveries of both crude oil and natural gas in recent years, it was evident that pipelines constructed to serve these new fields would have an economic life considerably greater than 5 years. Secondly, the Government had regard to amendments to the income tax law made earlier this year, by which the cost of transport facilities in the general mining field can be written off for tax purposes over a period of 10 years. The Government has decided that, under present conditions, the principles of the 10 year write off period should also apply to the cost of petroleum transport facilities, except in the case of a pipeline that is subject to the 5 year depreciation allowances I mentioned earlier. The proposed amendments will give effect to this decision and will first apply in relation to the 1968-69 income year.

Expenditure which will qualify for the 1 0 year write off will be capital expenditure on a pipeline, road, railway or other facility for use primarily and principally in transporting crude oil or natural gas mined in Australia or the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. For expenditure to qualify it will be necessary that it be incurred for the purpose of transporting petroleum between the oil or gas field and a refinery or other terminal, but - the allowance will not be confined to petroleum producers. Capital expenditure on earthworks, bridges, tunnels and cuttings necessary for an eligible transport facility will be within the scope of the special provisions. So will capital expenditure in the nature of costs of obtaining a right to construct the facility on another person’s property, and of compensating other persons for any damage or loss caused by the construction. In the case of a pipeline, capital expenditure on ancillary plant, such as pumping plant, will be within the scope of the costs subject to the special allowance.

As is the case in relation to the transport of other minerals, the special write ofl! period will not apply to capital expenditure on ships, railway rolling-stock, road vehicles or port facilities. Nor will it apply to capital expenditure on facilities, for example pipelines, used to transport petroleum products or to reticulate gas to consumers. As a memorandum giving more detailed explanations of the amendments is being circulated to honourable senators, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak at any greater length at this stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator Gair:

– Mr Deputy President, is this Bill open to amendment?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes, it is.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 2215

LOAN BILL (No. 2) 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– 1 move:

That the Hill be now read a second time.

In his Budget speech, the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) estimated that the Commonwealth’s Budget deficit this financial year would be $547m, and pointed out that we shall have to call on the Reserve Bank to finance that part of the deficit for which funds are not available from other sources. In statement No. 4 attached to the Budget speech the Treasurer explained how the deficit in 1967-68 was financed and outlined the prospects for the financing of this year’s deficit. Al this stage, there is very little 1 can add to what was said in that statement, except, to say that we have been very successful to dale - indeed, more successful than we had expected - in raising loans overseas. We know from past experience, however, that there can be many variations from the Budget estimates and it is far too early to foresee to what extent we will in fact need to call on Reserve Bank finance.

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain authority for any borrowing that it may be necessary to make from the Reserve Bank during 1968-69 to complete the financing of the Budget deficit. The Bill departs from the practice of seeking authority to borrow up to a specified upper limit. That practice has proved unsatisfactory. The difficulty with specifying an upper limit is that such a limit needs to be set high enough to ensure that, whatever our receipts and expenditures and our borrowings for the year might turn out to be, it will be adequate to cover the final cash deficiency at the end of the year. Because of the unpredictability of loan raisings and the effects which quite small percentage variations from the estimates of receipts and expenditures can have on the size of the deficit, there can be no certainty that a limit, even when set at a level considerably higher than what seems likely to be required will not, in the event, prove to be too low.

The amount to be borrowed from the Reserve Bank each year is, of course, a residual, lt is the net result of all receipts, expenditures, borrowings and redemptions, under other legislation approved by the Parliament. This Bill, in effect, seeks authority to borrow the amount required to finance this year’s residual, lt is essentially a machinery measure to enable the Government to carry out policies approved by the various Acts authorising expenditure, the raising of revenue and other financing transactions. In itself, the Bill does not propose the carrying out of any expenditures which will not have been authorised by Parliament.

The borrowings for which authority is now sought will be made for defence purposes and the proceeds will be applied to finance expenditure from the loan fund on defence services. Total expenditure on defence services in 1968-69 is estimated at $1,2 17m. Of this, about $122m is expected to be met from drawings on the credit arrangements with the United States of America, leaving about $ 1, 095m to be met from appropriations.

It is proposed that, of the estimated expenditure on defence services authorised by the Appropriation Act (No. I) 1968-69. an amount to be determined by the Treasurer should be charged to the Loan Fund where it will be financed from funds raised under the authority being sought in this Bill. Provision for charging part of our defence expenditure to the Loan Fund has been made in previous years when the net amount available from loan proceeds and other financing transactions has not been adequate to finance the deficit. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 2216

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide that a writ of summons may be served interstate on a company in the same manner as it may be served intrastate. The uniform companies legislation provides that service may be effected on a company by leaving the writ at or sending it by post to the registered office of the company. Although the Service and Execution of Process Act at present does not prohibit such service, it provides that, if the company does not appear, personal service on an officer of the company in the State or Territory where service is effected or knowledge of the process by that officer must be proved. In practice, therefore, a writ is invariably served personally on an officer, lt is anomalous to permit postal service in one case and to require personal service in the other. The Bill would remove that anomaly.

The regulation making power in section 28 has been extended to become a general regulation making power. It is not clear at present that there is power in the Act to make regulations for the purpose of all provisions of the Act which require or permit the making of regulations. The extension will make this clear. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator 0’Byrne adjourned.

page 2216

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2176), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Cohen had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

The Senate is of opinion that the Bill is an inadequate contribution to education in Australia because it:

fails to attack the crisis in education in Australia in the areas of greatest need;

is symptomatic of the Government’s unplanned, piecemeal approach to the development of educational facilities in Australia, and

fails to provide for an inquiry into all aspects of education, at all levels, in both Government and non-Government schools.

Therefore the Senate resolves that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted:

to provide for the extension of the grants for libraries and library material and equipment to primary schools;

to provide for recurrent grants for the maintenance of libraries and for the training of teacher-librarians, and

to ensure that, in the administration of the scheme, priority is given to schools according to need, so that all children shall have equal opportunities of access to library facilities’.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– At the adjournment last night I was addressing myself to some of the observations and arguments used by Senator Cohen in relation to his amendment. I had said that the Government had proceeded in its consideration of this field of education after making appropriate inquiries at the appropriate time and with the advice of authorities who were expert in the field. With particular reference to the criticism that was directed to the science laboratories scheme and the teachers training college scheme I remind the Senate of what I consider to be a most pregnant passage in the report of the Committee on Australian Universities - the Murray report - to which I referred indirectly last night.

I remind the Senate that there the Committee told us that the true gravity of the present situation was that government and non-government schools would require for 1960 and 1961 an annual intake of 450 mathematics and science teachers, whereas the output of science graduates from all universities in 1956 for all purposes was only 524. At that time the Committee said that the output was likely to be less in 1957. After pointing out the country’s dilemma and the need of governments and teaching departments for science students, the Committee went on to say: . . the future supply of university graduates, particularly those in the sciences and technologies, will be determined in large measure by ,he quality of the teaching of science and mathematics in these schools. Whatever short- or long-term solution of this problem may be sought, it would be folly to ignore the experience of the United Kingdom and the United States that the essential pre-requisite for meeting the needs of the community for scientists and technologists is an improvement in the quality of mathematics and science teaching in the schools. The failure to provide this may well prejudice the future development of the country.

The report continued: lt has not been possible to make any detailed survey of the adequacy of the present demand for graduates in science and technology. There appears, however, to be general agreement that there is a grave shortage both al first degree and higher levels.

A government which followed the course of giving special benefit for science laboratories and teacher training colleges would, 1 suggest, in view of those remarks, be deserving of commendation rather than criticism. The next matter to which I refer is one that, is being peddled throughout the country constantly, that is to say, that the Commonwealth Government is at fault in not instituting a general inquiry into all aspects of education. 1 wish to state, in a few clear propositions, cogent reasons why this criticism is in my view ill-founded.

The first reason why the proposition for a general inquiry is ill-founded is that very considerable progress has been made in Australian education in recent years. We have seen the expansion of universities, the new colleges of advanced education, the expansion of the scholarships schemes, the science grants and technical training assistance, and the new schemes that have been introduced in the Budget this year relating to libraries and pre-schools. All these show a progressive advance in the field of education where the need is the greatest.

Senator Cohen:

– Starting in 1964.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The second reason that 1 wish to put forward should still the tongue and criticism of Senator Cohen.

Senator Cohen:

– The Government is 15 years too late and now the Minister is making a virtue of that.

Senator WRIGHT:

– 1 listened with great attention, both to the quality and moderation of Senator Cohen’s submissions on these matters. I suggest that a little audience to other quarters might improve his subsequent performance. I suggest that the second reason why this catchcry for a general inquiry into education is inappropriate is that there has been no unanimous request by State education departments or State Ministers that the Commonwealth should institute an inquiry. Is the honourable senator suggesting that we should not concede to the State education departments primacy in this field? Thirdly, there has been over this period a marked improvement in Commonwealth and State co-operation in this field. The improvement is such as to indicate that the scope of co-operative working in the two fields, of State government primacy in the State field with assistance and supplementary benefits from the Commonwealth, is advancing the cause satisfactorily. Fourthly, the States conduct their own inquiries into their particular fields where their administration suggests that an inquiry is required. The fifth matter that I wish to have noted is that the States have increased their appropriations for education.

Dealing with the six States in the aggregate, their appropriation has increased from $286m 10 years ago to a present appropriation of more than $700m. When it is noticed that Commonwealth expenditure has risen from $67. 5m in 1963-64 to an appropriation of $2 1 0.5m in the present year, it beggars description to find that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen) still finds in the catchcry for a general inquiry into education a proper basis for improving the educational development in the Commonwealth. J repeat that in the last 10 years the States have increased their appropriation for education from $286m to more than $700m on a Commonwealth wide basis, and in the last 5 years the Commonwealth has increased its appropriation from $67. 5m to $210.5m. I have restated those most significant figures because I believe that they in themselves provide a very cogent answer to the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 1 ask the Senate to reject the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cohen’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority…. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– As intimated earlier in this debate whenI spoke to the amendment which was just decided by the Senate, I indicated that the Democratic Labor Party proposed on the disposal of that amendment, to move an amendment, the terms of which I now indicate to the Senate. I move:

After the word ‘time’ insert the following:

While the Senate acknowledges the provisions in the Bill as of considerable value in the area of education where assistance is being given the senate -

  1. notes the serious economic situation of the independent school system as disclosed by those responsible for its operation;
  2. views with concern that situation and furthermore the consequential effect on both segments in the dual education system if the independent school system is substantially curtailed;
  3. expresses the opinion that the provision of aid to the independent school system will enable the public and private sectors of education to achieve and maintain the national objective of the highest possible standard of education in a dual education system’.

I may have indicated, when I spoke to the amendment moved by Senator Cohen, some of the principles which prompt the Democratic Labor Party to present the amendment which is now before the Senate. The Democratic Labor Party takes this action in the light of the new national awareness of the totality of an educational problem and the re-orientation of the attitude of all sections of the community to the dual education system. I think the nation can say with considerable gratification that there has been a reassessment of the value of the dual education system and in almost all sectors of Australian life and in all sectors of the expression of opinion, substantial if not almost total support is now given to the dual education system and to the importance of its viability on the highest possible level. But while there have been expressions and articulation of this point of view from many sectors - from individual’s and groups - there has as yet been no actual indication from this Senate or from this Parliament, which is representative in a particular way of the aggregate opinion of the Australian nation, of what might be the attitude of either House of this Parliament on this question. There have only been individual expressions and individual acts in various segments of Australian public life.

For example, the principle and the value of the dual education system and the importance of the continued viability of both sections have been acknowledged by the grants in aid which have been made available from State Governments. There has been an indication of some level of assistance required from the Commonwealth Government, insofar as it is constitutionally possible for it to come to the aid of these schemes, by the actions of the Government in more recent years in creating the systems of grants in aid for science laboratories and by the Bill which is now before the Senate and which provides for school libraries. Apart from these indications of the need for assistance in a particular sector of education in the schools, there have been individual and group expressions of the necessity for aid over a wide area, not merely to the more specialised aspects of some particular field of education but to the general question of the economic level of the school system. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) in this Parliament has made statements which indicate in very specific and very substantial ways his views on this question. Therefore, when we take the individual and group opinions and the actual governmental actions throughout the States of Australia there is obviously now a tremendous body of Australian opinion - almost a total body of opinion of the nation - which does recognise the principles which we try to underline in the amendment which I now propound to the Senate. lt would be one of the tragedies of this young Australian nation which is on the threshhold of a magnificent future - provided that we are able to mobilise the necessary personnel and to direct their energies - if we could not apply their talents and skills developed to the highest possible degree, to the great and vast natural resources now being exposed in this continent. It would be a tragedy if, by any manner or means, we did not seize the opportunity to ensure that our citizenship is educated to the highest possible level. lt would be an even greater tragedy if for some reason, financial or otherwise, we found ourselves not merely with a dual education system at a common level but with an education system which was dual in the sense that it was at two levels; that because of economic stringency affecting one sector of the education system it should drop below the accepted national level. That would be not only unjust and disastrous to the system; it also would be disastrous for the nation and ultimately must affect the whole level of national interest and national welfare.

If we accept the dual education system, then it is equally important that we ensure that all segments contributing to the duality are established, maintained and developed at the highest possible level. The Democratic Labor Party considers that this has been an area of not inconsiderable national sensitivity. I use that term in an attempt to express something that has been part of the history of Australia. Therefore, we believe that naturally those people who are entrusted with the very difficult, complex and equally sensitive task of overcoming these areas of sensitivy should have at (east as a guide the expressed formal opinion of this chamber of the Parliament. That opportunity is presented in the debate on this Bill.

Those who have the responsibility of finally solving this very difficult and challenging problem should have the assistance and support of the expressed opinion of this chamber. In no sense would adoption of this amendment impose on honourable senators something which is not now in firm general acceptance. In this resolution we would epitomise the now almost nationally held view. In those circumstances and without unduly debating the amendment, I think it will be likely to find - as I trust it will - unanimous acceptance and support in this chamber. With hope and anticipation 1 commend the amendment to the Senate.

I do not want to pursue the matter except to make one further point. We must consider sheer economics. Whatever may be the other elements expressed by support or non-support of the dual system, we must acknowledge now that there is an economic interdependence between the two sectors of our educational set-up. Each sector is affected by the economic viability, the strength or weakness, of the other. Insofar as the private schools of all denominations as well as schools not particularly associated with denominations, such as grammar schools, are conducted economically, at slightly lower financial cost and with a slightly lower financial demand than may be possible in the public school system - for reasons which are peculiar to those educational systems - there is relief for the general revenue. This therefore enables a much wider approach within the field of public education. This is a matter of practical demonstration but I suggest it does occur. It must be the concern of all taxpayers. In other words, by accepting the dual system and ensuring the economic viability of each part at a level required by the nation, it is possible to do a number of things. In the maintenance of a proper, adequate and viable private education system it is possible to acknowledge the fundamental right of those people who require such a system. It is possible at the same time to eliminate finally areas of discord. It is possible to ensure a uniformly high system of national education and it is possible to achieve this with a relief to the revenue and to the taxpayers that may not otherwise be possible.

We know that so much of the appropriations of governments now go to education that any relief created by a better economic approach to education must be sought and must be seized. In this amendment we are asking the Senate, as the senior organ of the Commonwealth parliamentary system, being representative of all types and of all groups, of all backgrounds and all political parties in the Commonwealth, to give formal acknowledgement and to epitomise in this way what we firmly believe is now the opinion of the nation itself. If this were done we feel it would be a big aid to those faced with the task of giving practical political, parliamentary and economic effect to the final solution - a satisfactory, just and economic solution - of the national education problem. I commend the amendment to the good graces of the Senate and trust that it will find unanimous endorsement.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught) - ls the amendment seconded?

Senator Little:

– 1 second the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I listened attentively to what Senator Byrne said about his amendment. I remind the Senate that the honourable senator has attached an expression of opinion to the motion that this Bill be read a second time. He expresses that opinion in this form: That we should take note of the serious economic situation of the independent school system as disclosed by those responsible for its operation’; that we should view with concern that situation and furthermore the consequential effect on both segments in the dual education system if the independent school system is substantially curtailed’; and that we should express the opinion ‘that the provision of aid to the independent school system will enable the public and private sectors of education to achieve and maintain the national objective of the highest possible standard of education in a dual education system’.

I derived from what the honourable senator said that he had in mind a matter of philosophy more than a practical approach to the problem. Until I heard him I was a little at a loss to understand what it was proposed to achieve by this amendment because in the course of this debate and in the debate on the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Bill it was demonstrated quite clearly that there has been a consistent and growing course of achievement on the part of the Government in the field of education in which the independent school system has shared. It would be a mistake, 1 think, for the Government to give any indication of contradiction of the philosophy has been expressed in this motion. Whereas I feel that the motion is superfluous in the light of the current history we are developing, yet from the point of view of expressing the philosophy that Senator Byrne espouses, I would think that it has some benefit. For that reason, I indicate that the Government is prepared to give it acceptance.

This is not the first time that the Government has put this view forward. I call the particular attention of the Senate to a speech made by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) al the inaugural dinner of the Kathleen Lumley College in Adelaide in October. I shall refer in detail to what the Minister said there because, in the context in which his remarks were put, I think it will be of satisfaction to the Senate to note the integrated expression of a course of action that he favoured. The Minister was speaking of the great changes in the development of aid to the education system. The second change that he emphasised was the development of aid to independent schools. The Minister referred to the fact that direct assistance began in 1956 under the Menzies Government, when a scheme of interest subsidy for school construction was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory because of the special needs of this Territory. The Minister noted that since then all six State governments have adopted a system of per capita grants to independent schools.

There I refer to an idea that I asked the Senate to listen to within the last hour - that is that, in an age when everybody is trying to cause dissension between the Commonwealth and the States, within our responsibilities we need co-operation so that together in our respective spheres we can fulfil our responsibilities. When we consider that each of the six States now has adopted a policy of appropriating per capita payments - per capita payments are the significant thing - to independent schools, the Commonwealth Government can take some pride in having pioneered this approach.

The Government would be somewhat shortsighted not to adopt the viewpoint shown in the amendment. The Minister said:

On the Commonwealth’s part we have made capital funds available for building science laboratories.

He referred in his speech to the Bill that we are discussing now. He pointed out that in Canberra and in the Northern Territory, where we have not ancillary functions but an exclusive function in education, we are making funds available for constructing modern and up to date facilities and are meeting the particular problems of independent schools. But we should not overlook the fact that the introduction of State aid raises questions that need to be examined. We need to establish a position of equity in support for the State system and support for the independent schools. We need to recognise that there is not a 100% recognition of the right of independent schools to support.

Senator Gair:

– The Government will need to assist the States to a much greater extent if the dual system goes out of existence.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. I am coming to that. We believe that it will be a good thing when there is a full and complete recognition of this right throughout Australia. We have never been able to see the justice in the view that the Government should pay the full cost of educating three-quarters of the school children of Australia but that the other one-quarter should take direct initiative to supply its own educational needs and should get no Government support of any kind. There has never been any justice, as we see it, or equality in that view. But, quite apart from that, it is good economics because, if there were a continuing drift away from the independent schools, that would thrust a much greater and quite significantly increased load upon the responsibility of the Government to provide greater facilities in the State systems. Therefore, the dual approach, we think, is very much in the Australian character. It leads to a greater questioning on the part of all people who are giving their lives to education in the teaching field and to a greater discussion of educational needs and requirements. We ultimately hope to get a better system than the one that consists entirely of 100% State education. We say that by giving aid through financial grants under section 96 of the Commonwealth Constitution to the States for appropriation to the independent schools we will certainly attain a much better system than if we had education controlled entirely from Canberra.

May I ask the Senate particularly to note that expression in the light of the criticism that, simply because we want to assist it, is intended to control education from Canberra. There is a great difference between providing facilities and making facilities available for education and determining the content of the educative process. In the first we specialise; in the latter we abstain and leave it to the great body of experts in the educational field to develop in their own individual ways ideas for the advancement of knowledge and learning within the field. So I have taken the opportunity to indicate why it is that on this occasion we would hope to join in the expression of opinion that Senator Byrne has put forward in his amendment.

Senator Cohen:

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I wish to ask you for a ruling. I listened attentively to both Senator Byrne in support of his amendment and to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). I am at a loss to understand how this amendment is relevant to the question to which it is addressed. What the Senate is discussing is the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Bill-

Senator Little:

– But Senator Byrne did move this amendment.

Senator Cohen:

– I know. Now, having considered it and having heard the Minister’s reply or animadversions upon it-

Senator Gair:

– That is more than the honourable senator did.

Senator Cohen:

– I do not intend to say anything about it at this stage but rather to ask whether the amendment is in order. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, whether the amendment moved by Senator Byrne is properly before the Chair. Is it a proper amendment to move? We are dealing with legislation concerning State grants. This amendment deals with a separate subject matter altogether and invites the Senate to express an opinion on matters that on the face of them do not involve any action by the Commonwealth in relation to the States.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! On which standing order does the honourable senator base his point of order?

Senator Cohen:

– 1 refer to standing order 139 which reads:

Every Amendment must be relevant to the question to which it is proposed to be made.

With respect, I would have thought that it was drawing a very long bow to regard this as a proper amendment. If it is, to what question is it related?

Senator Byrne:

– 1 propounded the amendment we are discussing. The terms of the Bill are to provide grants in aid to the States for libraries for public and private schools. The amendment is couched in terms which tie it very closely to the motion for the second reading of the Bill and to the principles of the Bill. We acknowledge that it goes a certain distance, but with a reservation which is expressed in the postscript, to the effect that the Senate notes the serious situation. In other words, the financial assistance is a very good move and is desirable, but there is a total problem which can be solved only in another way and by another form of grant in aid. If Senator Cohen’s proposition is correct, it would have been available for any senator similarly to take a point of order on Senator Cohen’s own amendment, as Senator Cohen has now taken a point of order on the amendment I have proposed.

Senator Cohen:

– Our amendment dealt with libraries.

Senator Byrne:

– But one part of Senator Cohen’s amendment called for a general inquiry into all forms of education, primary, secondary and tertiary. That part had nothing in particular to do with the libraries provision. Senator Cohen was prepared to put forward that amendment. If he was conscious at that time that it violated Standing Orders, why did he then propound it seriously to the Senate? No senator took the point of order that Senator Cohen now takes on our amendment.

If our amendment is technically out of order - and I am submitting that it is not - the technical fault could be corrected by leave. After all, yesterday when Senator Cohen failed formally to propound his amendment, leave was granted to rectify that matter. Senator Cohen may want this point of order to go to a division and a decision but any flaw or defect - and I submit there is none - could be cured by leave. I submit that Senator Cohen could agree to leave being granted to suspend Standing Orders to that extent. I would look to him to do that as a matter of reciprocity for the courtesy extended to him yesterday by honourable senators, including honourable senators of the Democratic Labor Party. I submit to honourable senators that it is open to a senator to set out in an amendment the reasons why he is unable to support a proposition such as a motion for the first, second, or third reading of a Bill, or the acceptance of any proposal in it. I therefore submit that the amendment is in order.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to support the point of order that has been taken. I am not concerned with the particular aspects raised by Senator Byrne that perhaps Senator Cohen’s amendment was also irrelevant. I say in passing only that the question of its relevance was adverted to by my colleague Senator Rae in the course of his remarks. I submit for the consideration of honourable senators that the question referred to in standing order 139 is that the Bill be read a second time. The Bill before the Senate seeks to grant financial assistance to the States for libraries in secondary schools and for the acquisition of library material and equipment for use in such libraries. The Bill proceeds to give certain definitions, it defines a secondary school as follows:

Secondary school’ means a school or similar institution, whether conducted by a State or not, at which some or all of I he students who attend the school are taught at a secondary level of education.

Clause 4 authorises payment to a Stale by way of financial assistance of such amounts as the Minister determines. These amounts are to be paid to the States and applied by the States as approved by the Minister for purposes in connection with libraries in secondary schools and for the acquisition of library material and equipment for use in such libraries. I therefore say that the question does not raise any aspect of the utility of independent schools or assistance directed to those schools. Accordingly, no reference to independent schools is to be found in the terms of the Bill.

Senator Little:

– Does the honourable senator believe that independent schools are excluded from the Bill?

Senator Greenwood:

– They are excluded. 1 think all honourable senators will appreciate that in respect of specific project measures in education the administration is carried out as directed by the words ‘as the Minister approves’.

Senator Gair:

– But not to the exclusion of independent schools.

Senator Greenwood:

– The words ‘as the Minister approves’ are of sufficiently wide ambit to indicate that the administration may comprehend grants to any type of secondary school - State or otherwise - but it is not. part of the question when regarded as 1 have indicated it must be regarded. The amendment we are discussing does not refer to libraries, to a grant of financial assistance for libraries or to library matters. It is an amendment which merely draws attention to the independent school system and seeks the provision of aid generally. I submit that the amendment is not relevant to the question before the Senate.

Senator Wilkinson:

– T wish to support the point of order. Following on the remarks of Senator Greenwood, I think that the terms of the amendment are perfectly valid as an argument when presented at the second reading stage of the debate. However, it seems to me that the amendment does not add to or subtract from the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. It simply comments. Firstly it ‘notes’, secondly it ‘views’, and thirdly it ‘expresses’. It contains nothing to change the Bill, which is a Bill to deal with aid for libraries. I think that the point of order is well taken.

Senator Wood:

– I support the point of order. I think the amendment is ultra vires the Bill before the Senate. This is not the first time I have said so. 1 think the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) will bear out that I said to him that 1 could not see how the amendment is related to this particular Bill. 1 agree with the comment of Senator Byrne about the amendment proposed by the official Opposition. 1 think it was also out of order.

Senator Little:

– In that case the honourable senator had only to refuse leave.

Senator Wood:

– As a matter of fact, it was one of those things. I was prepared to vote against it. In this case 1 was nol pre pared to raise objection myself. One or two of my colleagues will remember that 1 said the Australian Labor Party amendment was also out of order. After a study of this Bill I cannot for the life of me by any stretch of imagination see how either the ALP amendment or the DLP amendment could come within the ambit and scope of the Bill before the Senate.

Senator Gair:

– lt is more than strange that the honourable senator did not raise a point of order on the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator Wood:

– I would not have raised a point of order on the DLP amendment, but it has been raised and I am supporting it.

Senator Rae:

– To be consistent with the attitude 1 adopted yesterday 1 must support in principle the view that the amendment before the Senate is irrelevant. Yesterday in speaking to Senator Cohen’s amendment I pointed out that in my view it was extraneous to the real issue before us. For similar reasons I hold the view that the DLP amendment is extraneous to the real issues before us. I have some sympathy for what Senator Byrne has said. It does seem to be a little hard that a point of order should be taken on an amendment by an honourable senator who moved a similar amendment. I feel that I am consistent in objecting to both amendments. I have no more to say other than that I see no reason why this matter should not be fully discussed by the Senate, but it would seem to me to be more appropriate to discuss it in relation to the Independent Schools (Financial Assistance) Bill, which Senator Gair has introduced and which is on the notice paper, than to attempt to attach it to a Bill that deals with a very limited sphere of education and provides money for one specific scheme only.

Senator Little:

– I take issue with the summation given by Senator Greenwood that the contents of this Bill exclude any mention of independent schools. That assessment of the Bill is inconsistent with the wording of the Bill itself, which says:

Secondary school’ means a school or similar institution, whether conducted by a State or not, at which some or all of the students who attend the school are taught at a secondary level of education.

Obviously, the qualification for the application of the Bill is that the institution be a secondary school, and the Bill covers all secondary schools, whether conducted by a State or an independent institution. Therefore such independent institutions are part and parcel of the Bill itself. So surely any expression of opinion in relation to that section of schools is relevant to the Bill. In regard to the mechanics of the amendment that was proceeded with yesterday, I point out that it was proceeded with only because of the very generous approach adopted by the mover of the present amendment in particular. Because of the failure of the official Opposition to move at the appropriate time the amendment that it sought to have discussed, the mover of the present amendment had more or less to reassess the presentation of his whole case while he was on his feet. He was generous enough to step aside and grant leave so that the official Opposition’s amendment might be discussed by the Senate.

I would have thought that those people who understand the Australian spirit would have felt that they were under some obligation to reciprocate if there was a doubt - I am not admitting that there is a doubt - as to the relevancy of the present amendment. To endeavour to silence the mover of the present amendment at this stage is not in accordance with the standard that I like to think Australians reach in public life. I submit that the amendment is relevant to the clauses of the Bill that relate to independent schools, and that therefore it should be discussed by the Senate and a decision on it should be given at this stage. I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that, if that is not so, surely the same courtesy should be granted in respect of this amendment as was granted in respect of the previous one and that leave should be given for it to be discussed if the question now before the Senate is not resolved in the manner in which I believe it should be resolved.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I support the point of order taken by Senator Cohen in relation to the irrelevancy of this amendment. It may be an interesting exercise to have the observations contained in the amendment recorded in Hansard, but I cannot see how this Bill could become an Act relating to grants, to the States for secondary school libraries with these words incorporated in it. What would they mean in the interpretation of the Bill? How’ could they appear in the Bill? Are they to be a preamble? Are they to be a direction? What form could an amendment such as this take in an Act of Parliament? This is an exercise in politics. We all realise that. The amendment says that certain words should be inserted after the word ‘time’ in the motion That the Bill be now read a second time’. But the words of that motion will not appear in the Act. So the whole amendment is irrelevant and out of order.

Senator Wright:

– I believe that as Minister in charge of the Bill I am bound to state my view on the point of order. 1 raised the question in my own mind and took advice both as to the Australian Labor Party’s amendment and as to the present amendment. My submission to the Senate is that this amendment is relevant to the Bill because the benefits of it are being voted for the assistance of secondary schools both state and independent. The degree to which the Minister’s administration is limited under clause 4 is indicated in the second reading speech. Later, in my amendment we will be dealing with the responsibility to the Parliament in that respect. In the second reading speech specific allocations are spelt out. In respect of each State there are grants to the State education department, to Roman Catholic schools and to other schools. The second reading speech shows that for all six States there is a total allocation of S9m, of which $6,688,000 is to go to the state schools, $1,551,600 to the Roman Catholic schools and S760,400 to other schools. The propriety of that is not in doubt, lt is simply a question of the scope of the administration and authority of the Bill. I am bound to say thai in my submission the amendment is relevant.

Senator Cohen:

– First of all I wish to say something about the suggestion that has been made to the effect that in some way what I have done is un-Australian. I resent the imputation that in some manner I have not played fair. Yesterday the Senate was good enough to extend a courtesy to me. It arose out of the fact that I apparently - although my recollection was otherwise - did not formally move my amendment, despite the fact that I indicated very early in my speech that we were putting an amendment and that I dealt with it in great detail-

Senator McKellar:

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Cohen has already spoken to the substantive point of order. I take the point of order that as he has already spoken he is not entitled to speak again.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator Cohen, I regard the speech that you are presently making as being out of order, pursuant to standing order 407, which reads:

Unless otherwise provided, every Senator may speak once -

On any Question before the Senate;

On any Amendment thereon; (c.) In Reply, if he is entitled to Reply.

In Committee, Senators may speak more than once.

Senator Marriott:

– I wish to speak only briefly. The only thing I can say about the Australian Labor Party’s amendment is that it did contain a specific remark concerning the Bill. After the opening paragraph, it stated: ‘Therefore the Senate resolves that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted . . . ‘. Therefore I say that it was relevant to the Bill. The Opposition started the debate by setting forth the reasons why it intended to oppose the Bill, in all probability. We come to the amendment that is now under question, and I consider that it has no relevance. Apart from that. I put it to the Senate in a completely nonparty manner that if we allow this amendment and debate on it to proceed, we are, to my mind, setting a precedent whereby all that any individual or Party wanting to convert a debate on a Bill on a particular question into an overall debate on the widest possible subject will have to do is to move an amendment after the style of that which is being pressed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I believe that this would be defeating the standing orders in regard to relevancy of debate on a Bill. Because of the dangerous precedent that it will establish I submit that the Senate should not permit this amendment of the DLP to be proceeded with. I do not remember another amendment like this in the 1 54 years that I have been privileged to be in the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I will now give my ruling. I should like the Senate to appreciate that it is a ruling of some difficulty. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it is the practice of the Senate to allow relevant amendments adding words to the motion for the second reading of a Bill. I regard the amendment as relevant and therefore in order. I do not think that the Senate, as a House of review, should be restricted in placing on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill in the form presented to the Senate. Accordingly, I rule against the point of order taken by Senator Cohen.

Debate interrupted.

page 2225

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I am now in the unhappy position of having to move that your ruling be dissented from. I formally move:

That the ruling be dissented from. (Senator Cohen having submitted in writing his objection to the ruling) -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Is the motion seconded?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I second the motion.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the question of dissent requires immediate determination.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Cohen, do you wish to address the Senate on the motion for dissent?

Senator Cohen:

– If I may, I wish to address the Senate only for the purpose of replying to an interjection that has come from Senator Little and on which J. was wanting to address the Senate when 1 was quite properly interrupted as being outside the Standing Orders.

Senator Anderson:

– I think the honourable senator should confine his attention to the motion to dissent from the ruling. No doubt an opportunity will be afforded in another way for the honourable senator to address himself to the matter to which he has just referred. As we are going to deal with the motion of dissent now, I submit that the honourable senator should now confine his remarks to that question.

Senator Cohen:

– I think the matter has been amply canvassed. It is my submission that the Acting Deputy President, in good faith, has wrongly interpreted the standing order concerned and that the matter that the Senate has been called upon to deal with in Senator Byrne’s amendment is irrelevant and should have been ruled so under Standing Order 139.

Question put:

Thatt he ruling be dissented from.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

page 2226

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I seek some elucidation from the Minister as to what is comprehended under the definition of ‘secondary school’ in clause 3. The definition states that ‘secondary school’ means a school or similar institution, whether conducted by a State or not, at which some or all of the students who attend the school are taught at a secondary level of education. There are schools which are in the main primary schools but which also have some secondary classes at the top. In my own State of Victoria the central schools have 6 primary classes and 2 secondary classes. Does this mean that the facilities provided under the Bill will be made available to the primary students who attend such a school as well as to the secondary students? Obviously this will make some difference to the type of material provided. But ‘secondary school’ is defined in clause 3 as including such a school. I will illustrate how it works in practice. In that way 1 may get some elucidation from the Minister. Clause 4 (3.) states:

Payment of an amount to a State under this Act is subject to the condition that the amount will be applied by the State, as approved by the Minister, for purposes in connection with libraries at secondary schools and for the acquisition of library material and equipment for use in such libraries.

That would seem to me - and I may be wrong about this - to make it possible for books and other library material to be made available to primary students who attend secondary schools.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– The intention of the Bill is not to be distilled by very close and detailed interpretation. It is a short Bill. The term ‘secondary school’ means a school or similar institution, whether conducted by a State or not, at which some - and I emphasise the word ‘some’ - or all of the students who attend the school are taught at a secondary level of education. That definition is necessary because some schools which may well be regarded as secondary schools which are entitled to library benefits do not in fact call themselves secondary schools. An example is a school in South Australia which is classified as a higher primary school but which has 200 or so secondary students. A similar position may exist in schools in other States. The Bill is couched so that the expenditure will be legitimate if it is on a library at such a school. Whether the library is composed in such a way as to be appropriate for the school’s primary or secondary segment is a matter that will really be the responsibility of the school. The intention of the Bill is that school administrators should use the money provided under this legislation for the benefit of secondary students.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

-If that is so, an anomalous position could be created whereby, for practical purposes, some primary students are being assisted as well as the secondary students. If a school was comprised of 6 primary classes and 2 secondary classes and its library was at the discretion of the school’s administration or those who were advising the Minister, the position could arise where the primary students would be the substantial beneficiaries of the largesse.

Senator Wright:

– lt is not largesse. It is an appropriation of public moneys.

Senator COHEN:

– 1 am not using the word ‘largesse’ to mean something improper. The ‘beneficiaries of what is to be legitimately provided under this Bill’ may be a form of phraseology more acceptable and Jess offensive to the Minister. It seems to me that difficulties could arise in the administration of the scheme because of the definition of ‘secondary school’. There will be some schools that are primary school’s simplicita - there are no secondary students at the top - which will not receive any benefits from this legislation whereas in some primary schools, such as a central school in my own State of Victoria, the students who are fortunate enough to have two secondary classes up at the top will1 have a nice library which may, as I understand the Minister, be half full of books suitable for primary students. So, this legislation may open up the possibility of some discrimination in regard to which school primary students attend.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– There is a possibility of different treatment but not of discrimination. But vigilance in administration can be relied upon to ensure that the appropriation will in the main be devoted exclusively to secondary school purposes. I would suggest that there is a possibility - perhaps a possibility upon a possibility - of Senator Cohen’s illustration eventuating, but it is substantially within the Bill that the appropriation is to be for the benefit of secondary schools.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– To hear the Minister imply that the appropriation under this Bill will be distributed in a different fashion to the appropriation for science laboratories in schools is to my mind out of all reason.

Senator Cohen:

– Some of that has found its way to the primary schools.

Senator KENNELLY:

– But little of that money has found its way to the schools with the greatest need. I know who will get this money and so does everyone else who has given the matter any great thought. It will be the old story of ‘to those that have, more shall be given.’ That is the whole fault with these piecemeal Bills. Everybody knows why the Government has appropriated money for science laboratories in schools. It began doing so in 1964 in order to win votes. The Government bought votes for $5m a year. What is the good of saying one thing and meaning another? It is just cold politics. The pressure is on the Government to provide these facilities. But who will get the money in my own State of Victoria? If Scotch, Xavier and the other big colleges do not already have libraries, they will get them as a result of this legislation. If these colleges have the money to build libraries they will not spend it; they will spend the Government’s money. If we want to help the children of Australia, as is our duty, we should give assistance to those who need it most. I have never seen anything more politically paltry than the grant of S5m a year for science laboratories in schools and the appropriation under this Bill for libraries. The subject of the next Bill will be determined by how the Government thinks it will fare at the next election. Everyone knows that. What is wrong with spending the money where it will give the most help?

I suspect that the ordinary State schools in the suburbs near where I live will get nothing from this measure. How many of the denominational schools which my grandchildren attend will receive a farthing from this legislation? As I have said, the amount to be provided will be split up in many ways. I have entered this debate because I think that the purpose of these Bills is merely to humbug the people of this nation so that they will think that much is being done for the ordinary people so far as education is concerned. I repeat that under this legislation the greatest amount will be given to those who have most, and if there is anything left over - having some knowledge of some of the schools I suspect that there will be very little - it will go to those who need it. The schools which will be the first to apply for the assistance have probably the buildings ready for libraries or areas where libraries can be built. I am certain that the legislation will not benefit the mass of the people who are most in need of help.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– It is regrettable that if Senator Kennelly had those views he did not have the courage to vote against the Bill. As to his aspersions on or disparagement of the science laboratories grants, let it go on record that over 4 years of administration $28. 9m was devoted to government schools. The honourable senator’s imputation was that the State departments are favouring the well-to-do and the grand. Whereas $28. 9m went in grants to assist government schools with science laboratories, the total that went to the independent schools was $ 13.3m. I would not have risen again in this debate if it had not been for the fact that I resent the terms used by the honourable senator. I reproach him for saying that we bought people, that these measures are politically paltry and that they come within the category of humbugging. If I were thinner skinned I would ask for a withdrawal, but I am prepared to comment on them on the level at which they were uttered, that is to say, a most degraded outlook which finds insinuation and manipulation in the proper management of Government money for genuine library responsibilities.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I should like to pursue the point that I made before Senator Kennelly rose and to see whether there is any real Government policy on this question. The Minister said that the money will be spent primarily in secondary schools, and then he added the word ‘exclusively’. I should like some definition on this. I would like to know whether the Government is in a position to tell the Committee, which it is asking to take the whole of the scheme on trust - there is nothing in the Bill about the principles on which it is to be administered - whether it is in a position to give some assurance on whether it will spend any portion of this money on primary students at secondary schools. If that is proposed we get into the difficult area in which some primary students will be beneficiaries and others will not. What are to be the principles upon which students in some primary schools will have library facilities but others will1 not? Is the Minister in a position to say one way or the other?

Senator Poyser:

– No, he is not.

Senator COHEN:

– I am asking the Minister. I know what my colleague says and I suspect that the Minister would have to give me the same answer. But the question is: Can I have an assurance one way or the other, either that some of this money will be spent inevitably on libraries for students in primary grades or an assurance that it will not be so spent?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I endeavoured to point out and explain in my previous contribution that fortunately the administration of money in education is not decided according to legal cases every time that a vote of $2,000 for a school comes up. That is why the Bill was drawn so that at secondary schools, properly so described, libraries will be made available even though incidentally there may be some primary school children at the schools. Surely it is quite obvious from the explanation set forth in the second reading speech and the summary of the total allocation that the grants are in favour of the government schools and are secondly for the independent schools, for which they are divided into two divisions. The amount to be provided will be all for secondary schools, but the mere fact that there are some primary school children at a secondary school will not disqualify that school. If the Labor Party wishes to introduce an amendment to prevent any secondary school where one or more primary school children are receiving scholarship and attention, let it go on record as indicating that that is the level of its responsibility.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I am speaking for the Australian Labor Party on this occasion and I am speaking quite deliberately. The Minister has a very large tongue in a very large cheek when he speaks like this because he knows perfectly well that he and his Government voted against our amendment which sought to provide for the extension of these grants to primary schools. So there is no point in saying: ‘Will you get up and say you are against giving it to primary schools?’ That is complete nonsense. What I am trying to do is to get some definition into a disorderly Bill, a Bill which asks us to take the Government on trust. It enunciates no principles except those that we may succeed in having written into the Bill before this debate is over. At the moment it expresses no principle of need or anything else. 1 am saying that the definition of secondary schools does give rise to the possibility that some primary students will be the beneficiaries. Good luck to them. But what about the primary students in other schools who are not similarly beneficiaries but who would have been beneficiaries if the Government had seen fit to accept our amendment? That is the point. The Minister cannot make very much out of that.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4 (Grants for Libraries and for Library Material and Equipment).

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– 1 move:

At the end of Clause 4 add the following subclause: (4.) It shall be a term and condition of any grant to a State under this Act that priority shall be given to schools in order of the greatest need and so that, as far as practicable, all children shall have equal access to library facilities.

If this sub-clause were accepted it would introduce into the Bill some kind of policy directive for which the Minister and those who advise him in the distribution and allocation of this money in the various States would be accountable. We have heard a lot of talk. There was plenty in the second reading speech and there is ample room for discussion here. So far as we are concerned we have not made this a debate on the principle of government and nongovernment schools. We accept that the Bill deals with both kinds of schools. What we are concerned with, though, is to make it plain that where Government moneys are allocated in the sphere of education they are to go to the areas of greatest need. We strove for that in an amendment to the motion for the second reading which was defeated. We are striving for it here, and although it would not be capable of precise definition this would be some kind of directive to the Minister and those assisting him in the administration of the Act that the principle of need was the principle which had to be followed. I made a lengthy contribution to the second reading debate and I have no desire to weary the Committee.

My only point is that the Bill itself simply says that money shall be allocated and it shall be spent for a certain purpose. There is nothing by way of guidelines for the Minister or those assisting and advising him in the administration of the Act as to how the money is to be spent. If it became a recognised principle of the legislation that priority should be given to schools in the order of the greatest need, then certainly if there is an annual report or if the Minister is answerable - as he is - to Parliament he would ultimately have to show how the money had been spent. The Minister has a very wide discretion in such a broad category of classification as this - the category of need. He would have to assert that the Government had spent the money in accordance with this principle. 1 hope that the amendment will be accepted, because it seems to me that if the protestations of the Government are to be accepted there should be no difficulty about acting on this principle.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– Mr Chairman, through you I would like to ask whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen) in putting this amendment has realised that in the Bill itself ‘secondary school’ is defined. His amendment reads, in part: lt shall be a term and condition of any grant to a State under this Act that priority shall be given to schools . . .

Is this a slip of the Party’s drafting or is this a snide way of getting other schools included in this Bill? I would like, first of all, to know whether the Opposition’s amendment does mean, as the Bill means, to give aid to libraries for secondary schools.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– If it is in order for me to answer the question, Mr Chairman, I would say that schools could have no other meaning in this context than secondary schools because it is a Bill to deal with libraries at secondary schools and ‘secondary school’ is defined. If the honourable senator is telling me that he will be voting for this if we make it secondary schools’ I would not find that an irresistible difficulty. But I do not think it is due to any inelegance of the draftsmanship of the Opposition. I think ‘school’ has an obvious meaning because the Bill defines ‘secondary school’ as a school or similar institution, whether conducted by a State or not, at which some or all of the students who attend the school are taught at a secondary level of education. So it is plain enough that we are not seeking to travel outside the area that is legally comprehended under this Bill. We have some difficulty in understanding from the Ministers reply just how it is all to be spent, but I am using the word ‘school’ in the sense in which it is used in the Bill.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– The wording of this amendment also interests me, but my query is in regard to the definition of the order of greatest need. First of all, who is to determine the order of greatest need? Is it to be the Commonwealth or the States which have to administer it? We will obviously get a different determination of ‘greatest need’ from different States so I do not think the amendment could possibly achieve what the mover seeks to achieve.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– 1 rise to underline what Senator Prowse with brevity and cogency has just said. We are trying to supplement and assist the State school system. We are giving the greater part of the money - twothirds - to the State school departments which select the order of priority in which their secondary schools benefit. Wilh regard to independent schools, after satisfying ourselves through an independent and experienced standards committee that the school standard qualifies it. we make an appropriation for the non-Catholic schools according to their decision as to priorities, and for the Catholic schools according to their decision as to priorities within their own field. What could be fairer than that? Rather than spell out principles we respect the decisions of responsible personnel who shall administer the scheme according to the most effective way in which these library benefits can be provided.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The more I hear the more I am convinced that such an amendment as this is necessary, because the Minister is virtually saying that the Government does not want to bc bound in any way by principles and would rather have an administration in which it can trust certain people, and it will be done all right. In the end a lot of people will be happier and there will be nothing to complain about. 1 have heard the Minister - before he became a Minister - on many occasions protest against this business of giving the whole of the administration of an Act to a Minister unfettered by any kind of principle and giving a discretion to him to do what he wants. There is nothing in the Bill which will compel the application of any of these kindly, homely thoughts that the Minister is discussing today. Indeed i got worried when 1 read the second reading speech because it says:

The Government hopes that the scheme will assist secondary schools to develop a modern school library - a centre of learning in which an extensive collection of various forms of instructional materials, including books, newspapers, periodicals, film strips, records and tape recordings, is available for use in the learning situation. 1 have no quarrel, I may say, with that objective. The Minister continued:

The intention is that schools will be able to obtain a good basic stock of these materials to be used in new libraries or in existing libraries where these are of acceptable standard.

Our point is that we want to deal with schools where libraries are not of an acceptable standard. We want to bring them up to an acceptable standard. We say that these are areas of need about which the Minister, or those helping him to administer the legislation, should make a bona fide report as to how the money is to be spent. Nobody could quibble about this provided that it is understood that this is an acceptable principle. That is all we are seeking. lt. is legitimate for Senator Prowse or the Minister himself to say: ‘Well, what do you mean by greatest need? ls that not a somewhat imprecise categorisation?’ I accept that statement and do not shrink from having to defend that proposition. Of course it is imprecise but it is belter than nothing at all. At the moment there is not a single thing in the Bill which would give any guide line as to the policy to be pursued. I think it is as simple as that, if we omit the proposed sub-clause we will not be registering what I believe to be the opinion of the Senate, that these grants ought to bc given where they can do most good. They should be applied to deprived areas, under-privileged areas, closely settled areas where there may be a high content of migrant children and so on: they should bc applied to the under-privileged groups in the community whose children attend crowded schools, difficult schools, and primary schools more often than secondary schools. These are the areas of need but we are limited to the terms of the Bill. I stil’l stress that this is an important principle and that we of the Opposition will insist upon it.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I wish to express a point of view on this proposed amendment. I think it must be read in conjunction with the policy of the people who propose it. Indeed, one could easily read into it sinister aspirations that mav be aimed at defeating the purpose of the’ Bill.

Senator Cohen:

– The area of greatest need - is that sinister?

Senator LITTLE:

– Senator Cohen should bc a little patient. He said that he was worried when he read the second reading speech of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). If he knew and understood the policy of his own Party in Victoria he probably would be even more worried. I propose to acquaint him with that policy in spite of the fact that by doing so I may leave him a little more worried.

Senator Cohen suggested when moving his amendment that (his Bill would apply to all children. But of course the policy of his party in Victoria precludes that from happening. 1 presume it is the intention of his Party to become the Government in Victoria. If it did become the Government it would have to administer the legislation in accordance with the way (hat the honourable senator now proposes to amend it. but then it would not apply to all children in Victoria.

Senator Cohen:

– Is this an Act of the Parliament of Victoria?

Senator LITTLE:

– This legislation will bc administered in part by the State of Victoria, as it will bc by other States. The honourable senator is as aware of that fact as I am. The policy of the Australian Labor Parly on the whole question of education has not been defined for years. Even now it is in the process of being redefined. The ‘Age’ newspaper in Victoria published a report on 2nd July 1968 of the decisions of the last State conference of Senator Cohen’s Party in Victoria, from which State he has the honour to come. That report states:

The annua! conference of the Victorian ALP last month by an overwhelming vote- 1 presume that Senator Cohen was present and that he voted- directed the State executive and the Parliamentary Party to oppose any grants to non-Government schools.

Further on the article states:

Determination of Federal policy on State aid will be made by the next Federal ALI1 conference in August, 1969, based on recommendations from the National Advisory Committee on Education.

The 13-member committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Hartley-

We know how he would feel towards the proposition that aid for libraries should go to all children in secondary schools.

Senator Cohen:

– The honourable senator is not still reading from the ‘Age’, is he?

Senator LITTLE:

– Yes.

Senator Cohen:

– Not that last bit.

Senator LITTLE:

– Yes. I am still reading from the ‘Age’ of 2nd July 1968. lt even pays the honourable senator the compliment of mentioning him by name. Having stated that Mr Hartley is the Chairman of that committee it states that the Federal Labor platform on education will be decided in 1969. The article concludes by stating:

Committee members include the Federal Labor leader (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Cohen).

The policy of the party to which Senator Cohen belongs is that there shall be no government grants to independent schools. Yet Senator Cohen has proposed this amendment today and has asked me, as a senator, to trust him. He suggests that the Government wants an open cheque. If it is a matter of signing open cheques, on records that exist and because of my views on this question, I would far rather grant an open cheque to the Government, although at times I rather doubt whether my trust in that direction is not betrayed. But we of the Democratic Labor Party would far rather trust the Government than trust somebody who comes along and inserts in an amendment the words ‘as far as practicable, all children shall have equal access to library facilities’, when the policy of the party to which that person belongs denies that it shall make grants to independent schools.

Senator Cohen:

– That is not so.

Senator LITTLE:

– If that is not the policy of the honourable senator’s Party in Victoria would he mind explaining to me why the Secretary of the Victorian branch of the ALP, Mr Hartley, said that the recent decision of the Victorian State conference opposing State aid to private schools was constitutional and binding on parliamentary Labor Party members. This statement appears also in the ‘Age’ of 2nd July 1968.

Senator Cohen:

– In the State of Victoria?

Senator LITTLE:

– Does not the honourable senator come from that State? I thought that he did. However, the Secretary stated that the decision was binding on all parliamentary Labor members. It is news to me that the Labor Party now makes a distinction between State and Federal members. I say that there is far more reason for me to trust the Government with this open cheque than to place my faith, according to my views of what is just and unjust in the educational system in Australia, in this amendment when I must read into it double meanings and ambiguities because the wording of the amendment does not comply with the policy of the Party that gave the amendment birth here today. For that reason the DLP proposes to vote against the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I must enter this debate because we have just seen how low a high level debate of this description can be brought for political purposes. The whole question is whether directions should be issued to a State Minister. The policy of the Australian Labor Party has been dragged into this debate.

Senator Little:

– Is the honourable senator proud of that policy?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Senator Little’s conscience will not even permit him to be quiet in order that we may restore this debate to its previous prestige and consider the merits rather than slink into the sewer for the purpose of dragging out political propaganda. That appears to be the purpose in this place of the honourable senator. The Bill we are debating is to provide a limited amount of money for use in secondary school libraries. About $7.5m is to be made available for the State of Victoria, which is the State under discussion at the moment. There is no need for any direction to the Minister if this meets all the requirements of providing library facilities for Victoria. I do not think the Minister for Works himself suggested that it will provide all the requirements of improved library facilities in Victoria. Therefore, it will be left to the State Minister to decide how this allocation will be made. The State Minister will make the allocation in accordance with the principles that he applies.

We cannot neglect the speech made this afternoon by Senator Kennelly. He has great suspicions as to whether this is not a payout to certain financially strong, or prestige, schools. We must have regard to the fact that a particular State Minister may have some prejudice or some liking for a school either in his own electorate or of his own denomination. He may have this prejudice for some other reason. He may allocate this money by some method that was open to question. All the amendment says is that we shall give him directions. What are the directions that the amendment seeks to give? We do not say that the Minister is to be directed that the money will go to State schools or to denominational schools. The money will go where the need is greatest. Can these champions of the advancement of the Australian society oppose that principle? If only a limited amount of money is to be made available, should it not go where the need is greatest? If the need for libraries is greatest in religious schools or prestige schools, that: is where the money will go. If the need exists in State schools, that is where the money should go.

This is not a question of giving money to denominational or to non-denominational schools. All we are suggesting is that we should examine the matter and give instructions to the State Minister concerned as to where the need is greatest. He would then be answerable for the allocation and the expenditure of the loan. He would make his decision as to where the money is to go because an urgent need exists in a certain school or in a certain locality. The position as it is today is that the money could go into schools that have well established libraries. This would be to the detriment of schools that have not well established libraries. We seek to give the State Minister instructions on the allocation of the money. But nowhere can there be read into this amendment the implementation of what is alleged to be the policy of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party. Nowhere can the policy of that Branch be read into this amendment. The purpose of the amendment cannot bc dragged down for some ulterior motive. To try to link this amendment with the policy of a particular branch of the Australian Labor Party is just to reduce this debate to the gutter tactics of political propaganda about which we hear so much from the cross-bench.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– It seems to me that Senator Cavanagh has made the situation quite clear now. His speech would seem to indicate that the whole basis of this amendment - the only basis of if - is a complete mistrust of the State governments of Australia, a distrust of the integrity of those governments. It is a distrust of the integrity of those parliaments. He says in effect that, as we cannot trust them, we must impose fetters on what they can do. It would appear to me that if this amendment is passed it would be a direct insult to the integrity of the State parliaments of Australia.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

- Mr Chairman, we seem to have the hare in the next county, if I may say so with respect to the honourable senator who has just spoken.

Senator Wright:

– I did not think that the honourable senator got out of the scrub.

Senator COHEN:

– The Minister is a very charming gentleman this afternoon!

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Order!

Senator COHEN:

– The position is a very simple one. The Bill does not lay down any principles upon which the Federal Government is to proceed in the disbursement of funds or upon which the State governments or any other committees are to proceed in the administration of the funds in any State. There are just no principles. All that we seek to do by this amendment is to provide that it shall be a term and condition of any grant to a State that priority shall be given to schools in order of the greatest need. If those who allocate this money do not have such a direction, what are they to understand the policy to be?

Are they to read the Minister’s second reading speech? Nothing appears in the Bill about any priorities. For that matter, there is nothing in the Bill about division between government and non-government schools. All that appears in the Bill is that a certain amount is allocated to each State.

What appears about government and non-government schools is to be found in the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Works. I am speaking for the Opposition in this debate. Everybody knows that we have not made the question of government or non-government schools an issue at any stage of this debate. Senator Little knows very well that at no stage have we raised this question. Our amendment means literally what it says. The amendment reads: (4.) It shall be a term and condition of any grant to a State under this Act that priority shall be given to schools in order of the greatest need and so that, as far as practicable, all children shall have equal access to library facilities.

That amendment just is not capable of interpretation. ‘All children’ means all children. We are talking about kids. We should not be talking about politics in the way that the honourable senator has attempted to do during this debate.

I want to see that in the administration of these Acts, which deeply concern children and parents, there should be some principle of need and priority. Is the Government saying: ‘We want to be at large. We do not want to have to apply the principle of need. We will determine our own principles. We will not have them in any Bill. We do not want to be hamstrung. We do not want the Parliament to tell us upon what principle we should be proceeding. We do not mind dribbling it out in a second reading speech. We do not mind various interpretations being put upon them, except the one that the Opposition is putting upon them’? 1 am not imputing any sinister motive here but I am saying that there need to be principles. Later on, we will be inviting the Senate not only to agree to an annual report, which, I understand, the Government is now prepared to accept but also a report which indicates the principles on which the moneys have been disbursed. What is more, we will be resisted on that proposal, because the Government does not want this principle to be part of the legislation and it does not want to have to account to the Parliament for the disbursement of this money in terms of any such principles.

I do not want to enter into a slanging match with Senator Little about the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. I am speaking here on behalf of the Opposition, which has put the view that it wants to put in this debate, lt is a perfectly clear view. lt is not based upon any issue relating to government or non-government schools. The earlier amendment that we moved, which Government supporters and Senator Little and his colleagues rejected, called for attention in the areas of greatest need and for an inquiry into education at all levels in both government and non-government schools. Let us have no more of this nonsense. Let us approach the problem on the basis of-

Government supporters - Hear, hear!

Senator COHEN:

– Government senators shout: ‘hear, hear!’ like a lot of jackasses. lt is all very cheap. It does not do credit to any of them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator COHEN:

– We are not to be put off by a pack of galahs.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! 1 ask Senator Cohen to come back to the clause under discussion.

Senator COHEN:

- Mr Chairman, I apologise to you for responding to the provocation. These are important matters. When dealing with questions of education it does not do to deal cheaply with them. You have to be sincere. You have to understand that for what we do in this Parliament we are accountable outside. When we spend large amounts of money we must account to the people with whom we come in contact and who ask: ‘On what did you spend it?’ We should be able to say: ‘So far as education is concerned, we tried to have it provided so that it would be spent in the areas of greatest need’. There is nothing whatever to apologise for in that attitude. Not only do we not apologise, we adhere very strictly to that policy.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I have a lot of sympathy for the general proposition for which Senator Cohen has been arguing. I understand him to be saying that in a Bill to provide money to the States for express purposes some principles should be included to guide the States as to the way in which the money is to be spent. 1 would have thought that by the word principles’ the honourable senator meant terms and conditions. The language he uses in his proposed amendment supports that view. We are considering a Bill to grant financial assistance to the States. In doing so we should recognise that the power in the Constitution under which the grant is made provides that the money may be granted on such terms and conditions as this Parliament thinks fit.

In all measures under which the Commonwealth provides assistance to the States for general educational purposes, the pattern of the legislation from advances for science blocks onwards has been that the money shall be expended by the States as approved by the Minister. I said earlier in a discussion on this subject that that is the sort of provision which exacerbates Federal and State relationships. The sovereignty of a State in a particular sphere in which it is sovereign is subjected to the whim or control or detailed policy directives of a Federal minister. If we can include in the legislation guiding principles - terms and conditions - I think that would be a much more suitable way of giving money to the States for expenditure on desirable objectives.

Having indicated my view on that matter, I think I should now say that I cannot see how Senator Cohen’s amendment does provide those principles, or terms and conditions, for which by his oratory he has pleaded so strongly. I invite the honourable senator’s consideration to a legal aspect. It appears to me that his proposed amendment, because of its relative obscurity, is more likely to create more problems than it is to relieve the difficulties to which he has referred. Clause 4 (3.) provides that payment is to be made to a State and the State will apply that money as approved by the Minister. Obviously a State will determine its priorities. The Miister has said in his second reading speech that for the State system the priorities will be determined by State education authorities. Doubtless they must get the approval of the Commonwealth

Minister for their proposals. If the amendment is accepted and becomes part of the pattern of the legislation, it will involve an obligation that the money must be spent in areas of greatest need. I think there is a problem in determining what is the area of greatest need. Someone must determine it, but who? Is it to be a State department or is it to be the Commonwealth Minister? Is it not likely to create problems by adding a further clause?

Similarly, a purpose of the amendment is to ensure that equal access to library facilities shall be available to all children. Problems involving judgments are bound to arise in the application of that criterion. Who is to make the judgments? Either a State education department or the Commonwealth Minister. It is clear that further difficulties would arise because a State may say: ‘We are giving effect to what the Parliament of the Commonwealth has decided. We are giving effect to the term or condition by which we are bound.’ And the Commonwealth Minister may say: ‘No, you are not, because what I say is in accordance with what is determined”. It is a problem which would probably be resolved in practical commonsense terms, but a problem would be created. The amendment if accepted would further enlarge the field of difficulties.

I have mentioned in passing that I believe the expressions ‘areas of greatest need’ and ‘equal access to facilities’ do not have precision sufficient to make them adequate terms or conditions, or to give sufficient expression in a practical way to what I think would be a desirable objective.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I do not wish to detain the Committee. I think we are indebted to Senator Greenwood for putting very fairly the argument against the amendment that I am seeking to have adopted. At one stage 1 conceded that the terms ‘area of greatest need’, ‘equal access’, equal opportunity’, ‘equal rights to life, liberty and happiness’, ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’, and such expressions are not capable of precise definition. However, they have found expression in the great constitutions which reflect the view that the people’s will ought to prevail. Such expressions are not terms of art. They are capable of infinitely variable interpretation. Nevertheless, they have come to mean something in the United Stales of America, France and other places where the egal’itarian flag has been raised. I have recognised the difficulty, in a sense. 1 ask Senator Greenwood to do me the favour of examining the other proposed amendment of which I have given notice. I propose at a later stage to seek to have inserted in any annual report that should be made by the Minister to the Parliament a statement of the principles upon which grants are made under the Act and the manner in which such principles have been applied in each State during the year.

I think Senator Greenwood would concede that there may be a difference in emphasis in the different States. That is inevitable when grants are made to the States for specific purposes and are administered on a State basis. But we are not relieved of the responsibility of trying to set down a principle, however difficult it may be in the interpretation and however differently it may be applied from State to State. I have anticipated that there may be some differences between States, and that a committee in, say, South Australia may report: We have spent our money in this way, using the basis of the greatest need in this manner’, while in New South Wales or Victoria it may be done differently.

While 1 appreciate the force of the comment made by Senator Greenwood on a lack of precision in the matter, the general1 purport of the amendment is unassailable, lt is a great deal preferable to having no guidelines at all in the Bill. Otherwise the Minister would be at large. I cannot see any justification for simply saying that this scheme will be as the Minister says it shall be, and that later on all we will be entitled to know is to which schools the money was given in each State and how much was given. We are entitled to know a great deal more than that. If this scheme is to be as successful1 as I hope it will be, it will help many under-privileged children to get access to books in a proper way which otherwise they would not have had.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 28

Majority . . 4

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 4a

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

AYES

NOES

That the following new clause be inserted in the. Bill: 4a. The Minister shall cause a statement to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the end of each year during the period to which this Act applies describing the arrangements in accordance with which payments under this Act have been authorised in that year and stating, in respect of each Slate -

in relation to secondary schools not being secondary schools conducted by the State -

the total amount paid to the State under this Act in that year; and

the names of the secondary schools in respect of which approvals for the application of moneys included in that amount have been given, and the amount approved for expenditure in respect of each such school; and

in relation to secondary schools conducted by the State-

the total amount paid to the State under this Act in that year; and

the names of the secondary schools in respect of which the State has, during that year, applied amounts paid to the State under this Act.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I move the following amendment to the proposed new clause:

Leave out all words after ‘applies’; insert: setting out the payments that have been authorised by him under this Act during that year and specifying the schools in relation to which payments have been made and the amount of the payment made to each of those schools, and stating the principles upon which grants are made under the Act and the manner in which such principles have been applied in each State during that year’.

I propose to speak only briefly in respect of this amendment. If one compares it with the new clause proposed by the Minister, one can see that it is to be distinguished from the proposed new clause by the addition of the requirement that the annual report shall state not only how much money has been spent on each school and in what State the money has been spend but also the principles upon which grants are made under the Act and the manner in which such principles have been applied in each State during the year.

The passing of the amendment would mean that the Parliament would be told each year not only what was done but also why it was done and upon what general principles it was done. It would mean that largely, although not wholly, the purpose that we had in mind in moving the amendment that the Committee has just defeated would be achieved. We can no longer insist upon the inclusion of a policy direction in the Bill, because the Committee has not agreed that priority shall be given to schools in order of the greatest need. But we as a Parliament would be very interested to know - indeed we are entitled to know - each year how these moneys have been spent; not just where they have been spent, but how the Committees have proceeded and upon what principles, of need or otherwise, they have proceeded. That seems to us to be eminently reasonable.

I think I am bound to say that before the Bill was passed in another place an amendment embodying what I am now proposing was put by the Opposition and defeated. The proposed new clause embraces portion of that amendment. Apparently the Government has accepted the obviously reasonable requirement made by the Opposition that there should be an annual report to the Parliament stating what has been done under the Act. We want, in effect, to tighten the nature of that report by adding a requirement that it shall contain a statement of principles. We hope that, notwithstanding the fact that the Committee negatived our last amendment, priority will be given to schools in the order of need.

But, in any event, we are entitled to know just how the money has been disbursed. Otherwise, as I have said repeatedly in the second reading debate and in Committee, the Minister is completely unfettered as to how the money is spent and our only guideline is the second reading speech which, as everybody knows, does not form part of the Bill. I invite honourable senators, irrespective of Party, to pay close attention to the amendment I have proposed and to appreciate that it is an attempt to get out of the Minister once a year not merely how he goes about his job administratively or who has the job of advising him but how, in each of the States, he and the Committees go about expending this very considerable sum of money among those who are to be the beneficiaries of the Government’s policy.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I think it is rather regrettable that the Opposition should take the viewpoint that Senator Cohen is now expressing. T ask the Committee to have a look at the amendment that the Government proposes. It requires the Minister to submit an annual statement describing the arrangements in accordance with which payments under the Act have been authorised in that year and stating, in respect of each State, the total amount paid to each State and containing a list of the schools showing the amount received by each of them in the categories of State schools and independent schools. In other words, he is required to submit a statement describing the arrangements and setting out in detail an account of the expenditure. If any more ample statement were ever offered to Parliament, I have yet to be referred to the precedent.

Senator Cohen’s passion for contention and infinite debate on what he calls ‘education’ is such that in effect he wants to substitute principles for what we call ‘arrangements’. He wants an annual statement to Parliament stating the principles upon which grants are made under the Act and the manner in which such principles have been applied. I suggest that Senator Cohen cannot point to an Act of Parliament which requires an annual statement explaining to Parliament the administration of the Act and stating the principles upon which the provisions of the Act have been applied. When this Bill originally came to this chamber it contained no provisions for accounting to Parliament for the administration of these moneys. We have proposed an amendment whereby the Minister will submit a statement of the arrangements made for the administration of the money together with a list in detail of the amounts approved and expended.

If it is suggested by the advocacy of the Labor Party that honourable senators will not better understand from the actual fact of administration the principles that are involved in that administration, I think that is not a suggestion that many honourable senators on this side of the chamber will accept. I would think that you would get a much more practical understanding of the principles that underlie the administration from a detailed statement of the way in which the money has been expended than you would from some theoretical abstract expression of principles that might occur to the person who made the statement that was adopted by the Minister.

There is one thing that the Commonwealth Government is very keen to establish in connection with the administration of its education vote. 1 mentioned this morning that we claim to have made great advances in the co-operation that exists between the Commonwealth and the States in the educational field. Any attempt to cause divergence in any way is strongly resisted by us. I want it to be quite clearly known that State Education Ministers have made it clear in conferences that they would very much regret and resent the imposition of conditions upon their administration of this grant. We, of course, are charged with the responsibility of seeing that the grants reach the destinations intended by this Parliament but, in expressing that in the Bill, our chief endeavour has been to avoid any expression that will give the idea that the States are simply carrying out the dictates of this Parliament.

This is a matter which I would trust that the Senate, including my colleague Senator Greenwood, if I might address him, through you, Mr Chairman, out of respect for his last observations, will consider seriously. We prefer, on present experience, to place implicit trust in the State Education Departments in their administration of these moneys and we would expect that there would be resistance to any request that they should spell out the principles that actuated them in the disbursement of them.

There has been a broad expression in the Bill of the purposes for which the money is to be used. It is to be expended on library buildings, equipment, and materials for secondary schools and these projects must be approved by the Commonwealth Minister; but to lay down the principles upon which the State Department should be expected to act is a step which, in the interests of co-operation in the administration of the vote, we do not wish to take.

I would ask the Senate on reflection to consider the amendment that 1 have offered to it on this annual statement as a gesture. Knowing the keenness of this chamber to maintain intact the responsibility of the Administration to Parliament, we have offered this amendment which I submit meets every reasonable requirement of that principle, by requiring the Minister to report each year showing the arrangements in accordance with which the money is spent and the details of the amounts actually approved or paid in each State.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– 1 have listened with very keen interest to both Senator Cohen and Senator Wright. I think the amendment offered by Senator Wright adequate for the purposes of the Senate when we consider the normal practices of the Senate. Each year, the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science is required to get his estimates through the Senate. The Senate usually debates estimates in great detail. Again, at the time of debating the estimates, the Senate usually has before it the report of the Auditor-General. In all probability, it will also have had the report of the activities of the library section of the Department by that time.

I consider that the normal processes of the Senate will1 enable a very thorough investigation to be made of the money spent, and the areas in which it is spent, and the Minister will be called upon to answer for the principles upon which these moneys have been spent. I think it is far more satisfactory to deal with it in that way, in the normal processes of the Senate, than to put in the Bill this rather amazing requirement set out in the amendment pro posed by Senator Cohen. I therefore think that, without further ado, the Senate should accept the amendment offered by Senator Wright and reject the further amendment proposed by Senator Cohen.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I shall be brief in replying to what has been said. The amendment offered, as Senator Wright puts it, springs out of the refusal by the Government to accept in the House of Representatives an amendment similar to that which I am now asking be accepted rather than that proposed by the Minister. I venture to say that if the Opposition in the other place had not made such a fuss about the Minister reporting to Parliament that provision would not have been included in the legislation. It was not included in the Bill originally. In the event of my amendment being defeated, I certainly agree that the Minister’s proposition is ‘better than nothing, as it requires that a report should be made to Parliament once a year on certain aspects. But the Opposition can obtain that kind of information by putting questions on the notice paper every couple of months. In fact, the Opposition has been adopting this course to obtain information regarding grants to schools under the science laboratories scheme. The Opposition seeks a statement by the Government as to what principles it proceeds upon. It is quite obvious that when the Opposition asks the Government to outline these principles it may as well be talking to a brick wall. The Government does not want to be pinned down to any principle.

I do not want it to be thought that the Opposition is implying or alleging in any way that it mistrusts any Slate administration. What the Opposition says is that the ordinary principles of legislation should apply in this instance in that there should be some accounting requirement which will enable the Opposition to understand on what basis the committees have gone about their work. To say that the Opposition has some mistrust is really putting up a straw man to knock him down again. It is not so much mistrust as a desire to be properly informed on a scheme which is being left very much at large. I think this is a very proper requirement to insist upon, lt is one that the Opposition asks the Senate to support.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cohen’s amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2239

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1968

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 19 November (vide page 2 1 06).

Clause 10.

Section 29aa of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: 29aa. - (1.) A purchaser or borrower in relation to land or land and a dwelling house is eligible for relief under this section in respect of the land or land and dwelling house if -

Upon which Senator Poke had moved by way of amendment:

In paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 29aa after ‘insane’ add ‘or incapacitated’.

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

[3.30] - Honourable senators willrecall that when we were last in Committee on this Bill I asked for leave to report progress so that I might be able to give some thought to points which had been raised in connection with the amendment which had been moved by Senator Poke. I want now to give some explanations concerning what has been said during the debate. During the earlier debate on the amendment moved by Senator Poke to clause 10 dealing with the relief scheme for widows a number of honourable senators raised points which to my mind suggested that there was a great deal of misunderstanding concerning the purpose and effect of the clause. So I should like firstly to endeavour to clear up some points on which I feel that there is some misunderstanding. After I have done that J propose to restate the Government’s attitude to the amendment.

I remind honourable senators that the relief scheme for widows is presently encompassed in section 29aa and section 39 of the principal Act. These sections when taken together authorise the Minister to grant relief in cases of hardship to certain widows and to the wife of an Australian soldier who is temporarily or permanently insane. The relief provided for in the sections is in the nature of a deferment of payments clue to the Director in respect of instalments and expenditure incurred by the Director in respect of rates, repairs and other outgoings on property. Clause 10 of the Bill provides for an extension of the relief scheme to certain widows who are not presently eligible for relief. That is the point to which I draw attention at the moment. These are mainly widows of certain merchant seamen who, although they are eligible to receive a loan under the War Services Homes Act, were not included in the categories of widows eligible for relief under the provisions when they were introduced into the Act in 193S. I emphasise that clause 10 docs not extend in any way the range of benefits or make any substantial changes in the operation of the relief scheme, other than in the matter which I have mentioned.

However, because clause 14 provides for the repeal of section 39a, along with the War Service Homes Relief Trust Account, it has been necessary to recast section 29aa to include those matters relating to relief from the payments of outgoings previously covered in section 39a which it is necessary to retain. Certain other technical drafting changes have been made, but these do not affect in any way the substance of the relief scheme as presently provided in section 29aa and section 39a of the Act. I repeat that the only purpose of clause 10 is to extend the categories of widows who may apply for assistance under the relief scheme and to bring into those categories the widow of a merchant seaman who is eligible for assistance but who, prior to this amendment, has not been eligible for relief.

During the debate when the Bill was last before the Committee reference was made to section 45 of the principal Act. From references made on that occasion it appeared to me that there was considerable doubt about the scope of operation in this section, so I feel that 1 should refer to it again. Section 45 provides that in cases of hardship the Director may extend for such period and on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, the time for making any payment required by this Act. The types of payment for which an extension may be granted by the Director are the same as those for which there is provision in the relief scheme. This section, together with other legislative provisions - namely, section 31 of the principal Act which authorises the Director to carry out repairs and regulation 22 which enables the Director to pay rates - provides for the deferment of the repayment, of the expenditure so incurred by him if hardship is established. I believe that that covers the circumstances in which assistance is provided in this area.

Section 45 embraces a much wider range of persons than are covered by the relief scheme. As honourable senators will realise, the relief scheme is limited to the people whom 1 have mentioned. Without this amendment we could not under that relief scheme assist widows of merchant seamen. However, I think it is only proper to point out that section 45 does not envisage the granting of relief under the terms of that section for an indefinite and continuing period. This is the reason why provision is being made in the relief scheme for the widows of merchant seamen, which is the point we were discussing and on which I felt there was still some confusion. I hope that through the comments 1 have made in explaining the reason for the amendment to section 29aa, and in explaining again what sections 45 and 31 of the principle Act do, I have been able to clear up some of the points which were concerning honourable senators.

I propose now to restate the Government’s attitude to the proposed amendment to clause 10 which was moved by Senator Poke. I remind honourable senators that the war service homes scheme is a home ownership scheme. It was never conceived or suggested to be an auxiliary scheme for the provision of social welfare payments not available to other members of the community. Further, the history of the widows relief scheme shows that it was introduced to assist a particular category of persons, namely, the widow who, as a result of the considerable reduction in the family income by the death of her husband, was experiencing hardship in meeting the commitments on a loan granted to her husband, a loan for which he was responsible and in respect of which she is now left to fulfil the conditions. The purpose of the relief scheme was to enable the widow to retain the occupancy of the house after the death of her husband. It is quite true that the scheme provides also for the grant of relief to the wife of an Australian soldier who is temporarily or permanently insane. But, as I said when I spoke previously, a person who is temporarily or permanently insane lacks not only the physical and mental capacity to manage his own affairs, but lacks also the legal capacity to make decisions. No doubt this is the reason why provision has been made in the Act to grant relief to the v/ife of the person who is temporarily or permanently insane.

That person, incidentally, is also eligible to receive a loan under the Act. This is provided in the principal Act. The wife of such a person is, for all practical purposes, virtually in the same position as the widow. It will be appreciated. 1 hope, that the amendment proposed by Senator Poke runs counter to the philosophy which has governed the operation of the relief scheme for the past 30-odd years since 1935. Apart from the question of the principle involved there is, 1 think, a very important problem in this matter of deciding what degree of incapacity should be accepted under the proposed amendment. I think all honourable senators will agree that there are many degrees of incapacity: Some are minor and some are major; some are self-inflicted, such as alcoholism, and some are inevitable such as advancing age.

If the scope of the scheme were extended to provide for relief in all cases of incapacity it would be very necessary to review the whole approach - and I think this is a most important point - to the granting of loans under the War Service Act because this would be a matter to which we would have to give very real consideration. We all know that the War Service Homes Act places some responsibility on the Director to be satisfied, before granting a loan, that the borrower has a reasonable prospect of meeting the obligations of that loan. In the past the Director has relied largely upon the equity established by the borrower as a safeguard against loss and it has not been the practice to take into account the age of the borrower or his medical condition in determining whether a loan should be granted. But I. would say that if provision were to be made in the Act whereunder the borrower’s equity could be extinguished by mounting interest charges and the payment of other outgoings on the property, it would be necessary to look very carefully at the age of the applicant and his medical condition before granting a loan. In fact, we would have to approach this as does a bank or other lending authority. The Director would have to look at each borrower in the light of his age and medical condition as does a bank or other lending authority.

I believe that this could, regrettably, result in applications being refused or the period of a loan being reduced to a term within the estimated effective working life of the borrower. This gets right away from the principle of the assistance which we all in this Senate wish eligible ex-service personnel1 to receive. Rather than removing hardship, I believe that the amendment moved by Senator Poke which seeks to provide further assistance would create further hardship and would deny many eligible persons the opportunity to acquire a home under the very advantageous conditions of a war service homes loan.

I have studied this most carefully. I think 1 can sum up my reply in three points. Firstly, the Government considers that the existing relief scheme for widows, together with the amendments proposed under clause 10 now before the Committee, provides a fair and reasonable measure of relief and no substantial justification can be seen for the granting of further benefits of a social welfare kind which are not available to other members of the community. Secondly, provision already exists, as I said, under section 45 for the granting of relief in cases of hardship such as the one placed before this Committee by Senator Cavanagh. To deal’ with this kind of case there is no need for further legislation of this kind. Thirdly, the terms of the amendment could deny to many eligible persons the opportunity of acquiring a home under the advantageous conditions which the war service homes legislation gives to them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laught:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– I am afraid I cannot accept the explanation given by the Minister. I do not blame the Minister for this, but 1 do blame the Government. The Government has backed and filled on this particular issue and it has tried to throw confusion into the ring on this occasion so as to confound confusion. The Minister did make mention of a philosophy which has prevailed over a period of 30 years. I am not worried about philosophies and 1 do not care how long philosophies have prevailed. What I am concerned about is justice.

Senator Cormack:

– What about the Marxist one?

Senator POKE:

– You speak when you are spoken to, please. I am speaking to the Minister at the moment. So far as justice is concerned, when this matter was before the Committee previously Senator Cavanagh presented an unanswerable case. Now the Minister refers to section 45.

Senator Gair:

– The case that the honourable senator raised was accommodated under section 45.

Senator POKE:

– Again we find the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party coming to the assistance of the Government. It is pretty norma] for the DLP, and particularly the Leader of the DLP to come to the assistance of the Government. Very often the Government has depended for its legislation on the support of the DLP.

Senator Gair:

– How in the hell could anyone go with you?

Senator POKE:

– I would not want you to go with me anywhere because I would nol bc seen dead with you. That is telling you straight.

Senator Gair:

– That upsets me a lot.

Senator POKE:

– It upsets me considerably, too. The Minister did refer to section 45 and my interpretation - whether I am correct or riot remains for this Committee to judge - is that section 45 is non-continuing. It is non-continuing insofar as a case which was made out by Senator Cavanagh is concerned. I would also suggest to the Minister and to the Government that the Opposition is not endeavouring under its amendment to make the War Service Homes Act a social welfare Act. We are not endeavouring to do this at all; we are simply requesting that the Government take a humane approach to a human problem.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– 1 direct roy remarks very closely to the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Poke. 1 think that when this matter was last before the Committee there was a general attitude to be detected that there was merit in the amendment. But I do not think 1 put the position unfairly if 1 say that the general opinion was that if benefits were to flow because of hardship arising from an initial situation where an eligible person was insane, why should not benefits also flow from hardship which arose where an eligible person was physically incapacitated? The general attitude was: Well, what is the difference in terms of hardship between that which flows to a wife because of mental incapacity and that which flows because of physical incapacity?’ I shared that altitude and though I think it is not relevant to this amendment, I still do.

I have found helpful the opportunity given by the Minister when she postponed consideration, of this clause. It has given me an opportunity to peruse the relevant sections of the War Service Homes Act in order to see how proposed section 29aa will fit into the existing scheme. It also enabled me to see the fallacy of introducing the words ‘or incapacitated’ as proposed in the amendment moved by the Opposition.

May I shortly take up the time of the Committee to refer to the Act as it now exists and as it will be when amended by clause 10 of the Bill. The Act clearly contains two provisions under which relief may be granted when hardship arises. The first is section 45. Without reading it, that is a section which is couched in very wide terms. Where the Director of War Service Homes is satisfied that there is hardship, he may extend the time for making payments required under the Act. Of course, the extension of time which he permits can be granted on terms and conditions. Naturally, if a payment is required to be made it is open to the Director to decide that the time for payment may be extended for 12 months on condition that a quarter of the amount be paid during the intervening period. So quite legitimately there can be a reduction of the amount of instalments, which is the type of benefit being expressly conferred by proposed new section 29aa.

The scope of what is permitted by section 45 extends to any payments required by the Act. I have searched through the Act and it appears to me that payments required by the Act are certain refunds for road making, gas, sewerage and the like which are required to be paid by the Director under section 18a. Certain deposits must be paid on purchase under the provisions of section 19. Moneys which are advanced and not properly expended may be called in under section 27. There are the repayments of instalments or moneys advanced, which arc contemplated by section 29, and there are the amounts involved in repairs which the Director has caused to be effected, and rates which the Director has paid, which are expressly covered by section 31 and by regulation 22 of the regulations. All these payments are required by the Act and therefore, under section 45, the Director, when satisfied that hardship has been disclosed and when discretion will permit him, may extend the time of payment on such terms and conditions as he sees fit. As I indicated earlier, that can be construed to allow a reduction in instalments.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is the need for section 29aa?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If the honourable senator will bear with me, 1 am coming to that aspect. Applying what little legal training I have had, I should have thought that section 45 was a comprehensive section capable of being utilised to achieve all the objectives set out in section 29aa but from inquiries I have made, the advice under which the Director acts comes from the Crown Solicitor, which is to the effect that section 45 permits only a temporary benefit to be conferred. I am unable to say why that should be so. However 1 think one must respect the fact that for many years that advice has been acted upon. Indeed, it is advice on the basis of which section 29aa was originally enacted some 30-odd years ago and that section has continued in existence over that period.

Senator Little:

– But section 45 relates to the actual borrowing, does it not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I should think not. I should have thought that section 45 was applicable to any payment required by the Act.

Senator Little:

– But that is for a widow paying on behalf of her husband who was the actual borrower.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Yes, in my opinion this would be so. But of course my view must be set alongside other views which may be to the contrary. I suggest that if honourable senators look at section 45 they will see why it is couched in objective terms. It says that the time for making any payment required by the Act may be extended and that, of course, would relate to any payment by whomsoever it was obliged to be made.

When one considers the proposed amendment to proposed section 29aa, it is apparent that the relief which is now in the Act, comprehended in the existing section 29aa and section 39, is being widened to extend to some people who previously were not covered. Previously the people covered were widows, the widowed mothers of Australian soldiers and, indeed, the wives of temporarily or permanently insane former Australian soldiers. It did not include the widows of merchant seamen, to give one example to which the Minister referred. But under the clause which is proposed, the scope of persons- entitled to relief is to be widened and will include the widow or widowed mother not just of a former Australian soldier but of an eligible person. It would also cover the wife of a temporarily or permanently insane ‘eligible person’. Of course the real difference is in the extension of eligibility from ‘Australian soldiers’ as denned in the Act to ‘eligible persons’.

In those circumstances proposed new section 29aa would provide for a group of persons to whom benefits may be granted. It would be complete and comprehensive, I suppose, if there were to be a third category added, namely, any physically incapacitated eligible person. Having made that explanation, the point I make is that the amendment moved by the Labor Party does not add that third category. The amendment if carried would create an anomalous situation because it would result in simply adding the words ‘or incapacitated’ immediately following the words ‘temporarily or permanently insane’. That would create the curious position that the only person who would derive a benefit would be a wife who was a purchaser or borrower and whose husband was an eligible person who was physically incapacitated. That would be such a small group- there may not be any such people at all - as to make the effect of the amendment nugatory.

  1. suggest to honourable senators that if they examine the proposed section 29aa they will see the words ‘A purchaser or borrower … is eligible for relief . . if . . . her husband is an eligible person who is temporarily or permanently insane.’ Looked at alone, those words appeared to me the other night to be obscure. They would still remain obscure but for the fact that section 20 (3.) of the principal Act indicates that where an eligible person becomes temporarily or permanently insane, with the consent of the Director that person’s wife may be made the person to whom the advance is made. Accordingly. I think it would be a desirable thing if section 29aa and section 45 were comprehended in the one section. That would. I think, make one relief section which would be useful. But that is not the situation that we have before us. We have section 45 on the one hand and proposed new section 29aa on the other. When one comes to examine what precisely the Australian Labor Party is seeking to have added to proposed new section 29aa. I think that there is involved in the amendment a misconception, which I shared, as to the effect of the section but which T think I have clarified to my own satisfaction. If the amendment proposed by the Labor Party were to bc accepted, it would really not widen effectively the scope of persons whom it is designed to have benefited. I personally believe that the persons whom it is designed to have benefited can achieve this benefit because of the width of the provisions of section 45. Therefore, I am quite content to oppose the amendment.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– As I was saying when the Committee dispensed with ray services on Tuesday last during the consideration of this Bill, a number of very confusing matters have been raised by the Minister for Housing. Now Senator Greenwood has added to the confusion with his legal interpretations of several sections of the Act. Quite frankly, I think that the case for the Australian Labor Party was put very well by Senator Poke when he introduced this amendment. But may I expand it a little, lt is obvious that the Minister, when she replied earlier this afternoon from a prepared statement, laid great emphasis on that section of the speech delivered earlier in which reference was made to encouraging home ownership within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. 1 refer the Senate to the report of the War Service Homes Division for 1967-68. lt does not really bear out what the Minister said. .

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– From what page is the honourable senator reading?

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 refer to page 2, Part 11, of the annual report where it is stated:

Since the inception of the War Service Homes Scheme on 6th March 1919 to 20th June 1968, 520,894 applications for assistance to build or purchase homes have been received. Of this number, 298,832 have been approved, 218,379 have been refused or withdrawn for various reasons, leaving a balance of 3,683 still’ pending at 30th /une 1968.

The next paragraph deal’s with the applications that were in the course of being dealt with or which were deferred. These figures indicated that the theory expounded by the Minister when she introduced the Bill and when addressing the Committee earlier this afternoon is not supported. These figures do not agree with what the Minister attempted to convey to us. I do not quite understand the sense of what she said. 1 have other worries too. 1 posed a couple of questions in relation to the number of nation:1 servicemen who come under the three different categories. I am very disappointed that the Minister is not able to supply this information before the debate on this Bill is completed. Why can this not be done? After all, this should be possible if the Department is administered properly. I am not blaming the people who work in the Department. J am sheeting the responsibility home to the Minister. Either the Minister is incompetent or disinterested or else she docs not want to supply the information. These are simple questions. Such answers ought to be available within a few hours from any well run Department.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– I have the answers here if the honourable senator would like them. We happen to be dealing with a different part of the Bill at this stage of the Committee discussion, lt would be better for the honourable senator to come back to the matter under discussion. We could deal later with the matter he raised now.

Senator KEEFFE:

– My remarks are consistent with what is under discussion now. I happen to be speaking about the amendments before the Committee, which have a bearing on this matter. After all, this was part of the statement by the Minister when she returned to the discussion of this Bill this afternoon. I do suggest that if we become confused by what Senator Greenwood said we will lose complete control and the amendment moved by Senator Poke will be thrown completely out of perspective. But I do hope that we will not be confused, that the Minister is consistent, as she says she is, in relation to the provision of additional houses for more exservicemen, and that most of all we adopt a humane attitude to providing homes for ex-servicemen.

May I finish by saying that in one of the points she made the Minister claimed that if these amendments were accepted older ex-servicemen no longer would be eligible for the loan. They would need to stait applying financial pressures to see whether they had still enough of their working lives remaining to pay off a home. The Minister implied that some categories would have to be reduced. But, as I said earlier, in a Department that is not showing a loss this seems to me to be a very shortsighted and inhuman attitude to adopt towards people who, in many instances, have given the best years of their life in the service of this country and who, in other instances, have returned to civilian life with physical or mental handicaps that they would never have had to bear had they not served in the forces of this nation.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– 1 hope with all the sincerity that I can muster, that the Senate will not press for the adoption of the amendment moved by the Opposition to add the words ‘or incapacitated’ in proposed new section 29aa. I say this firstly because I believe that the amendment seeks to bring into the one new proposed section two different sets of people. I want to deal with these people quietly and without emotion as two separate entities - as borrowers and clients of the War Service Homes Division - as I see them. Experience has proved that it is necessary that provision be written into the Act for the War Service Homes Division to have some authority to help the widow of an ex-serviceman, the ex-serviceman being the borrower and breadwinner or pensioner. In many cases some time elapses before the widow knows whether she will be an accepted case, as she is called, or whether she will be a non-acceptable case in respect of eligibility for a war widow’s pension. Time elapses also while she collects her thoughts, determines her future and the future of her family if she has any dependent on her, and decides whether or not she wants to and is able to carry on as the borrower in the place of her deceased husband.

In my experience, the War Service Homes Division has done all that it can to meet these human interest aspects that arise each time that a borrower of war service homes money predeceases his wife. Therefore, the Bill, as it is, is an advance. It is something that no-one is quarrelling about. But when the words ‘or incapacitated’ are added, as proposed by the amendment moved by the Opposition, the legislation then refers to a living ex-serviceman who is a borrower from the War Service Homes Division. This Act has been in operation for a large number of years. Many times it has been up for re-assessment and amendment. 1 believe that the fact that section 45 has stood the test of time is almost sufficient to say that the ex-serviceman borrower who meets up with hardship has been and therefore is fully covered by the legislation. At this stage I see no need to amend section 45 of the Act.

Experience has shown to me that when an ex-serviceman - sometimes through selfinflicted wounds, sometimes through ill fortune or misadventure - has fallen on hard times and has got into difficulties with the repayments of his war service home, he has been very generously treated, and not only in financial matters. In many other ways he has been helped to rehabilitate his financial and health situation so that he can become a satisfactory and satisfied borrower from the War Service Homes Division.

Whether we like it or not, ever since the scheme has been in operation the War Service Homes Division has acted as a type of benevolent banker. It has lent money under conditions laid down by Parliament over periods of 40 years for a timber house and 44 or 45 years for a brick house, at very low monthly repayments. Many hundreds of thousands of ex-service families have been well housed through this scheme. It has been said in support of the proposed amendment that the War Service Homes Division in providing homes for exservicemen should look after people who are incapacitated. The Opposition has not defined whether the incapacity referred to is partial, complete, temporary or permanent.

If the amendment is accepted so that the War Service Homes Division will be asked to provide homes for ex-servicemen, irrespective of age, state of health, earning capacity or anything like that, it may be necessary to write into the legislation harsher conditions for lending money. Parliament throughout the whole history of war service homes legislation has laid down certain regulations which have resulted in the War Service Homes Division being able to say: ‘Yes, this is a borrower who is nol only eligible to receive assistance but is also classified as a person financially and physically sound enough to enter into a monetary contract as provided by Parliament in respect of war service homes.’

I completely understand the motive of Senator Cavanagh in raising the matter that has been referred to in this debate as the Cavanagh case’. If I were the political or ex-service consultant to the family of a war service homes borrower who, by accident, was seriously injured and a case for compensation was pending, one of the first things I would do would be to counsel the wife of the borrower to approach the State Director of the War Service Homes Division and say: This is the situation: We will not have the income to meet your repayments. Will you please write to our solicitors, as the case is pending until such and such a time, and tell them that the Division is prepared to cease accepting repayments until that time, and that you will review the case?’ 1 say this as a layman. I believe it gives something extra to the lawyer fighting the case for compensation. He can build up his case. He is informed that over and above any other claims that may be pressed, it is the soldier’s right to maintain his equity in his war service home. 1 know perfectly well that delays occur in the hearing of compensation cases by courts. If at the end of 6 months the case were still undecided, the War Service Homes Division could write another letter, saying: ‘We understand the situation. We therefore grant a further extension of time. In effect, we are just reminding the people who are to judge this compensation case that money is due to the Division.’ The ex-serviceman concerned would not be harassed for payment.

Wilh great respect, I do not think the addition of the word ‘incapacitated’ to the clause would assist in cases such as that referred to by Senator Cavanagh. I believe that all cases of living ex-service borrowers lire sufficiently covered by section 45. 1 believe that the introduction of the proposed section 29aa will be very gratefully received in the future by widows who will have an opportunity to take over loans previously held by their husbands. I ask honourable senators opposite not to press for the word ‘incapacitated’ to be added to this clause.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I said on Tuesday evening during the debate on this Bill that time had not permitted me to examine the clauses in detail. At that time I did not even have a copy of the parent Act. Like Senator Greenwood, 1 have since spent some time in studying the Act. We appreciate that since the debate was adjourned the Minister’s explanation has thrown particular light on the measure. Senator Greenwood’s speech this afternoon has given us the benefit of a legal interpretation. As the honourable senator’s interpretation could well be different from the legal opinion of the Minister’s advisers, it could well be that wc do not know who is correct on the matter. We will have no certainty until a judgment is obtained. In the meantime, with great respect to Senator Greenwood’s ability, we must accept his legal interpretation with reservations. The records available to the Minister’s legal advisers may show that section 45 is a product of scissors and paste, as was this legislation when originally drafted.

I thank Senator Marriott for his advice as to how I should have handled the case I raised. If I had had that advice earlier and had accepted it, it may have had some effect upon the tribunal judging the amount of compensation to be awarded; but in the meantime the borrower would have been out of his war service home.

Senator Marriott:

– He would never be kicked out while a case was pending.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He came to me with a letter from the Director of the War Services Homes Division, which stated that unless he paid up his instalments by a certain date the Division would foreclose the mortgage and sell the home. I contacted the Department but it had very little sympathy for the case. I wrote to the Minister. I rang my Adelaide office to obtain the exact wording of the Minister’s reply. She advised me that there was no power under the Act to defer the payment of all instalments for an indefinite period. While the Minister has a very appealing voice when she speaks of hardship, her Department is not as sympathetic as it would appear to be. The man in the case to which I have referred is now a paraplegic. He will receive good compensation if his claim is successful. He may be able to pay off the whole loan. This will be after a threat of foreclosure.

Following my representations, presumably under section 45 the payment of the arrears of instalments to the extent of $250 has been suspended on the condition that this man pays the current instalments. That will be the position for a period of 6 months, after which the matter will be reviewed. This man is struggling to educate his children. He is hobbling about and doing a little voluntary work. He has to find the money to pay the current instalments to stop the foreclosure of his property by this Department, which Senator Marriott says he has found very sympathetic in respect of such claims. In this case the request is made only in respect of the period of time until this man can get his Supreme Court case heard.

Let me get back to the point. 1 acknowledge - I did not appreciate this last Tuesday night - that the relief that is essential for the man to whom I have referred comes under section 45. If Senator Greenwood’s interpretation of that section is correct, there is no need at all for section 29aa. Section 45 (1.) reads:

In cases of hardship, the Director may extend, for such period and on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, the time for making any payment required by this Act.

The legal opinion that has been supplied to the Department is that if there is hardship in a particular case the payment of instalments can be suspended. This is the section that has been used for the suspension of payment in the case I have mentioned. The power provided in section 29aa of the Act is not for the suspension of payment; it is for the reduction of the weekly payments that a purchaser or borrower is making, under certain conditions. If a person is committed to the payment of $10 a week and during the term of the mortgage something happens which makes payment difficult, relief can be given under section 29aa. It reads: (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where, in the opinion of the Minister, the payment by a widow or widowed mother of an Australian soldier or by the wife of an Australian soldier who is temporarily or permanently insane of the full amount of any instalments required to be paid under sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section would cause hardship, the Minister may, from time to time, reduce the amount of any such instalments.

So, while section 45 gives the power to suspend payments, section 29aa gives the power to reduce the amount of weekly instalments. The Bill also makes it possible for the Director to advance moneys for the purpose of making repairs to the building if, through hardship, the occupier cannot carry them out, or for the payment of rates to stop the building being sold up.

Under the existing section 29aa the benefit is available to the widow or widowed mother of an Australian soldier. Of course, the definition of persons who can qualify for a loan goes much beyond the definition of an Australian soldier. Therefore, the section seeks to delete the words ‘Australian soldier’. The Minister says that the idea is to encompass the wives of merchant seamen. Let us look now at a matter which I do not think is covered by the Opposition’s amendment but which to my mind is important. Proposed section 29aa (1.) reads:

A purchaser or borrower in relation to land or land and a dwelling house is eligible for relief under this Section in respect of the land or land and dwelling house if -

Then certain conditions are laid down. There we have the only ones who are entitled to relief under this section. The person who is so entitled is not the wife of an Australian soldier; she is not the widowed mother or widow of an Australian soldier. A purchaser or borrower is the only one who is eligible. The terms ‘purchaser’ and borrower’ are defined in the Act. It is no use saying that they can include the wife of an Australian soldier. The Act states:

Borrower’ means a person who has received an advance or who has executed a mortgage or other security to the Director.

And:

Purchaser’ means a person who has purchased from the Director a dwelling house and land.

Under the definitions, they are the two classes of people who can become eligible persons. An eligible person can be the wife or widow of an Australian soldier or someone in the larger category of persons mentioned in the definition of ‘eligible person’. But before she becomes entitled to benefits, the mortgage must be transferred and she must become the purchaser or borrower. I suppose it is easy enough in the case of a widowed mother or widow, unless, under the will of the deceased, the house was left under some other arrangement although the widowed mother or widow had tenancy of it.

Let us look at the case of a woman whose husband is an eligible person, who is purchasing his home and who r suffers temporary insanity. Before his wife can obtain relief under proposed section 29aa she has to have the title deeds to the home. That is an essential requirement of this section. Surely, in view of what we have heard about sympathy for people who are trying to obtain homes under this scheme, neither the Minister nor other senators who have spoken will believe that that is a suitable requirement. The Labor Party’s amendment seeks to extend the benefits. At this stage, when the Commonwealth is receiving more than it is paying out under the war service homes scheme, when someone has entered into a 40-year contract under which the Commonwealth promises to assist him in purchasing a home and something goes wrong as a result of which his income is reduced - perhaps he is reduced to receiving a pension - is it unreasonable to suggest that, instead of losing his home because of his inability to pay the instalments as a result of his incapacity, his instalments should be reduced if in the opinion of the Minister such is justified? It is not automatic. Is that an undesirable extension of the benefits provided under the Act?

Of course, there are people who are always ready to condemn and to bring out the extreme case. They say that the incapacity may be self-inflicted. There are a few such cases. If a wife is trying to raise a family and is struggling to keep her home, does it matter much what the cause of the hardship is? Is there any satisfaction in knowing that she and her children have to be thrown out onto the streets because her husband is the type who has a self-inflicted incapacity and that as a result she is unable to pay the rates? Is there not every justification for helping such a woman? Ii, in the opinion of the Director there is justification for helping her out, why should she not be helped out?

The Minister has made it clear from her statement that this is not a piece of social welfare legislation. She has emphasised that this legislation provides that, as a reward for the service they have rendered, loans shall be made available to ex-servicemen at low rates of interest to help them obtain a home. Is not there some justification at this stage of the development of the scheme, for assisting persons suffering from hardship to remain in their homes? Does it matter much if some element of social wel- fare does creep into the scheme? Would that hurt anyone? The Minister has said that we cannot extend the scope of the scheme in the way suggested. I remind her that each year the amount provided for the War Service Homes scheme is reduced because we are satisfying the requirements of applicants. Could not we exercise some compassion in the administration of this scheme at this particular time?

All that the Labor Party’s amendment seeks to do is to extend the right to reduce the amount of instalments where incapacity exists if, in the opinion of the Director, that action is justified. It seems obvious from her statements that the Minister will not accept our proposal on this occasion, but I would ask that the whole scheme be looked at seriously with a view to granting some extension of benefits in future.

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

[4.33] - There is one point that I should like to make clear because 1 would not like either Senator Cavanagh or the Senate to be under any misunderstanding. Senator Cavanagh has referred to a particular case which we both know well. I explained the position last time the Bill was under discussion. Let me do so again now. In the first place this applicant misled the department. That is what caused the confusion originally as I told the Senate on the earlier occasion.

When Senator Cavanagh took the matter up with me I immediately looked at the case, as he admits. But I remind the honourable senator that at that point of time we had been informed that it was hoped that the claim would be heard in about December of this year or that agreement would be arrived at between the parties before December. I wrote to Senator Cavanagh on 17th October, knowing that it was hoped that the claim would be settled in December or that there would be agreement between the parties before then, and I said that we would review the case again in 6 months time. This is clear evidence that we do endeavour to assist under section 45 those persons who suffer in the way Senator Cavanagh has described.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Was the deferment conditional upon his keeping up the current instalments?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– We said that we would defer the arrears, which were quite considerable, and we told him the amount that he would have to pay. This amount was determined by the Department after taking his financial situation into full account. This, of course, is our custom. Each case is considered in the light of the hardship involved. I wanted to make it clear that. knowing that it might only be one month or less before the claim was settled, we arranged for the case to be reviewed in another 6 months time. 1 assure the honourable senator that we do endeavour to give all possible assistance in all cases of hardship.

Senator WITHERS (Western Australia) [4.35J - The Senate will recall that when this matter was before the chamber on an earlier occasion I indicated that I felt inclined to support the Opposition’s amendment because I failed to see why there should be any distinction between a mentally incapacitated person and a person who was bodily incapacitated. 1 still feel that way with respect to that distinction. But, unfortunately, 1 cannot accept the amendment as proposed because I do not think it will achieve what it is intended to achieve. As my colleague, Senator Greenwood, said this afternoon, what is really required is either a further sub-section of the proposed new section 29aa or a complete re-drafting and re-casting of section 45. lt would appear from the Minister’s explanation that, for some reason or other, as a matter of policy, the Government is not prepared to accept physical incapacity. I still believe that, within limits, physical incapacity should be written into the section or that section 45 should be extended to cover what one reading the ordinary language of it would imagine it was meant to cover. But I think, tragically for the whole situation, Senator Poke’s amendment will not achieve this. It is to be regretted, but I feel that no good purpose would be served in continuing to support the proposal if it will not achieve what it is intended to achieve.

In some respects 1 still quarrel with the proposed section 29aa. I refer in particular to paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.). I have yet to discover how one can be temporarily or permanently insane. I think that a person is either sane or insane. I take exception to the continued use of the barbaric word insane’. As a matter of interest, I wondered who now would be an insane person in my own State of Western Australia and I discovered that in that State there is no such person. The term ‘insane’ was abolished in 1962. The reference now is to an ‘incapable person’. If one is an incapable person under the Western Australian Mental Health Act 1962, is his wife to be regarded as an eligible person entitled to relief under section 29aa?

Senator Cant:

– We are dealing with section 29aa now. We are not dealing with the Western Australian Act.

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Wait a minute. Who is. an insane person? Who decides who is an insane person?

Senator Gair:

– There are a lot of people who are incapable.

Senator WITHERS:

– One would imagine that the decision as to who is sane or insane in Western Australia, to use the old term, lies within the jurisdiction of the State. 1 cannot see how the Director of War Service Homes can make a decision as to who is sane or who is insane. That is not within his jurisdiction.

Senator Devitt:

– What is the definition of incapable person’?

Senator WITHERS:

– It is not very different. 1 thought I might raise this matter because we have been talking of selfinflicted disabilities. In the Western Australian Mental Health Act of 1962, an incapable person is described as a person, including a patient, proven under the provisions of the Act to be incapable, by reason of menial disorder, of managing his affairs. There, they also talk about a person with a mental disorder, which is quite different from the old idea of an insane person. Under the Western Australian Act, ‘mental disorder’ means any mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of the mind, psychopathic disorder - this should interest honourable senators - or any other disorder or disability of the mind, however acquired, and includes alcohol and drug addiction and mental infirmity due to old age or physical disease. Such persons are deemed to be incapable. I would like the Minister to explain to me how any wife in Western Australia will be able to prove to the

Director that her husband, who is in receipt of benefits under the Act, is temporarily or permanently insane when that condition is no longer in existence within the jurisdiction of that State.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator POKE:
Western Australia

– I move:

I am very disappointed that my previous amendment was not accepted by the Senate.

I was under the impression that that amendment would have tidied up this Bill. I think that everything that can be said concerning this legislation has been said so far. However, I wish to make one or two comments on the amendment I have just moved.If one examines the amendment particularly sub-clause (c), one must readily accept that the Opposition is endeavouring to correct a situation which it feels should be corrected. Proposed paragraph (c) refers to an eligible person who is the widow of an ineligible person. This proposed paragraph would apply to nurses. Although there are certainly not a great number of nurses who have qualified for benefits under the Act so far, there could be in the future. The problem arises when a muse who has served overseas and returned to Australia marries a person who is ineligible for the benefits of the Act. If such a nurse is widowed she has no entitlement under the Act because she married a person who was ineligible for the benefits of the Act. I believe that this aspect of the Bill is wrong in principle and in practice and that it should be corrected.

Much the same situation applies to a nurse who returns from overseas service and marries a man who is ineligible under the Act and who subsequently becomes insane or, as the Opposition tried to have inserted in the clause in the last amendment, incapacitated. We find that this type of person is barred under the present provisions of the Act. With those few comments I submit that this is a humane amendment which we trust the Government will accept and incorporate in the War Service Homes Act.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.51] - The Government opposes this amendment on the same grounds as it opposed the previous one.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2251

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment:

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1968.

Excise Bill (No. 2) 1968.

Distillation Bill (No. 2) 1968.

Beer Excise Act Repeal Bill 1968.

Canned Fruit Excise Act Repeal Bill 1968.

Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1968.

page 2251

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

Parliamentary allowances were last reviewed in 1964 when members’ allowances, includincluding their electorate allowances, and Ministerial and other office holders’ salaries and allowances were increased to take account of changes that had occurred since the 1959 review of parliamentary salaries by an independent committee. Since 1964 wages and salaries have increased generally. Average weekly earnings have increased by some 22%, and the allowances paid to members of State parliaments have also been increased since those of the members of this Parliament were last reviewed. On some past occasions - in 1952, 1955and 1959 - a committee of inquiry was established to review parliamentary salaries and allowances. On other occasions, most recently in 1964, Parliament itself dealt with these matters without an inquiry. In any case, Parliament is required by section 48 of the Constitution to decide the matter. On this occasion the Parliament will again be recommended to deal with the matter itself by bringing up to date the allowances and salaries which have remained unchanged since . 1964.

During the 4 years which have passed since parliamentary salaries were last raised many increases and improvements in conditions have been made for persons employed outside Parliament, and the Government has decided to recommend an increase in salaries and allowances payable to Ministers, other office holders and members of Parliament. It is proposed that these increases will take effect as from 1st December 1968.

Before deciding to recommend these increases the Goverment made a survey of salaries paid for positions of comparable responsibility, both in the Public Service and in other sectors of the community. We have particularly taken into account changes that have been made in payments to the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service. We have considered the fact that between the December quarter of 1964 and June quarter of 1968 average weekly earnings have risen by some 22% and we have taken into consideration both the fact that that period covers only 3½ years of the 4-year period which has passed since the last parliamentary increase and also the fact that at least 3 years is likely to pass before there is any further review.

There has always been criticism of rises in parliamentary salaries, and probably there always will be. But if we are to attract people of the right calibre to enter Parliament they ought to be reasonably rewarded for what they do. As Sir Robert Menzies said 4 years ago:

The salaries of a member should be fixed at an amount which is not so low as to deter a man of good attainments and ability who has no private income from entering or remaining in Parliament.’

This we believe to be true. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate into Hansard a summary of the proposed changes in salaries and allowances. Copies of the summary are available to honourable senators.

I interpose here that the summary does not appear to cover a reference whichI shall make later in my speech. This will be corrected later when we deal with the matter. This summary shows the changes proposed in salary for senators, in their allowances and in the salaries and allowances for senior Ministers, Ministers and other office holders of Parliament. This is the essential content of the Bill. The opportunity is also being taken, however, to provide for continuity in the payment of the allowances for the Chairman of Committees in the Senate and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Representatives. Honourable senators will be aware on this point that at the moment it is necessary for the Senate to pass the required resolution in order to provide a continuity of allowance for the Chairman. This will no longer be necessary.

I foreshadow that in Committee 1 shall be bringing forward a request to correct an anomaly in relation to Leaders of nonGovernment parties other than the Opposition. Since its review of salaries and allowances the Government has given further consideration to the question of additional payments to the Leader of the second non-Government party and has decided that as provision is made for such an office holder in the House of Representatives, so should it be made in the Senate. Accordingly, it is proposed that for the Leader of the second non-Government party in the Senate there should be paid an annual salary of$1, 000 in addition to his allowance as a senator and a special allowance of $500 per annum. The salaries and allowances for Ministers are not provided for in the Parliamentary” Allowances Act. To give effect to the proposed changes I will shortly be introducing the Ministers of State Bill 1968. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2252

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

When I introduced the Parliamentary Allowances Bill I made reference to the need for a concurrent amendment of the Ministers of State Bill. The matters contained in this Bill have therefore already been referred to and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2253

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend certain provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act relating to the Ministerial Retiring Allowances Fund consequent upon the proposals to increase the salaries payable to Ministers and certain other office holders in the Parliament. In contrast to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund, in which the contributions of senators and members and the basic pensions payable have, since 1964, been expressed as percentages of the member’s parliamentary salary, the Ministerial Retiring Allowances Fund provides for a fixed contribution of $37 per month for a Minister and fixed amounts of pension ranging from $18 per week to $42 per week. Because rates of contributions and pensions are fixed in amount, any increase in the salary of Ministers has the effect of reducing the proportions that contributions and pension bear to salary. This is, undoubtedly, a serious defect in the ministerial scheme and, accordingly, provision is made in the Bill for the scheme to be placed on a percentage of salary basis comparable with the Parliamentary retiring allowances scheme. Contributions by Ministers will in future be 11½% of the basic salary of a Minister while pension will range from 21% to 50% of that salary depending upon the length of service as an office holder. While the new basis raises the maximum level of pension benefit by $1,560 or 71% from $2,190 to $3,750 per annum, contributions by Ministers will rise by $418.50 per annum or 94% from $444 to $862.50 per annum.

The increases in pension rates will not apply to persons already in receipt of pensions from the Ministerial Fund. Nor will the increases in the rates of Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund pensions that will automatically flow from the increase in senators’ and members’ salaries apply to existing parliamentary fund pensions. A former office holder who already has sufficient service to qualify for a ministerial pension but is not entitled to receive that pension until he ceases to serve in the Parliament will receive a pension calculated on the basis of the basic ministerial salary at the time he ceased to be an office holder. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives each receive salaries at the basic ministerial level but hitherto no provision has been made for them to join the ministerial fund. The Bill provides for them to become members on the same basis as Ministers.

The existing ministerial scheme provides for three office holders, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to contribute at proportionately lower rates and for their service as office holders to count on a proportionate basis only. The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives has the same entitlements as a Minister. In the case of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who contributes at one-quarter of the Minister’s rate, he would need to serve as Deputy Leader for 32 years instead of 8 years before he could qualify for the minimum level of pension. While this Bill does not vary that principle, it is one of a number of questions relating to the ministerial and parliamentary schemes which are currently under consideration and which it is expected will be dealt with in legislation to be brought down in the autumn session next year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for a later hour of the day.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr President, I do not know that these measures should be pushed through the Senate with the haste which seems to be characterising the progress to date. I do not know that we should necessarily deal with them at a later hour this day. I have not had an opportunity to look at this legislation. I understand it was not even presented in the other place until today. 1 for one have not been able to look at it and I understand a lot of my colleagues are in the same position. I think that in all decency we should be given the opportunity to look properly at what it is intended to enact. Whatever else is done, I expect that we be given a reasonable opportunity to look at the legislation to see what is proposed, particularly as some of the provisions, like a lot of other provisions that have been enacted, may be with us for a long time. As has already been indicated by the hilarity with which some of the provisions were met when they were referred to, some extraordinary things can get into this kind of legislation if it is rushed through the Parliament without people being able to see what is really being done. That is the observation I wish to make. 1 hope the Senate does take the opportunity to give proper consideration to these measures.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2254

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (NEW SOUTH WALES AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1.968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November (vide page 1941), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– This Bill proposes to ratify an agreement relating to the construction of a new standard gauge railway line between Cockburn and Broken Hill. It affects the governments of South Australia, New South Wales and the Commonwealth. It seeks authorisation for the expenditure necessary under the agreement and sets out the work to be done to complete this final stage of the standard gauge railway line linking the east and west coasts of Auntralia

There have been complex and long negotiations regarding this project for many years, since April 1963 when the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, stated that the Broken Hill-Port Pirie line would be converted. Since then it has been decided to follow a new route which will be about 5 miles shorter. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) pointed out in his second reading speech that the new route will allow the elimination of twentyone open crossings in the Broken Hill area. Following the decision on the new route there was some speculation in South Australia that the South Australian Government possibly would lose some revenue because sidings now serviced by the existing line will not be serviced in future. However, everybody welcomes this legislation.

The agreement provides basically for two groups of work. The first is the construction of the new railway and the standard gauge facilities at Broken Hill. The second covers items which the Commonwealth considers, may be outside the scope of the agreement of 1949, and also includes rolling stock, the cost of converting privately owned sidings and tank cars. The proposed completion date for this work is 1st October 1969. Most of the work will be carried out by the South Australian Railways but the work at the marshalling yards at Broken Hill will be carried out by the New South Wales Department of Railways.

The financial arrangements reported by the Ministers are similar to those covering other rail standardisation work. The Commonwealth will provide the finance. South Australia will repay 30% of the total cost, plus interest, over a period of 50 years. Reference was made to the fact that clause 23 of the 1949 agreement is now redundant. That clause related to the Commonwealth implementing action to take over the Silverton Tramway Co. This matter is referred to in. the speech delivered by the Minister. As I said, there were long and protracted negotiations before this matter could be settled. The Commonwealth Government, the South Australian Government and the Silverton Tramway Co. had difficulty in making suitable arrangements to settle the problem of the Silverton tramway. It seems to me that the Minister stated the position exactly. He said that because an offer had been made to the company, although it need not necessarily have been made, the question of compensation was not one for the Parliament to consider at this stage. He said that negotiations were still proceeding, so I do not intend to say any more about that matter. However, I think I ought to say something about standardisation generally so far as South Australia is concerned.

As I have said, an agreement was drawn up in 1949 to cover the Commonwealth and South Australia. It provided for South Australia to carry out certain works. Those works were:

  1. Conversion to standard gauge of the entire South Australian 5 ft 3 in gauge system and of the 3 ft 6 in gauge lines of the South-Eastern Division, the conversion to standard gauge of existing locomotives and rolling stock suitable for conversion, and the construction of standard gauge locomotives and rolling stock to the extent necessary to replace the existing capacity of all units unsuitable for conversion to standard gauge.
  2. Conversion to standard gauge of the 3 ft 6 in gauge lines of the Peterborough Division of the South Australian Railways, the conversion to standard gauge of existing locomotives and rolling stock suitable for conversion, and the construction of standard gauge locomotives and rolling stock to the extent necessary to replace the existing capacity of all units unsuitable for conversion to standard gauge.
  3. The provision of terminal facilities rendered necessary by the conversion of any line specified in the foregoing provisions of this clause.

It has taken a very long time to get work started on this final section of the standard gauge line. To be particular, it has taken the Commonwealth Government many years to face up to the question of the link between Adelaide and Port Pirie. No final solution has yet been offered by the Commonwealth Government. I criticise the Government for not doing this. The best that the South Australian Government can get from the Commonwealth at this time is an offer to provide consultants. Obviously the Commonwealth has a basic obligation to carry out the standardisation works agreed to. Long and protracted negotiations took place in order to get work going on the Port Pirie-Cockburn line. Construction of this line was agreed to by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, on 19th April 1963, as I have pointed out. Discussion on some questions was not started until September 1964 and at that time the work had not been started. It seems to me that the

Commonwealth has not used the initiating power that it has in respect of these matters to get this standardisation work going quickly and to have it completed promptly, as was promised when the agreement was made.

I would point out that these standardisation proposals were supported not only by the Opposition. The work was promoted when Sir Harold Clapp was Commissioner for Railways in Victoria. The first report became very important. In 1946 the late Eddie Ward presented a report on the proposal to the Parliament and the agreement was perfected in 1949. Later, Government supporters and Opposition members gave a great deal of support to the project. Two important reports were presented by committees. One was presented by a committee of the Labor Party and the other was presented by the Government’s own Standardisation Committee, which was under the chairmanship of Mr Wentworth. Although these things have been given philosophic and academic support and have been urged upon the Government, work has not progressed as it should have progressed.

The real burning issue about which 1 am concerned is the position facing South Australia. As yet a link between Adelaide and Port Pirie has not been promised; nor is there a definite promise of a link between Port Augusta and Whyalla. In 1964, the then Premier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, made a request to the Commonwealth Government to carry out this work. To date we have not had any final report on what may be done by the Commonwealth although obviously it would now be of economic advantage to make the connection. More importantly, while the Commonwealth Government has offered only to provide a consultant body to consider what might be done, there has been a refusal on the part of the Commonwealth Government, as I understand it, to accept the responsibility of converting the whole of the rail system.

While the South Australian Railways Commissioner, with Commonwealth money, did convert the south eastern section, with the promise that one of the rails forming the 5 ft 3 in gauge would be moved to provide a 4 ft 84 in gauge when required at its own expense, the issue of converting the rest of the system, except the system on Eyre Peninsula which was not included in the agreement, has not been faced yet. It seems to me that the Commonwealth Government is failing to carry out its obligation. Everybody readily recognises - the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) himself would recognise it - that it is most important that Adelaide be connected to the standardised rail system. Adelaide has to be connected not only because of its requirements with its new industrial complex but also because only by so doing will the standardised system operate effectively. It would be fatal to accept the Adelaide link as being the final answer.

What has happened as far as representations are concerned? Early in 1966 the then South Australian Labor Premier, the late Frank Walsh, made direct representations to the Commonwealth Government asking it to phase in the Adelaide-Port Pirie connection with the completion of the standard gauge line to Broken Hill. No satisfactory reply was received/Since the present Liberal Government came to power the same request has been made. The Liberal Government made the request on the basis that there should not.be merely this final link between Adelaide and Port Pirie but that in fact a project ought to be undertaken to standardise the whole South Australian railway system. If the conversion of the whole South Australian railway system were not encompassed, breaks in gauge would be left and it would be necessary to provide bogie exchanges arid to spend money to provide arrangements for the 5 ft 3 in > gauge, the standard gauge and the narrower gauge. This would cost a lot of money which would be wasted. What ought to happen is that the Commonwealth Government ought to face up to the issue as being currently important and should not let the years go by without doing anything, as has happened with respect to the other negotiations.

When this matter was debated in the other place, it was reported in the Press that the Minister for Shipping and Transport was in favour of more standardisation work. On 12th November of this year, the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ said:

The Commonwealth would give consideration to more rail standardisation works in South Australia and elsewhere in Australia. . . .

In Hansard of the House of Representatives of 12th November, at page 2741, the Minister for Shipping and Transport said, when concluding the debate on this Bill:

The Commonwealth recognises the difficulties that are encountered by transporters of goods in through operations under the existing system. For this reason, it intends to pursue with the various States discussions about projects to assist both the speeding up of freight handling and the reduction of the freight burden. Both these are objectives which, I think, all members of this House share. To the extent which this Bill takes the project a little bit further towards the objective, 1 am glad to hear that it has the support of honourable members.

As I have said, we welcome the agreement that makes possible this final link between Broken Hill and Port Pirie. But we raise as a matter of urgency the need for the conversion to standard gauge of the whole South Australian railway system, particularly the immediate standardisation of the link between Adelaide and Port Pirie. On 27th October 1965, in answer to a question from me, the then Minister for Shipping and Transport - now the Minister for Air (Mr Freeth) - said:

The examination of the route between Port Pirie and Adelaide, to determine the work involved to standardise this section of line and the estimated total cost, is proceeding in accordance with arrangements made between the Commonwealth and South Australian Railway Commissioners. Tt is expected that this work will be completed and reported upon within the next 6 months.

In another place, some criticism has been made of the former Dunstan Government and the present Liberal Government in South Australia by the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop), who spoke about the non-expenditure of $30,000 which was provided for survey work. I want lo make it quite clear that in my opinion this is not criticism of a government in a real way. The facts are that the real issue is in the hands of the Commonwealth Government. It ought to make proposals to the South Australian Government stating that it is prepared to consider the works to which I am referring.

Let me inform the Senate what the South Australian Government has been told. This is slightly better than what was given to the previous Labor Government there, because it could not get a reply from the Commonwealth at all. On 5th November in the South Australian House of Assembly, the Premier, Mr Hall, read a letter from the Commonwealth. The letter states:

We propose that a firm of independent expert consultants be appointed to undertake a feasibility study embracing the matters I have mentioned, following which the Commonwealth would be prepared to consider the matter further. The consultants would, of course, need to confer with and obtain detailed information from the South Australian Railways Commissioner, and I would be glad to learn whether you are agreeable to this. If so, our officers could proceed to draw up suitable terms of reference for the study for our consideration. I must stress, however, that we see the study as being confined to the question of the most efficient way of achieving rail standardisation between Adelaide and the interstate railway, and while it would embrace the matters 1 have mentioned (including the question of the most efficient way of dealing with traffic on branch lines), we are not prepared to expand it into a general study of the broad and narrow gauge systems north of Adelaide.

So, here we have a situation similar to the delays that were blamed on the South Australian Government. After the 1949 agreement, and after the special committees established by the Government parties have recommended a standardisation system, we have the situation where the Commonwealth Government says that it is prepared to have a study but only with respect to the Adelaide-Port Pirie link, leaving outside the inquiry altogether the conversion to standard gauge of the whole South Australian rail system.

On the one hand, the Minister for Shipping and Transport in the other place is talking about the necessary economies that result from the standardised system as well as referring to the better method of handling freights, the lack of delays and the other sorts of improvements that come with standardisation. But here we have a report which is based on the idea that a firm of consultants will report on certain matters. The State Government had no option but to accept this proposal. Only after probing from the Australian Labor Party did the State Government recognise the responsibility that the Commonwealth Government has for the standardisation of the whole of the railway system. There would be a great deal of waste in making attachments to a new standard gauge link between Adelaide and Port Pirie. The situation in South Australia would then be that there would be this link but the full rail system would not be standardised. This alone is bad.

It seems to me that the way in which the Commonwealth Government is handling this matter is quite wrong, lt is giving the South Australian Government the same bad treatment that it handed out in respect of the Chowilla Dam project. I can imagine that once this series of consultations and surveys by the so-called experts are commenced on this restrictive basis we will not get the complete conversion of the South Australian railway system that has been promised. This need has been recognised not only by Opposition speakers but also, as 1 have said, by notable speakers from the Government parties, who, as far back as 1956, have given this sort of concept their blessing in a report.

I will leave my comments at that. This is a very important issue. It concerns not only South Australia. We are concerned about the connection of South Australia to the eastern and western markets by rail to take advantage of South Australia’s productive capacity. But we are concerned to see also that the whole standardisation system is settled in the way that was promised in 1949. We do not oppose the legislation. We see it as a welcome move, but a little belated. We trust the Minister will take notice of what I have said and will see that the restricted proposals for consultation between the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments will be made more positive; that there will be a desire to get the work started so that matters are not left on the basis purely of surveys which will take many months to complete.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– 1 also regard this as a vitally important Bill and welcome its introduction. Its purpose is to provide for agreement between the Commonwealth, South Australia and New South Wales for the construction of a new standard gauge railway between Cockburn and Broken Hill. When the line is completed, a uniform gauge rail link will run from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, from Perth to Sydney over a distance of about 2,440 miles. The value of the link is inestimable, from both economic and defence angles.

The schedule to the Agreement is completely descriptive and explains the purpose of and need for the agreement. It states:

  1. in order to assist in the defence and development of Australia, to facilitate interstate trade and commerce and to secure maximum efficiency and economy in railway operation it is desirable that there should be a continuous uniform gauge railway between Sydney in the State of New South Wales and Perth in the State of Western Australia; and
  2. to achieve that aim it is necessary that a standard gauge railway be constructed between Cockburn in the State of South Australia and Broken Hill in the State of New South Wales.

I find strong appeal in the words ‘to assist in the defence and development of Australia’. The establishment of a uniform railway gauge link from Perth to Sydney will bring about within a month or so a standard gauge connection from Port Pirie to Cockburn. In South Australia we will then have contact with the main network, but still no uniform railway gauge contact between Port Pirie and Adelaide. South Australia contains about 10% of Australia’s population. We must send our products to the more populous parts of Australia and for that reason have always regarded efficient transport as the key to our ability to progress in both primary and secondary industries. Inland transport is particularly important to our secondary industries.

I make a very sincere appeal for the greatest co-operation between the Commonwealth and the South Australian governments to establish the very important link that is needed between Port Pirie and Adelaide as quickly as possible. The bulk of South Australian industry is situated in Adelaide. We cannot afford not to be in direct contact with the standard gauge system. We are placed out on a limb. In recent weeks industrialists inquiring about the establishment of industries in South Australia have said to the leaders of the South Australian Government: ‘But you have no direct link with Perth or Sydney from your Adelaide factories. This would be a disadvantage to us in setting up an industry in South Australia’. My remarks may sound parochial but they are vital to our interests. I am emphasising the need for the provision of a standard gauge railway link between Port Pirie and Adelaide as quickly as humanly possible. As to the general railway set-up to the north of Adelaide in South Australia, proposals have been made to the Commonwealth setting out which lines the South Australian Government wishes to be standardised. I will not list those lines now as I believe that that is somewhat irrelevant to the Bill before the Senate. I am pleased to note that the Commonwealth Government has agreed that a team of consultants should conduct a feasibility study of the proposals of the South Australian Government for greater coverage by standard gauge railway lines of our northern railway systems to enable a more efficient flow of traffic to link up with Port Pirie, and from there with our eastern and western major centres of population.

I am pleased to learn that consideration has been given to the position of the Silverton Tramway Company which will lose its long established business between Cockburn and Broken Hill. The offer of an ex gratia payment of $1,250,000 has so far not been accepted, but the Commonwealth Government has shown the spirit to do the right thing. The railway line of the Silverton Tramway Company is no longer of real value because of the new line to be established. The matter of compensation is being viewed fairly and favourably by the Commonwealth Government to ensure that no undue hardship is caused to the company whose interest is now being superseded by the provision of a new standard gauge railway line. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I wish to speak briefly in support of Senator Laucke’s remarks and what was said earlier by Senator Bishop. The importance of the Bill lies not only in the fact that it will lead to completion of the railway line from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, but also it will give South Australia a direct connection from the centre to Sydney in the east and to Perth in the west. I want to add a word of urgency to the Minister in relation to the section of railway between Port Pirie and Adelaide, and to draw attention to the fact that when it is completed it will provide for a service from the capital of the central State of South Australia to both the eastern and western seaboards.

It is of considerable advantage to have the link that is now possible with (he passage of this Bill. When a capital city is joined by a standard gauge railway link to other capitals, it involves implications as to its future development. I urge the Minister to take note of the representations that have been made by South Australian senators over a long period. In the time I have been a senator I have taken the opportunity to press this case in ways open to us. I hope that the Minister in the course of his reply will advise when we may expect the first results of the feasibility study referred to earlier in this debate.

Adelaide has a curious and strategic situation in that it is placed at the cross roads of Australia. This shows up in the air transportation system of the Commonwealth as well as in the rail transportation system. South Australia is very much at a disadvantage because of the break of gauge between the capital city and Port Pirie. This Bill leads on to the next subject to which all South Australian speakers in this debate have referred. It is related to other conditions in South Australia, not the least of which is the employment and immigration situation. For a long time South Australia was taking a very large percentage of the Australian intake of migrants. For a variety of reasons, the percentage has fallen quite considerably in recent years. I have reason to believe that it is now on the ascendancy once more. It can be so only if the industrial potential of the State also continues on the ascendancy. It will continue on the ascendancy only if the transportation and communications systems with the rest of Australia are of the most efficient and effective design. This they can be with the. standardisation of the railway between Port Pirie and Adelaide. This total scheme is not unrelated to what we hope will be a later development, namely, a new rail link with the centre and north of Australia. All this highlights the urgency not only of the Bill now before us but also of the carrying through of the next step in the development of a standard gauge railway system throughout the length and breadth of the continent. I support the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take these statements into account. I look forward to hearing of further developments.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. I am pleased to hear Senator Bishop, on behalf of the Opposition, say that he supports the Bill. It is interesting to note that it is expected that when the standard gauge line between Kwinana and the east coast is completed freight rates will be reduced by 2i%; the time taken to transport goods from the eastern States to Western Australia or vice versa will be reduced from between 8 and 10 days to less than 4 days; and passengers will be able to go from Kwinana to Sydney, Brisbane and other places in the eastern States without changing trains. This will be of considerable benefit. Members of Parliament who desire to travel from Western Australia to Canberra will be able to do so on a standard gauge railway line. I look forward to that.

South Australian senators have mentioned some very important aspects, not so much of the present situation as of the possibility of Adelaide being connected with Port Pirie by a standard gauge line. They have mentioned that this was in the original agreement of 1949. I have noted their remarks with interest. They will be noted also by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) and the Government. But before we can expect that work to be done, we must complete the east-west link or have it well on the road to completion. lt is expected that the whole line, including the new line between Cockburn and Broken Hill, will be completed by late 1969 or early 1970. In the meantime the Government has agreed to pay the cost of engaging consultants to examine the line between Adelaide and Port Pirie. No doubt when the report is received from those consultants further consideration will be given to the request made by South Australian senators today.

Let me mention also that the Commonwealth is having a look at connecting Whyalla with Port Augusta by a standard gauge line which would go on to Port Pirie. The distance from Whyalla to Port Augusta is 40 miles. I understand that the Commonwealth is prepared to provide the finance for the survey and to meet the total cost of the construction of the railway, and that the railway, when constructed, will be run by the Commonwealth, provided the State agrees - and I think it has agreed. Some mention has been made of the difficulties of arriving at agreement on compensation payable to the Silverton Tramway Co. An offer of $lim has been made to the company, but I understand that it has been rejected. I hope that this matter will be resolved. I do not intend to traverse it very much now because it is still the subject of negotiations.

The figures on the cost of the standardisation of the line between the east and west coasts are interesting. The cost of the line between Kalgoorlie and Kwinana is $130m; between Port Pirie and Cockburn, $45m; between Cockburn and Broken Hill, $15m; and the upgrading of the line between Parkes and Broken Hill, $10m; making a total expenditure of $200m. In addition there was the expenditure on the conversion of the line between Sydney and Melbourne to standard gauge. That cost many millions of dollars. 1 have not the figure with me.

Terms of reference are now being prepared and agreed upon with the State for the engagement of consultants in relation to the line between Port Pirie and Adelaide. As I mentioned, the Commonwealth will be paying the consultants, who are expected to report to it within 6 months. One question on which the consultants are to advise is whether the existing line from Port Pirie to Adelaide should be converted to standard gauge or whether a separate standard gauge line should be constructed from Crystal Brook near Port Pirie to Adelaide. This report should be to hand within 6 months. Then the request made by the honourable senators today, no doubt, will be considered very closely by the South Australian and Commonwealth governments.

Question resolved in the affimative.

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

page 2260

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November (vide page 1942), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– This legislation seeks to effect certain improvements in the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. As the Minister has stated, similar improvements are to be effected also to the Seamen’s Compensation Act. The proposed improvements are changes that we have been advocating over the years. They relate to the rates to be paid to incapacitated employees and their dependants. Honourable senators will remember that in 1967 the Labor Party moved a number of amendments to the legislation that was introduced in September of that year. During the course of the discussion then, the Government announced that it intended to introduce a comprehensive Bill to improve the existing compensation benefits for injured employees of the Commonwealth.

The Opposition does not oppose the increases proposed in the measure under consideration, but we look forward to the introduction of the promised comprehensive Bill. We hope that it will contain a number of major amendments that we have advocated and to which I shall refer later.

The proposed amendments include an increase in the weekly rate of a totally incapacitated adult worker from $25.35 to $28.15. The allowance for a dependent wife or other female is to be increased from S6 to $6.80. The allowance for each dependent child under 16 years of age is to be increased from $2.45 to $2.50. The total weekly income for an incapacitated worker, his wife and two children will thus be increased from $36.25 to $39.95. The total weekly income for a man, wife and one child will be S37.45. A comparison with the amounts payable under the various State Acts is interesting. In Queensland the weekly amount payable by the State for a man, wife and one child is S37.95. The amount to be paid by the Commonwealth under its amended Act will be S37.45. The present amount paid under the State Act in Tasmania is S36.20, and in New South Wales it is $36. It is also proposed to increase the amount payable to a minor from $19 to S21.10.

Whilst we accept the proposed amendments, we point out that many of the compensation benefits provided by the Commonwealth legislation are not as good as those available under State Acts. For example, the total amount payable to a wife for the death of a husband is $10,000 under the Commonwealth legislation. In New South Wales, the lump sum payment is also $10,000, but in Tasmania it is $10,721 and in South Australia it is $12,000.

We suggested improvements in many other directions in September 1967, and we were given an undertaking by the Government that improvements in these matters would be effected in the promised comprehensive Bill. We have always argued that the Commonwealth Act should be the best compensation Act in Australia - that it should provide the highest benefits. Following our advocacy in September 1967, it was reported in the Senate on 12th June 1968 that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) had announced to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce a comprehensive Bill. But it has been reported that it is not possible to bring down this legislation during this session - that it will be introduced early in the New Year. Improvements to be included in the new measure will relate to allowances for student children, post-injury dependants, travelling expenses and medical expenses. In future, all reasonable medical expenses will be covered as in some of the States. There is a new provision to be introduced concerning damage to artificial aids. There is an extended cover for travelling to and from work and attending pick-ups. The existing distinction between the left and right limbs will be eliminated. This is another matter that was advocated by the Opposition in September 1967.

Another interesting improvement which has been promised relates to a matter which has often been raised in another place by an honourable member whose name I shall not mention. It is proposed by the Government to include a provision for lump sum compensation for the loss of the power of speech, facial disfigurement, loss of the genital organs or complete and permanent loss of sexual function.

Many other improvements have been promised. For the time being, we accept the proposals suggested here as being necessary improvements. We consider that there has been undue delay in introducing the sort of compensation Act that we were promised. I repeat that in 1967 the Opposition attempted to have included in the legislation allthose improvements which we considered were necessary to make compensation standards uniform in both Commonwealth and State legislation. Most of the States have already moved towards higher rates of compensation but the Commonwealth has been rather lax in this direction.

There is only one other matter that I should like to mention. I suggest that the promised comprehensive measure should contain some provision relating to rehabilitation facilities. I have already mentioned in other debates the need for giving special attention to those people who because of their physical or mental capacity are not easily accepted into the community. This is particularly so when this condition has been caused by their employment. The victims of accidents are given a certain amount of routine treatment after the accident and, normally, when they are looking for another job. There should be some scheme of rehabilitation for them. The compensation officer of the New South Wales Labor Council has given some special attention to this point. He has made representation to the New South Wales Minister for Labour. This Government might consider what has been suggested in those representations. It has been suggested, for example, that the practice overseas could well be followed by Australia. We do not oppose the provisions of this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.59 until 8 p.m.

page 2261

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 November (vide page 1943), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2262

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2252).

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - ls it the wish of the Senate to debate the three Bills concurrently?

That th: debate be now adjourned.

This legislation has come on for debate at very short notice. The Bills have received some consideration by my Party-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator has moved his motion. He is not entitled to debate it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The question is: ‘That the debate be now adjourned’.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- No. (The bells having been rung and the President having resumed the Chair.)

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - The question is, ‘That the debate be now adjourned’. The ayes will pass to the right of the Chair. I appoint Senator O’Byrne as teller for the ayes and Senator Cotton as teller for the noes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, that is the position.

Senator Anderson:

– Can I speak on that issue, Mr President? We have already carried a resolution that the debate be adjourned to a later hour of the day and the Bill has been brought on now as a consequence of that.

Senator Murphy:

– 1 ask you, Mr President, to indicate to the Senate whether or not the answer to Senator Byrne’s question is yes. In other words, if this motion is carried will the next motion be that the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day or for the next day of sitting?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is quite correct.

Senator Anderson:

– Mr President, I ask you to have the Clerk read out the motion. (The Clerk having read the motion.)

Senator Byrne:

– Mr President-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have appointed the tellers.

Senator Byrne:

– I ask on a point of order, whether as a matter of course the motion that has just been read will be followed by a motion as to the day or time of resumption of the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is right.

Senator Byrne:

– Will it be permissible for a senator to move an amendment to that motion?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. The next motion for the fixing of the time or the day will be open for debate and for amendment.

Senator Byrne:

– - A senator will be able to move that the debate be adjourned to a later hour of the day?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Mr President, will you give a ruling that if the motion now before us is carried the debate will not be adjourned but will proceed forthwith?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is obvious that if the motion is not carried the debate will be resumed forthwith. If the motion is carried the Minister’s next motion for the fixing of a time or day for the resumption of the debate can be spoken to or amended if desired.

Senator Cotton:

– Mr President, I think a senator is in the chamber who has been paired.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Mr President, I ask permission for Senator Ridley to retire.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is permission granted for Senator Ridley to retire? Honourable senators - Yes.

Question put:

That the debate be now adjourned (Senator Murphy’s motion).

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, I regret that we in the Senate have not had more opportunity to consider these measures. It seems to me a great pity that the Parliament of the nation so undervalues itself and is so fearful of being misunderstood on questions of salary that the Bills must be raced through both Houses with indecent haste. I do not think that members of Parliament have anything to be ashamed of in the provision that is being made for their salaries, but I think they have a great deal to be ashamed of if they are going to act in a manner which seems furtive instead of considering these measures in the same way and with the same deliberation as other measures are considered. I must say that I regret very much that it is done in this way. I regret even more that when a legitimate request is made for time to give some consideration to the matters which are ancillary to the Bills, that request is declined and it is thought that even the minutes are precious and that the measures must be forced through the Parliament, even without the members and leaders being accorded the customary courtesy of time to prepare the matters which they have to prepare. There is nothing to be ashamed of, because when one compares the salaries of members of Parliament with those of people in responsible positions outside I do not think it can be fairly argued that the amounts which are awarded to members of Parliament are too high. The positions are responsible. I think one might take the view that those who carry out their parliamentary offices properly are entitled to the pay. Those who do not carry them out properly should be put out of the place. The remedy is in the hands of the electors to do that. I do not think that members of Parliament should approach the matter on any other basis, and I think that is the basis upon which the public of Australia would consider these measures. We see that an increase in the salary of members from some $7,000 to $9,500 is proposed. Those salaries may be compared with others in the lists which have been prepared.

I have a document which Senator Kennelly was kind enough to supply to me and which comes from the office of the Public Service Board. It is dated 28th October 1968 and sets out certain salaries which are paid in the Public Service of the

Commonwealth. A salary of $17,500 is paid to First Division officers in the Commonwealth Public Service, including the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, the Secretaries of the Departments of Defence and External Affairs, the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs and the Secretaries of the Prime Minister’s Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Treasury. The Secretaries of the Department of the Army and the Department of Air, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, the Comptroller-General of Customs, the Director-General of Health, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and the Director-General of Social Services receive a salary of $15,000. A great host of other persons are paid on that salary range, including the Deputy High Commissioner in London and the Director-General of Works. The Clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive $13,257; the Parliamentary Librarian, $11,057; the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, $10,657 and the Secretary of the Joint House Department, $10,657. The salaries I have referred to are of First Division officers in the Commonwealth Public Service.

There are others in Second Division positions in the Public Service and those positions are set out in various levels. There is the first level on a salary of $9,657, that being in excess of the proposed salary for members. Those officers include the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and Science; the Regional Director of the New South Wales Branch of the Department of Labour and National Service; the Accountant of the New South Wales Branch of the Postmaster-General’s Department; the Public Service Inspector, South Australia; the Director of the Queensland Branch of the Department of Social Services; and the Deputy Assistant DirectorGeneral of the Department of Works. Then, when one moves on to the second level in the Second Division one finds that the First Assistant Secretary of the Department of Air, the Industrial Registrar of the Attorney-General’s Department, the Commonwealth Director of Health in Queensland, the Assistant Director-General of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Manager of the Department of Supply, and the Assistant Director-General of the Department of Works all receive a salary of $10,657.

On the third level we find the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Western Australia, the First Assistant Secretary of the Department of National Development, the Director of War Service Homes in the Department of Housing, the Commonwealth Director of Health in New South Wales, and the Senior Assistant Director-General of the Department of Works on a salary of $1 1,657. On the fourth level we find the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Cabinet Office, the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Health, the Senior Superintending Scientist of the Department of Supply and the First Assistant Director-General of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department on a salary of $12,657. The fifth level includes such persons as the Chief Director of Medical Services in the Department of Repatriation and the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Works. All officers on the fifth level receive a salary of $13,657. On the sixth level we find the Parliamentary Draftsman in the Attorney-General’s Department, the Deputy Director-General of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, the Director of the Weapons Research Establishment in the Department of Supply and the Commonwealth Statistician in the Statistician’s Branch of the Department of the Treasury on a salary of $14,657. The rates of pay which I have just cited are actual salaries, and they are only a sample of the scatter of positions at the different levels. There are hundreds of persons on these levels occupying all sorts of positions, certainly of responsibility, and no doubt most of them work hard and are entitled to their salaries, just as one finds in any other walk of life.

One will find that most people are entitled to their salary, some people are entitled to far more than that, and perhaps some are not entitled to what they receive because they do not do the job that they are supposed to do. We know from what we read in the Press that that is not the end of that range of salaries, because in the very near future there are to be extremely substantial increases, so the salary of members of Parliament will be substantialy behind those of all these persons. It is already behind every one of them, it will remain behind, and, of course, alterations in parliamentary salaries take place at longer intervals than do alterations in those other salaries. So there is the position in regard to the Public Service of the Commonwealth. If one turns round to look at other walks of life one finds that many people who certainly exercise some responsibility are earning far more than members of Parliament.

I would think that members of Parliament ought not to be ashamed or afraid of having their salaries assessed by those persons who are expert in this field on the same basis as other persons occupying positions of responsibility and with the same kind of advantages and disadvantages as members of Parliament. It is time this Parliament sought assistance from those who have become expert in this field. It would be of great help for members of Parliament when considering the fixing of salaries - and also of help to the public when considering whether the adjustment was a proper one - if Parliament had the views of some such body as the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, or a member of the Commission, or the Commonwealth Industrial Court. I think a clearing of the air in this way and a proper, calm and public assessment of the matter would be much better than the method by which decisions are now made. I do not know by whom they are made. Presumably this is done by the Cabinet, it certainly is not done by arrangement with the Opposition. So far as there has been any suggestion in the Press that these salaries were agreed to by representatives of the Australian Labor Party, my understanding of’ the position is that that is not true. So far as my knowledge goes it is not true.

Obviously the salaries are determined in some haste, as honourable senators can judge even by the events of today and the endeavours to put the changes into effect with the least delay, with the least consideration by Parliament, and, 1 think, with the maximum embarrassment to the parliamentary process and members of Parliament. Why do members of Parliament have to be subjected to this? If we are entitled to the salary increases - and 1 think we are - then the relevant legislation ought to be dealt with in the same way as we deal with other legislation. We should not let anyone think that members of Parliament have to rush something through because we feel we are not entitled to it and cannot stand up to public opinion. We should be prepared to give the public a chance to consider what we are doing and we certainly ought to give ourselves the chance to consider properly what we are doing.

Senator Marriott:

– Was the debate gagged in the other place?

Senator MURPHY:

- Mr Deputy President, that is an interesting question. Matters are happening so fast here that I do not know whether the honourable senator is right in what he suggests. I have been in this chamber most of the day. I, like a number of other honourable senators, have had no real opportunity to consider the legislation - not even to read it. We have to assume that what we are told about this legislation is correct. As everyone knows, all sorts of things have to be done by senators and leaders in this place and 1 am afraid that I am unacquainted with the progress of this matter in the other place except that 1 can say that it seemed to go through unusually quickly.

In addition to the basic salaries, this legislation provides an electorate allowance of $2,650 for senators. There is a city electorate allowance of $2,750 and a country electorate allowance of $3,350 for members of the House of Representatives. Senators, whether they represent a large state or a small state, under this proposition are to receive an allowance less than that received by members of the House of Representatives from city electorates. That seems to us to be an anomalous position. Senators represent entire States. A good argument could be put forward - and I think it probably will be put forward - that senators have to travel around entire States because they have responsibilities towards entire States and therefore ought to be considered on the basis of persons representing country electorates. I am open to correction in regard to electorates in some of the larger States, but even Tasmania the smallest State, is of a size comparable with that of some of the largest electorates. One might think that justice would demand that the electoral allowance for senators would be not less than that provided for members of the House of Representatives from country electorates. The differential of $100 between the allowance for senators and that for members of the House of Representatives from city electorates, while it is not a great deal, indicates that senators are not being valued equally.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They are downgraded.

Senator MURPHY:

- Senator O’Byrne has supplied a word. I suppose that in substance senators are being downgraded. There is no real warrant for this. My Party takes the view that this differential should be removed and that senators should be placed on the same basis as members of the House of Representatives from city electorates. 1 shall move to that end.

Senator Young:

– Does the honourable senator suggest that the allowance for members of the House of Representatives should be brought down to the suggested allowance for senators?

Senator MURPHY:

- Mr Deputy President, the point raised by Senator Young is a good one. The real objective of the proposal which the Opposition will put forward is that there be equality. 1 do not think any honourable senator regards the amount of $100 as representing the point involved, lt would not make any difference if the sum was $50. It would be even worse if it was $10. The point is that there is this differential of $1.00 and we regard it as unjust and unfair. It cannot be supported. The view of my Party is that this differential ought to be removed. Rather than have any questions about the justice of increasing senators allowances to the level of the country allowance for members of the House of Representatives, the differential ought to be removed. This is not merely the view of Opposition senators; it is the view of the Australian Labor Party. When considering any of these matters of relativity - it does not matter whether one comes to examine them in the Public Service, in the Houses of Parliament or in other spheres - there are criteria of justice which should be applied, and justice demands that this differential be removed.

Senator Cormack:

– Is the honourable senator foreshadowing his amendment?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. We shall request that the differential be removed and that there be an increase of $100 in the allowance for all senators. This would remove the existing differential for which we can see no real justification in the matters advanced by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) in his second reading speech.

Senator Marriott:

– Did the Opposition in the other place give this proposition a run?

Senator MURPHY:

– For the reasons I gave earlier, I am unable to answer Senator Marriott’s question. J. just do not know what occurred but I assume that something would have been said about this matter.

Senator Young:

– In all fairness, as the honourable senator stated that his Party had agreed to this proposition, one would assume that it was supported by the Opposition in the other place.

Senator MURPHY:

– Not only would I assume that; I would expect and understand that this matter would have been mentioned in the House of Representatives. But I am unable to answer the question addressed to me for the very good reason that on this occasion the usual time has not elapsed between the debate on a Bill in the House of Representatives and the debate on the same Bill in the Senate, in order that we might inform ourselves of what had happened.

There are certain matters on the same line which seem to us to call for some attention. While it has been said that the changes in salary and allowances have been largely across the board in the sense that a percentage increase has been made to those payments, this is not quite true. It is true to the extent that, with the exception of the President and the Speaker, there were percentage increases which, as far as I can see, apply to all the various officers, leaving aside private members. The understanding was, as I. take it, that the Government was not conducting a work value case, to use an industrial term, but was simply making a basic adjustment in regard to all these salaries, with the exception of those paid to the Speaker and the President.

The salaries paid to the President and to the Speaker were moved onto the same basis as the salaries paid to junior Ministers. Other persons were left in a position which, I think, calls for some comment. The view taken by my Party - I am expressing certainly my own view on the matter - was that the situation of other persons ought to have been looked at. I refer particularly to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cohen. I do not think anyone in this place would be prepared to seek to justify the undervaluing that has occurred over the years in regard to his position. The salary paid to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate ought to have been adjusted by the Government, lt is grossly unfair that up till now he has been in the situation of receiving an additional salary for the office he holds which was merely $1,300 with a special allowance of some $600. The proposal under this Bill is to increase his additional salary to $1,625 and to increase his special allowance to $750.

Anyone having any knowledge of the tests that are applied to persons occupying positions of responsibility such as that of Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate can only be appalled at the additional salary which has been paid to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. This is especially so when one compares that salary with the salaries in the list from which I have quoted. Honourable senators will recall the Public Service salaries that I read out. One could refer to other salaries in this list. Without making any invidious comparisons and not by any means suggesting that the persons receiving those salaries are overpaid, how can one justify the payment to the Chairman of Committees of a salary, over and above his salary as senator, of $3,125 while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate receives an additional salary of $1,625 only? How can anyone with any reason at all justify that payment when the Deputy Leader is expected to take over the responsibilities of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate whenever occasion calls for it. It did, as honourable senators all know, for some 2 months in this year. He could easily be called upon again on any other occasion. In any event, the work has to be conducted and shared by the Deputy Leader and myself. 1 regard the situation as grossly unfair.

Nevertheless, the position of my Party was this: Apart from the matter of the electoral allowances it was not intended until certain events occurred today, to make any move for an adjustment in the salaries of the principal office holders in the Opposition - whether it be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other House, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), my own position, or that of Senator Cohen. We find that, without any warning and, indeed, as 1 understand it, after the Bill had been passed by the House of Representatives, we were informed for the first time, as I understand it, by some sudden decision, and apparently without any Cabinet meeting, of the decision by the Government to provide an extra salary for the Leader of the second non-Government party - that is the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party in this Senate. Well, I suppose this is an illustration of how these decisions are made. They are made in haste and without consideration as to whether the decisions are right and wrong. One would think that it would be more seemly for more time and more consideration to be given-

Senator Gair:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition object to it?

Senator MURPHY:

– I will tell Senator Gair in a moment what-

Senator Gair:

– You have told me already.

Senator MURPHY:

– I will tell Senator Gair what the decision of my Party is in respect of this matter. If I have spoken to Senator Gair since the occasion when this matter was announced, anything that I have said to him, as he wel’l knows and accepted, was in confidence. I will tell him what the attitude of my Party is to this proposal. The proposal of my Party is this: Since the Government has abandoned the approach which it has made to these matters - it has decided on another adjustment in the Senate and it will be introducing a request to this effect - the Opposition will make clear what it thinks is required in justice. Whether this is accepted by the Senate or whether or not it is accepted by the Government, we are going to state what we think is required in regard to these other office bearers. That inevitably involves a statement of the situation of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It also involves a consideration of the situation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. The attitude of my Party is that it is not consistent with the responsibilities which these offices entail that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should ba treated as being on a lower basis than a junior Minister. We will move in that direction.

The attitude of the Opposition also is that it is not consistent with the responsibilities attached to the office of Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he should be paid less than is proposed by the Government in this Bill for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives - that is, an additional salary of $5,000 and a special allowance of $1,500. We propose to request that amendment during the Committee stage. I do not propose to argue what responsibilities are attached to the offices of Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Honourable senators are well aware of those. I would think that the nation would be well aware of these responsibilities. It would be unnecessary and I do not propose to do it. This matter which concerns the Parliament should not be looked at as a matter relating to the individuals who for the time being occupy the offices. It should be dealt with on the basis of the offices themselves and the proper consideration that should be given to those offices in relation to other offices in the Parliament.

I cannot see the justification for placing the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate on a lower basis than even the most junior of the Ministers of the Government. As a matter of justice that should be considered by honourable senators and members of another place. The same can be said in relation to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Of course, the same considerations apply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. It is accepted that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is paid on the scale of a senior Minister. That arrangement is to be continued by the Government. One would think it consonant with justice and the responsibility of the situation that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives ought to be treated at least on the same basis as a junior Minister.

I have stated the proposals of the Opposition. We have had to reconsider this matter in the haste which has been forced upon us this evening during the suspension of the sitting as a result of the new situation which has developed through the proposal of the Government itself to request an amendment at the Committee stage of the debate. The propositions I have put involving electorate allowances and other office bearers whom I have mentioned involve the correction of some anomalies which appear to exist in regard to equal treatment of the Senate and the House of Representatives. A study of the list provided shows that there is equality at various levels - as between the President and Mr Speaker, the senior Ministers in each House, the junior Ministers in each House and the Clerks in each House. I cannot understand the basis of the anomalies that have occurred. As time passes attention ought to be paid to them. Perhaps the reality of the matter is that these are the kinds of anomalies that call for attention by a tribunal such as I have mentioned.

Is it not more satisfactory that somebody who is independent of this Parliament should study the matter and make recommendations after assessing the work that is involved, and the salaries and allowances of people in positions in the community which involve similar responsibilities? It is true that the Parliament must itself in pursuance of its constitutional power determine what the salaries should be. It is right that it should do that. Parliament should not give away to any other body the power of decision, whether direct or indirect. It should always retain that power itself because the Parliament cannot afford to put itself in the position of deferring to any other person or body. No other body should be put in the position where members of Parliament must be dependent upon it. But it is quite consistent with the exercise of that responsibility that such a tribunal should consider the matter and should give its advice to this Parliament.

Those are the observations I have to make on this matter. I am not at all satisfied with the way that this measure is being rushed through the Parliament. I wish that it were not. Senator Gair asked me what is the attitude of my Party to the proposal made for the first time as to the payment of the salary of the leader of the other nonGovernment Party, apparently irrespective of the numbers in that Party. Our decision is that we will oppose that proposal.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I want to make it quite clear that I will oppose the three related measures which will come before the Senate this evening. I will do so irrespective of whether the amounts set out in the legislation are exorbitant, reasonable, or whatever they might be. I wish to protest very strongly at the undue haste of the Government in rushing through parliamentary salaries and allowances increases, and also increases in the parliamentary retiring allowances. What is the urgency about this measure?

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator was overseas for a while and the Government had to rush it.

Senator WOOD:

– Senator Gair refers to my being overseas. For the first time since I entered Parliament in 1949 I took some leave - 3 weeks - and that is not a bad record. 1 think that the way this legislation is being rushed through is disgraceful. I invite honourable senators to study the notice paper and observe the amount of legislation we have on hand in the process of being dealt with by the Senate. It has been on hand for quite a considerable time. What happened today? Just after 5 o’clock this afternoon, or thereabouts, these measures were introduced in the Senate. The formal procedure relating to their introduction occupied the time until about half an hour before the suspension of the sitting. Upon resumption this evening another measure was quickly dealt with and we then moved to consider this legislation. In those circumstances how can any honourable senator deal properly with this measure?

It is disgraceful that we as parliamentarians should appear to be so anxious for increased salaries because of the way the Government is forcing this legislation through. I certainly consider that the debate should have been adjourned until next week, or even until the autumn session. As has been pointed out, irrespective of the amounts involved, there are anomalies. There is no reason why these things could not have been straightened out in the autumn session, if we could not do so during this session. That would not have been a very bad thing. I am sure that the people wilt consider this to be a very sorry exhibition, that it should appear that increases in our salaries and allowances are matters of such urgency that the legislation should be rushed through and given precedence over all other legislation in this Parliament. It is disgraceful and to the discredit of the Government. What is more, I object that over the years, whenever legislation of this nature is considered, the Government says, in effect: ‘You will take it this way or you will not get it.’ It is time that senators rose and said that they will not be bullied in this way. The practice has persisted over the years.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator has been here for a long period. What has he done to correct it?

Senator WOOD:

– I have protested on a number of occasions. I do not think anybody could fairly accuse me of being backward in saying what I think since I have been a senator. What time has anybody had to consider this legislation, quite apart from whether the amounts provided for are too big or too small? Let us consider the anomaly that exists in regard to this very chamber. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) mentioned the discrimination and the placing of senators in an inferior position to that of members of the House of Representatives. No-one can tell me that a person who represents a city electorate - one could walk around some city electorates in half a day - has the obligations of a senator who represents a State. It just does not make sense. Even a member of the House of Representatives representing a country electorate, if the job is done properly, does not have the same obligations as a senator. The level of allowances is a matter of relativity. In my opinion no senator should be placed on a lower level than any private member of the House of Representatives. The allowances paid to private members of the House of Representatives might be reduced. I know that parliamentarians and other people have a great way of saying how much they spend on this and that. I have been mayor of my city before and 1 am mayor at the present time. I would say that there is not a bigger sitting shot in a city than the mayor of that city. It amazes me how parliamentarians can say that they have to spend so much money on expenses and donations.

Because this type of legislation pertains particularly to ourselves, I believe that we should be most careful about the way we introduce it and the speed with which it is passed. The action of the Government in rejecting attempts to defer this legislation until at least next week indicates to me that there is something wrong. What was the first anybody saw of it? This morning’s newspapers came out with something about it. It is not a parliamentarian’s place to be guided by what appears in the newspapers. This legislation was introduced into the Senate not long before the sitting was suspended for dinner at 6 p.m. Then immediately after the suspension for dinner everybody was expected to proceed-

Senator Cormack:

– Does the honourable senator think members of the Parliament should receive a rise or not?

Senator WOOD:

– I have not had time to look at the matter properly. The honourable senator has asked about a rise. I might take a view of public service different from his. Many men in public service, not only in this country but also in others, sacrifice in order to give public service. In the United States heads of very big firms often sacrifice a substantial part of their income in order to serve their nation in the Congress as Ministers. In regard to parliamentary salaries and allowances, I have never looked upon the position of member of parliament as something that one goes into as a job in order to earn a great deal of money. There should be a pride in giving service to the country. In my opinion people should have pleasure in serving and in making some sacrifice.

Senator Cormack:

– Does the honourable senator think that members of the Parliament should be receiving more than they are receiving at the moment? That is all I am asking.

Senator WOOD:

– What I am trying to tell the Senate is that this legislation is before this chamber now and no-one has had the opportunity to consider it. But let me say to Senator Cormack that, despite the poor cry that they make, numbers of people in this Parliament would not be earning nearly as much as they are if they were not in the Parliament. There are others who might be earning more, but there are numbers who would not be earning as much.

Senator Gair:

– There are a lot who should be on half pay because of absenteeism.

Senator WOOD:

– That could be; but that is not the principle on which this legislation has been introduced. These are my views. I believe that the terrific speed with which this legislation has been brought in and is being pushed through is disgraceful and should earn the condemnation of the people of this country. The bullet train in Japan is supposed to be the fastest train in the world, but it is slow moving compared with the speed with which a parliamentary salaries Bill or a Ministers salaries Bill is introduced in this Parliament and put through. Although we have a great deal of legislation on the notice paper at the moment, everything else is being deferred so that these Bills can be passed. I believe that this is deserving of condemnation. There are certain anomalies, such as the one Senator Murphy mentioned about discrimination against senators. I am opposed to the three measures and will vote against them because I believe that it is time a stand was made against the speed with which parliamentarians, through the Government, raise their own salaries and allowances.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I will not delay the Senate for very long. My leader has examined this legislation from the standpoint of the Australian Labor Party in a very able manner. But 1 wish to say a few words with respect to the electorate allowance for a senator. Senator Murphy foreshadowed an amendment that we will be moving to bring it up to the level of that of a city member of the House of Representatives. I inform the Senate that that is the attitude of the Australian Labor Party at this time, although not for all time because there will be other increases and other considerations of electorate allowances and on another occasion the Labor Party may have a different attitude to them. The attitude of the Labor Party at this time is that the electorate allowance for a senator should be brought up to the level of that of a city member of the House of Representatives.

I support Senator Murphy’s plea for an independent body to have a look at the salaries of members of the Parliament. Such action was taken quite recently in Victoria and Western Australia with respect to the salaries of members of the parliaments of both of those States. I believe that members of parliament would be very much better off if they were to have an experienced committee look at what is involved in the occupation of a member of the House of Representatives or senator and what is it worth to the Australian public and the Australian Parliament. There were moves - I think they came from both sides of the Parliament - for the linking of the base par.liamentry salary to that of some classification in the Commonwealth Public Service. Had that been done it would have produced the same effect because the salary of a public servant is fixed as a result of an application to the Public Service Board. If the Board does not consider that a certain salary for a certain public servant is warranted, the matter goes to the Public Service Arbitrator. In this way there is an adjudication on the value of the Public Service classification.

I believe that honourable senators should take note of the words that are used when Ministers introduce Bills. In the second reading speech on the Parliamentary Allowances Bill the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), who represents the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), said:

Before deciding to recommend these increases the Government made a survey of salaries paid for positions of comparable responsibility-

I emphasise those words - both in the Public Service and in other sectors of the community.

Senator Murphy has given a rundown of the classifications in both the First and Second Division of the Public Service. After considering the comparable responsibilities of a member of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate, whoever fixed these salaries apparently decided that a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Senate did not have responsibilities comparable with those in the lowest grade of the second division of the Public Service. That is what it amounts to because the salary for the lowest grade of the second division of the Public Service is $9,657 while the basic salary for a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator is fixed at $9,500.

So we are not regarded as having responsibilities comparable with those of the lowest grade of public servant in the second division. This is the position into which Senators and members of the House of Representatives downgrade themselves. I say quite frankly to them that they would have nothing to lose if they were to submit their salaries not to a Richardson committee but to a competent body, which may be perhaps the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or a similar body which is experienced in evaluating wages. I recommend this procedure to the Government on the next occasion when salaries of parliamentarians are under review.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Senate is being asked to decide a very important matter tonight. I should say that this is one of the very few bodies in the democratic world the members of which have thrust upon them by the Constitution the responsibility of deciding their own salaries. Over a period of 20 years, I have seen this unseemly haggle repeated time after time when, through no fault of the Parliament or its members, but because of the process of inflation, it becomes necessary for members of the House of Representatives and Senators to adjust their salaries. I have also seen the process going on in which public servants, through the tribunals which evaluate their value to the community, have reached a position where their status symbol - their salary - is in very many cases superior to that of members of the Parliament. We cannot get away from the fact that one’s salary is the thing upon which one’s status in the community is evaluated. The public servants have been given this wage justice by an independent tribunal whereas members of Parliament have to haggle and horse deal every time the question of their salaries comes before the Parliament.

The Constitution provides that the Parliament shall decide this matter. But the Parliament is not deciding it. These salaries were decided in a hole in the corner by two people dealing and wheeling as to what they considered would go over electorally, or what the market would bear. Actuated by the basic greed of people, their attitude was: ‘Let us get hold of something extra’. By so doing, they not only degrade themselves but they degrade the institution of Parliament. I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) deceived the public of Australia last night when he announced the proposed increases in salaries. He made no mention whatever of a departure from previous precedent by making provision to recognise a Party of four members in this Parliament In recognising a party of this size, he is creating a precedent which I believe can be very dangerous. The monetary incentive plays some very peculiar tricks. The French Parliament has disintegrated on many occasions because of the proliferation of splinter parties. Here the Prime Minister recognises a party of four people with special emoluments for its leader. This is the first time this has ever happened.

Senator Little:

– It represents 500,000 voters.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Hitherto, the precedent has been that a Party shall consist of ten members before it is entitled to recognition for salary, purposes. If the honourable senator were in the Country Party he would be in a Party that could represent 250,000 voters and still comprise more than four members. The precedent proposed here is a bad one. Until they specifically point out that a party can be a party of four or three or two-

Senator Byrne:

– Who decided it?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Prime Minister.

Senator Byrne:

– We have to accept injustice because the Prime Minister does not recognise justice?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I say the Prime Minister has created a precedent in recognising a Party of four members and providing special emolument for its leader, with all the perquisites that go with leadership of a Party.

Senator Scott:

– Who was it that recommended that a Party should comprise at least ten members before it can be recognised as a Party?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I cannot say.

Senator Scott:

– It was the Richardson Committee.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I want to get on to the Richardson Committee later.

Senator Scott:

– But it is not the be all and end all of anything.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No. The way in which it was put to us was that we accept everything that the Richardson Committee recommended or get nothing. The point I want to make is that no Government and no Prime Minister has the right to come to this Parliament and say: ‘If you do not take this holus bolus you will get nothing.’ I believe that the alterations that are being made are warranted. I believe that the overwhelming majority of senators deserve the increase that is being made in this instance. But is is a horse deal; it is a last minute thing. That is why I believe the Prime Minister was dishonest in not telling the nation last night that he was going to make this concession to a non-government party.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable senator be more temperate in his language in referring to the Prime Minister. If he continues to refer to the Prime Minister as dishonest, I shall deal with him. I ask him to be more temperate.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– T can say that he did not tell the whole story. When he announced his proposal for salary increases for Ministers, members of the House of Representatives, senators and office bearers of the Parliament, he neglected to tell the people of Australia that he intended to make provision for the recognition of a nongovernment Party and to make financial provision for the leader of that Party. This, to me, is only a side issue.

Senator Gair:

– We were not on the Party committees that were discussing these things.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Neither were we.

Senator Gair:

– Your Party was.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– But the Parliament was not. The Constitution provides that Parliament should decide these things.

Senator Little:

– Parliament is discussing it now.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I know, but it is being rushed through.

Senator Gair:

– You were here in 1964 when salary increases went through in 7 minutes.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am speaking of the position now and the anomalies that must be corrected. Senator Scott referred to the report of the Richardson Committee. That report resulted in the creation of something that I believe should not be allowed to continue. I refer to the discrimination between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The $100 difference between the electoral allowances of city members and of senators is neither here nor there as far as money is concerned, although to a lot of people it does mean something. What is of concern is the downgrading and degrading of the Senate, which comprises a body of conscientious men who carry out a function of value in a democratic way. The Senate’s value is being continuously proved as time goes by. The last referendum, which related to the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives, proved that the people of Australia wanted the Senate retained. At the last State conference of the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania I successfully moved that the platform of the Party be altered to remove the provision that the Senate be abolished. That motion was carried.

Senator Cormack:

– It incl’uded 10 senators and 5 members of the House of Representatives; that is why.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That may have been the ulterior motive if the move had come from the honourable senator, because he is little higher than rock bottom. I believe that the Senate has a most important function in our society. I believe that it is wanted by the public of Australia. I believe that if the Government had a referendum to alter the powers of the Senate in a way that would be detrimental1 to the Senate the public would respond in the same manner as it did on the previous occasion. I take the view that the public has endorsed the value of the Senate in our Parliamentary institution and I will not sit here without protesting against the perpetuation of an injustice created by the Richardson report, which has resulted in Senate allowances being kept a little lower than those of the other place.

Senator Gair:

– Why did you not do something about it before? I cannot see any reference in Hansard to violent speeches being frequently made.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am speaking now. I want honourable senators to straighten their backs and stand up for their own rights.

Senator Gair:

– It has been only since the DLP came here that the Senate has operated as a House.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– We would have been better off without the Democratic Labor Party. If we had four decent Labor men in here instead of the four that I can see we would have a much better House.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Gair:

– You would not have four decent Labor men.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The honourable senator will have a chance to speak later.

Senator Gair:

– I will, too.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The DLP is doing all right. I have had a few words to say about the DLP and its pressure tactics.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator should stick to the Bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I come back to the point I was making earlier. This Bill will perpetuate the situation arising from the Richardson report when the Senate was downgraded. The Bill differentiates between the electoral allowances of members and senators although they travel the same distance in the course of their Parliamentary duties. We are purposely downgraded by $100.

Senator Cormack:

– Move an amendment to bring the House of Representatives electoral allowances down to those of the Senate.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I would willingly do that if I could, but human nature being what it is, I could not. It is easy to pull something down but difficult to build it up. If the honourable senator would like to back up his words with action he could quite easily do so because he has the numbers on his side of the chamber.

Senator Cormack:

– It is your duty to do that.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The honourable senator has the numbers on his side of the chamber; he could quite easily do it. You are one of those great believers in the destiny of the Senate who bathe in the reflected prestige it has achieved over the years as a result of some very good work by dedicated men who, as the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said, are worthy of their salt. I can see opposite me and I have behind me men who have made economic sacrifices to come into this chamber - men who, if they wished, could have remained in lucrative private practice.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator is like Nelson - he has his blind eye this way.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Apropos of that interjection, I wish to mention that I read where the superintendent of sanitary arrangements in the Sydney City Council receives a higher salary than senators.

Senator Gair:

– He is probably entitled to it.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes. He probably throws himself into his job all the time.

Senator Gair:

– That is more than I can say about the honourable senator.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I suppose that one of these days Senator Gair and I will both be interred and will go that way, too. I would like to support the point made by Senator Murphy in regard to the setting up of a tribunal to determine salaries and allowances of members and senators. I think it is the duty of the Parliament to examine this matter in its proper perspective. We should try to put an end to the eternal haggling which inevitably arises between the other place and the Senate and which gives the Press a great opportunity to downgrade the whole Parliamentary institution. No matter what happens, the Press has a heyday when our salaries are increased. The general public is encouraged to criticise us. The Press paints a very bad picture of the people elected by the general public to represent them in this Parliament. This is a disgraceful situation which I believe should be brought to an end. The only way this can be achieved is by having a tribunal review Parliamentary salaries in the same way as salaries are reviewed in the Public Service. To me the most annoying feature of a salary increase - and I am sure that honourable senators opposite have experienced this as well - is that when I go out into the electorate, as I will have to do next weekend, the public has its dig at me and criticises me. Apparently the public reads the cartoons in the Press lampooning parliamentarians. I have to defend myself. The point is that I cannot honestly tell people that I played any part in the creation of the situation.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator is repudiating his delegation.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The point is that there was no delegation; it just happened. Like Topsy it grew from a little leak here, a little seed there and a little pressure somewhere else. The disgusting thing is that if we do not push this legislation through we do not get anything. Honourable senators should not get away from the fact that we must alter the situation where the sword is poised over our heads and if we do not agree to hurry the legislation through we will not get any increase. If we have to submit to that type of blackmail, whether it is from Cabinet Ministers, the Prime Minister or the Press, we are not worthy of our salt. I appeal to Government senators on the first point that I make. We should no longer tolerate the differential between the House of Representatives and the Senate with regard to the electorate allowance. It does not worry me whether the electorate allowance for a member of the House of Representatives is brought back to the level of that for a senator or whether a senator’s electorate allowance is upgraded to that of a member of the other place - it does not worry me one iota.

Senator Greenwood:

– It would be better to establish the principle.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I want the principle to be established.

Senator Greenwood:

– I do not think the honourable senator’s foreshadowed request does that.

Senator Anderson:

– I suggest that the honourable senator deal with that point when we get tothe Committee stage.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Very well, I shall deal with it later in the Committee stage. I should like to make it clear that it is proposed that there should be equality between the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. No-one cavils at that. That is as it should be. The Chairman of Committees in the Senate is equated to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Representatives. That is fine and I agree with it entirely.

Senator Greenwood:

– He has a little more work to do here.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I would say that he carries out his duties in an exemplary manner. He is impartial and, in my view, he is a man of very good standing. I say the same thing about our President. They are equal in every respect to the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Representatives and they carry out their duties according to the best traditions of the Parliament. Equality has been established at that level. But when we come from that level we find a departure and a downgrading of the Senate. There is no attempt at any time to give any one of the office bearers of the House of Repre.senatives an amount equal to or less than that given in the Senate. We never see any sign of that. It is always the other way, that the Senate has to take the lower level.

I refer next to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The Prime Minister said that we must encourage men of ability and men who can adorn this institution and that the only way to do so is to offer them a salary commensurate with their ability. 1 suppose that with all due respect to our political philosophies no-one could criticise the capacity and ability of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in this chamber.

Senator Lillico:

– What about the Whip? How does he compare?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I do not want to mention the Whips, but I will say that I strongly object to the Government Whip in the Senate being on a lower salary range than the Whip in the other place. I object also to the other place referring to him as the chief parliamentary Whip when the Government Whip in this place is our chief Senate Whip.

Senator Greenwood:

– And a very good Whip too.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I agree. He is very hard to knock.

Senator Byrne:

– What about the DLP Whip?

Senator Little:

– He should come in for a mention.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– There has been a little side swiping because the lesser creatures of the parliamentary establishment are classified as Other Whips. Perhaps they are cheaper by the dozen. But I had not reached the dizzy height of the Whips; I was dealing with the positions in a descending order from the positions of Minister and junior Minister, and then the Leader of the Government in the Senate, he being the senior Minister carrying out the responsibility of leadership in this place. No-one cavils at the arrangements that have been made for him.

Senator Anderson:

– There are no arrangements for me as Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is true, but the Minister is the senior Minister in this place. Because there is a Leader of the Government in the Senate we have a Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and he should be equated to his equivalent in the House of Representatives. But that has not been done under these provisions. My leader has carefully avoided this subject, but 1 shall speak up for him. A debate like this gives us the opportunity to speak of these things and this is the time when these matters should be discussed. But also, there must be ample time for them to be discussed. I could expand on those few references about the need for recognition of the ability of and the hard work that is done by the Leader of the Opposition and the fact that these provisions do not accord him proper recognition. 1 mention next another man such as is referred to by the Prime Minister as the type of man that we would wish to attract to the Parliament. I refer to our Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cohen. He is a very able Queen’s Counsellor who brings to the Senate a judgment, an experience and a contribution that is second to none in this Parliament. Yet for no reason that is discernible he is positively insulted by these provisions. A former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, said:

The salaries of a member should be fixed at an amount which is not so low as to deter a man of good attainments and ability who has no private income from entering or remaining in Parliament.

To classify publicly a man of the calibre of our Deputy Leader, in a grade which has no equivalent in the House of Representatives is to continue a situation which I believe the Senate should no longer allow to be perpetrated. Finally, although 1 have referred to the subject in passing, I mention my counterpart, the Government Whip. He carries out his onerous duties just as well as the Whip in the other place. I do not know who conferred the title of chief parliamentary Whip on the Government

Whip in another place, but the Government Whip in this place carries out his duties as conscientiously and as effectively as does his counterpart in the other place. Therefore I submit that there should be equality between the two Houses at that level also.

I do not propose to carry this comparison any further. I have voiced my opinions on the proposals because I feel that now is the time to do so. I believe that if we allow this situation to continue it will become more difficult to correct in the future. We have the opportunity to do something now. The cost of such alterations as 1 propose is infinitesimal. There is a matter of principle at stake. There is the matter of bringing the Senate to its proper estate as a House of review, as a House representing the States of the Commonwealth, as part of the parliamentary institution, as a House that has been endorsed recently by the people as being needed in this community. But not only that, it is a House composed of men and women who are doing credit to the nation and to themselves. 1 believe that they should be given equality, at least.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I received a telegram today from a New South Wales constituent, which read:

Please amend parliamentary salary increases to $1.35 per week.

I have wondered why that constituent, and over the years have often wondered why so many people in the community have such a poor regard for members of Parliament. 1 feel tonight that the question 1 have so often put to myself in this connection has been answered by the speeches and the conduct associated with the passing of legislation providing for the increase of salaries of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Since I have been sitting here this evening 1 have heard the wrangle regarding the discrimination between the Senate and the House of Representatives. I have heard complaints about the expeditious manner in which the legislation has been dealt with, not sufficient time for consideration, etc. I have not been in the Senate for so very long, as honourable senators know, but 1 recollect a previous occasion when these contentious matters were being dealt with. They were dealt with with the greatest expedition. I can recollect that in 1964, or thereabouts, when the last increases took place the newspapers featured the fact that the measures went from the House of Representatives to the Senate and were all disposed of in a matter of 7 minutes, and that never at any time had there been greater unanimity between the Government and the Opposition. The articles then went on to say: ‘After all, it is only the culmination of months of deliberation between the two parties1. I have no reason not to believe that the same process has operated and that representatives of the Government Parties and of the Opposition have been in conclave without any regard to the second non-Government Party.

Senator Poke:

– You must have gone pretty well to get an extra $1,500.

Senator GAIR:

– Senator Poke rises from his regular sleep to interrupt me about twisting arms. 1 have never twisted the arm of anyone to get anything in my parliamentary career, and when people tried to twist mine to compel me to do things that I did not believe were in the interests of the economy of the State that I represented I forfeited a lot more than he is getting now.

Senator Poke:

– And got kicked out for it.

Senator GAIR:

– 1 got kicked out all right. If the Australian Labor Party had any regard for values I should have been kept there. It was then that the Australian Labor Party in Queensland blew its brains out. But that is by the way. I was saying that this has gone on and to try to tell the people of Australia that it does not go on would just be like trying to tell the adult population that there is a Santa Claus. Of course it has gone on. But I can say that as far as the Party which I am proud to represent is concerned we have not been a party to it. The thing that surprises me is that members of the ALP come into this place and complain about the discrimination against the Senate. They must have known, surely, what the deliberations in conjunction with the Goverment on this matter were. This matter has been discussed in the Press for months yet we have all this recrimination and we have heard speeches tonight from senators dragging down someone to improve one’s own position. That is contrary to the industrial spirit that I knew. We never dragged anyone down to get what we wanted for ourselves.

However, that does not personally worn’ me a scrap. But it worries me from the point of view of the prestige of the Parliament to see this controversial matter of salaries being reduced to a stage that must be disgusting to any decent person in the community. I say very definitely - and my colleagues will support me - that had it not been for the fact that the parliaments of Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and other States had recently increased salaries and that the Public Service had helped itself to big increases I would have had to give much thought to voting for an increase in salaries for Federal parliamentarians. I had also to give thought to what the public reaction would be. If I voted against the Bill and then accepted the increase it would be said that 1 voted against it knowing that the majority would vote for it and I would take the increase. Having been a good unionist all my life, 1 have never worked for less than the ruling rate of wages or salary. But never having been a grandstand player in my political life, I would hate to be branded as a grandstand player now.

Senator Wood:

– But you opposed the last salary rise before you came into the Parliament and it helped you to get into the Parliament.

Senator GAIR:

– This was probably because I did not think at that time that it was merited. I am saying now that had it not been for the fact that the State Parliaments had increased the salaries of members and of the Public Service - the higher grade increases particularly have been pretty good - I would not be supporting the Bill tonight. I can see no point, unless we want to reduce the standard of the Federal Parliament below that of the State Parliaments, in rejecting this measure. Senator Wood points out that I opposed salary increases. Yes, it is true I have opposed them and resisted them when I have led a government because I was always conscious of the fact that they inevitably have an inflationary effect, and spark off demands and claims for wage and salary increases.

Senator Wood:

– They will do it now.

Senator GAIR:

– Of course they will do it now, and to a greater extent than the Wheat Bill about which there were complaints a few weeks ago. Oh yes, I am con scious and have always been conscious of the fact that all of these great increases have an inflationary effect. This inflation spreads to the Commonwealth judiciary; to the State judiciary and to the Commonwealth Public Service. Of course, a lot of this money comes back to the Commonwealth Treasury. These increases go on. The fact remains that there is definitely an inflationary trend. We should be very conscious of the need to act reasonably and sensibly when dealing with salaries. I remember some members of a State parliament protesting very strongly when legislation providing salary increases was introduced in 1953. They said they would not take the increase, and all that kind of thing. To ensure that those members would not be embarrassed by having to accept, a clause was inserted in the Bill to the effect that all members of Parliament who wanted the increase had to apply for it. That certainly embarrassed a few people.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What would Senator Wood have done?

Senator GAIR:

– Senator Wood would have to make his own decision on such matters. As far as I can see, any decision he has made has been based on conscientious grounds. But in the case I mentioned, some people were playing to the grandstand. That is what I feared in this case. 1 feared that in the event of my opposing this legislation, which would be my early impulse, I would be charged with playing to the grandstand. I have never done that during my long political life and I do not want to start now. In conscience, I would say that the people who are putting their hand out for these increases today, with great enthusiasm, and who were crying a few months ago for pensioners and other such people, leave me a little cold. I would be much happier if there was a Bill before the Parliament designed to give pensioners and other social service recipients another Si or more a week rather than to be voting for an increase in salaries for members of the Commonwealth Parliament or any other parliament in Australia.

Senator Young:

– Move an amendment accordingly.

Senator Poke:

– This is the first time I have ever agreed with Senator Gair.

Senator GAIR:

– Then I must be wrong for the first time. However, I will accept an ally when I can get one because i have not got many. An honourable senator suggested that I move an amendment. On what ground would I move an amendment? What amendment is it suggested I should move? I can do one of two things: I can vote for the Bill or I can vote against it. If I take the increase after voting against it I will be charged with being hypocritical or of playing to the grandstand. If you are going to be a dog then be an Alsatian.

Senator Poke:

– Well, the honourable senator growls enough.

Senator GAIR:

– I have cause to growl when 1 see inanimate figures lying about. We are dealing, with a very important question. 1 have a. historical document before me but ! will not bore the Senate by reading it. It deals with the question of payments and allowances for parliamentarians and goes right back to 1870. It shows that there has been controversy about salaries for parliamentarians on every occasion that the matter has come before any parliament, right from the old House of Commons days. A lot of this controversy is due to our own personal conduct in the Parliament. If I raise my voice much louder I will wake up two or three honourable senators who will have no compunction about taking their salaries. Visitors come to our galleries and see the vacant seats and the vacant looks. They go away unimpressed and wonder whether it is worthwhile paying our salaries. We have a grave responsibility to the people we represent. What is more, we have a grave obligation to preserve the prestige of our parliamentary system of government. The burden of discharging our duties fairly and conscientiously rests on the shoulders of each and every one of us. We must have regard at all times to the welfare of our country and its people. We should not place the interests of political parlies, together with our personal benefits, foremost in our consideration.

I have always felt very keenly about this matter of salaries. I have never looked for very much reward during my service in the public life of this country. My public service goes back to the 11th June 1932. I have never had any great ambition to gain much from that service. 1 have always been conscious of the great privilege and honour I have enjoyed by representing the people of my native State and my country in the parliamentary halls of Australia. I do not think it becomes members of Parliament to reduce this matter to a common argument as to whether the officers of Parties in the Senate should get more or less than those in the House of Representatives. 1 can understand the position and I would not want, as a senator, to see the Senate, the upper house of the Commonwealth Parliament, denigrated. As a comparatively new member of the Senate, I wonder what ail these old hands have been doing since the Richardson report was presented. What have they been doing to rectify what they now regard as serious and grievous anomalies between the Senate and the House of Representatives?

Senator Wood:

– 1 protested when it was done.

Senator GAIR:

– I acknowledge what the honourable senator did. I listened with great interest and a little secret amusement when Senator O’Byrne spoke of the decision of the people at the recent referendum about the future of the Senate. If the people had taken any notice of the Australian Labor Party the Senate would have been abolished. If the referendum had been carried the strength of the House of Representatives would now be greater and we would certainly have been overrun.

Senator Wood:

– We beat them all on that.

Senator GAIR:

– We certainly would have been overrun and what say would the Australian Labor Party have had then? Apparently that Party has little say now. The House of Representatives would have been much larger had it not been for the few of us, the ten who fought for the ‘no’ vote during the referendum. 1 get a bit short tempered.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Short winded!

Senator GAIR:

– No, I am not short winded. The honourable senator knows that. If he does not like it, he will have to put up with it. But I get a bit irked by the political humbug and hypocrisy that is associated with these things. We all know that this matter has been the subject of discussion and negotiation. I repeat if I can be excused for repeating it, but a good thing is worth repeating - that in the days of Dr Evatt and Mr Calwell negotiations took place with

Mr Menzies. They could do anything with him on salaries and allowances. They worked it all out and it came off, just as it has come off this - time. But the suggestion is that Mr Whitlam, or whoever his representatives are on the joint committee that has been discussing this matter, did not put the case for the Opposition in the Senate; or that if the Australian Labor Party in the Senate had any representation, it must have been Senator Arnold Drury who seldom says very much. Whoever it was must have taken what was decided and accepted it. So, why complain about it? There it is. I was about to say something but I will reserve my remarks in case they may be required at a later stage.

Senator Georges:

– The honourable senator is under the whip.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. My Whip is on my right. He has been associated with me for many years. It has been of mutual advantage. Our association has been for the good of the Parliaments in which we have served, if I may say so with modesty. This matter of salaries is a subject matter that 1 regard as delicate. To have the matter brought down to the gutter level of argument is unfortunate. I say very definitely that it is a grave pity that there could not be a classification of members of Parliament so that they could be paid according to their worth and their service.

Senator Prowse:

– Be careful.

Senator GAIR:

– I am always careful. If that was done we might get somewhere.

Senator Poke:

– The honourable senator would be in debt.

Senator GAIR:

– 1 would never be in debt. I have achieved my place on merit, in spite of opposition. In my classification, Senator Poke would be in the retarded children’s group. The members of my Party might be condemned for a lot of things, but I claim that they work harder than any other members, excepting Ministers. But take any four members of Parliament outside Cabinet Ministers.

Senator Wood:

– Do not exclude members of the Cabinet.

Senator GAIR:

– I will exclude Cabinet Ministers. They have a number of duties. One must be a Cabinet Minister as I have been to know. I challenge any member to prove that they work harder than we do. I might exclude Senator Mulvihill because of the time that he devotes to his red kangaroos and wallabies, whether or not they have votes.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It shows how idealistic 1 am, does it not?

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. The fact is that what I have said is true. My great regret is that I cannot classify members of this Parliament and group those who are worth an increase and those who are not. If we could do that, we might get somewhere. I do not subscribe to the view that the salaries of members of Parliament should be kept low. I subscribe somewhat to what Sir Robert Menzies said. He said that parliamentary salaries should not be so low that they would prevent talented people from coming into our parliaments. On the other hand we do not want to make parliamentary salaries too attractive. Think of the competition for endorsement, particularly in Australian Labor Party plebiscites. They would kill one another if the salaries were too high. We should keep them at a moderate level and then we probably will attract reasonable men into the Parliament. But, do not make the salaries too high; otherwise there will be a lot of casualties.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about exSenator Sir Kenneth Morris? What happened to him?

Senator GAIR:

– He met his doom, too. That happens in most of the parties. 1 do not want to go on although there is a lot more that I could say. I think that I have covered most of the ground. But I say lo honourable senators: In your own interests from a public point of view, if you want public respect and if you want the public to agree that you are worthy of what you are giving yourselves, I think that you have to remember at all times that the prestige of the Parliament is in your hands. I remind honourable senators of this fact: You have an obligation. It is a solemn obligation. You have taken an oath of office and sworn a solemn obligation to serve this country and to serve our people to the best of your ability. Disregard the pressures from outside bodies and the backroom boys, as you like to call them. You have an obligation to do your best for Australia and for the Australian people.

We of the Australian Democratic Labor Party are dedicated to those principles. We are here to serve the people to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so in the face of any opposition. We are not much concerned whether the salary is $9,500 per annum or whether it is not. The salary is secondary. In conclusion 1 repeat that, if it had not been for the atmosphere created by certain State Parliaments and by the Public Service generally, it is doubtful whether I would be supporting this Bill tonight. The only reason I probably would be supporting it is the reason 1 have given - that I would not want to be regarded as a hypocrite or a player to the grandstand.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

t0J] - in reply - Mr President, we are at the conclusion of the debate on the second reading of the first Bill in this series. A great amount has been said which more properly might have been said and dealt with during the Committee stages. Obviously, during the Committee debate, requests will be made. Thus it is that I think a great deal of the second reading debate has been really, if not unnecessary, at least repetitive. As 1 evaluate the debate, it would seem that, with the exclusion of Senator Wood, the Senate is of the opinion that the proposed increases are justified and that they are not extravagant. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in his argument demonstrated that because of the fact that normally parliamentary salaries are increased only once in the life of a Parliament and because of the increases that will flow to certain public servants, if their salaries are used as a yardstick for measuring parliamentary salaries, the margin between parliamentary salaries at the proposed new levels and the salaries of certain Second Division officers will be greater, by the time this Parliament has concluded and we move into the life of the next Parliament, than it is at the present time.

We are as one on this matter, with the exception of Senator Wood. But Senator Wood has shown a degree of consistency about this matter over the years. With the exception of Senator Wood, I believe that we are as one in the view that the proposed increases in parliamentary salaries paid to members in another place and to senators are not extravagant; indeed, that they are very modest. When we compare the proposed salaries with salaries in any aspect of public life we find that they remain at a low figure having regard to the status and the responsibilities that we hold as legislators for the Commonwealth of Australia. As to the Public Service, a member of my own personal staff in the Parliament receives a higher salary than a senator. I do not wish to pursue it any further. I assume that the motion for the second reading of the Bill will be agreed to and then we will come to the matters at issue concerning variations to the legislation.

I will make a few quick observations about the references that have been made to haste. 1 remind honourable senators that today this Bill was dealt with in another place, where the Australian Labor Party is led by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The debate lasted for H hours. lt is clear that the references to the Senate being put to undue haste do not stand up. I am aware that the Opposition holds caucus meetings. It is futile and absurd and it is nonsense to suggest that the Opposition in the Senate was not aware, of the substance and the main sweep of this legislation.

I now wish to advert to the references to the differential between the House of Representatives and Senate’ allowances. We will return to that subject at the Committee stage of the debate. It is significant to note that when the present comparative levels of electorate allowances were introduced, following the report of .the Richardson Committee in 1959, only one senator spoke against the move. He was not a member of the Opposition. The opposition came from Senator Wood, to whom credit must go for consistency. On the last occasion that the Parliament dealt with parliamentary salaries only one Opposition senator spoke at all on the subject. That was Senator McKenna, who was then . Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. So a great deal of humbug has been spoken in this debate tonight.

Senator Cant:

– Surely that is not right.

Senator ANDERSON:

– My authority is the Hansard report for the debate in 1964.

Senator Georges:

– It does not follow that-

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator who is interjecting has had his chance to speak at the second reading stage of the debate. He can keep his remarks for the committee stage. The pointI wish to make to the Senate is that it seems that at the second reading stage of the debate we accept the basic proposals that are involved in the measure. There are differences of view in relation to various aspects and we will have an opportunity to debate them. I believe we should get to that stage as quickly as possible.

An argument was made for an independent tribunal. The fact of the matter is that the Parliament has to accept responsibility for this matter, as provided in the Constitution. Following recommendations made by an independent tribunal - the Richardson Committee - the present Senate allowances came into being. When the Richardson Committee conducted its investigation some members of this Parliament gave evidence before it; others did not. Honourable senators will appreciate the son of situation that can emerge with some members of Parliament giving points of view on what should be the emolument awarded to members of Parliament. Differing points of view will be expressed, and some members of Parliament will not express any viewpoint. In those circumstances inevitably there will be great difficulty in making an evaluation.

I ask honourable senators: Who is better able to make a fair and proper judgment of the responsibilities undertaken and the work performed by a senator or a member of another place than is a member of this Parliament? We are a rare group in the community. It would be almost impossible to make a proper evaluation unless every senator and member of another place gave evidence before a tribunal. Senator Gair pointed out that some senators are more vigorous and active than others. He also pointed out that some senators have better attendance records than others. The salaries to be paid must be based on all such considerations. Because we must accept the final responsibility and in the ultimate are answerable to the people, it is proper that we should deal with the matter of parliamentary salaries and face up to our responsibilities. In dealing with these Bills our votes will count. We must each accept the responsibility. I think Senator Gair made a good point in saying that the legis lation should contain an escape clause so that those members of Parliament who do not want to accept the increases do not have to take them. I believe that we would see some fascinating results if that provision were included in the legislation.I hope that we can now obtain the passage of this Bill through the second reading stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

Reference was made to the above arrangement at the second reading stage of the debate. I believe it is reasonable. Provision for the request was made in the Bill in the other place. Tonight we have heard a good deal about the status of the Senate. The request seeks to give recognition to the position of the leader of a Party in the Senate. I would have thought it to be consistent with the arguments we have heard about the status of the Senate that we should pass legislation to give adequate recognition to the leader of a Party in the Senate.

I believe that to be a senator is a great honour. I also believe that the leader of a Party in the Senate has tremendous responsibilities. I am not talking party politics.I believe that the leadership of a Party in the Senate calls for recognition by way of salary arid allowances. The request provides for such recognition by amounts of $1,000 a year and $500 a year. I understand that those amounts are less than those to be paid to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I commend the request to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I have indicated the decision of my Party on this request; that is, to oppose it. I would like the Minister to indicate - he might be able to do this from where he sits - whether his proposal would apply to the leader of a party even when that party consisted of only one representative in this chamber. We recall the experience that we had of a party having only one representative and of that person being recognised as the leader of. a party. I do not propose to go over the arguments-

Senator Gair:

– He did not receive, any emoluments.

Senator MURPHY:

– As Senator Gair says, he did not receive any emoluments. That is quite fair and true. But the proposal here is not like the situation in respect of the House of Representatives, which as I recall it, is that the leader of a third party must have ten persons in his party. In this chamber one could understand it, on a basis of parity and reasonableness, if the leader of another party had to have, say, five persons in his party, or even if he had to have four - the number that the Democratic Labor Party has at present. At least that would be something that we could understand. But in the proposal made by the Minister there does not seem to be any nomination of any number of persons at all. So it is not a case of the man having a responsibility towards others, to see to it that collective decisions are made by them and to look after people other than himself.

This could come to a situation in which somebody was in virtually the same position as Senator Turnbull and yet would come within this category in the same way as would the leader of a party of, say, ten persons. I am not suggesting that the Democratic Labor Party, for instance, is in the same category as the independent senator. We know the arguments that have been advanced about people outside. But it seems to us that there is no specification of any number of persons at all. In many ways this seems to be an anomalous situation. I ask the Minister to clarify whether there is any requirement of any number of persons at all or whether this proposal applies even in the situation that we have experienced, with at one stage one of two persons and at another stage one person being recognised and treated as the leader of a party in this chamber.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– This proposal applies to the leader .df the second non-government recognised political party. Firstly, a leader would be quite a one man band if he was the only one in his party. Secondly, the proposal refers to the second non-government party. Thirdly, the party has to be a recognised, political party. So there are three ingredients, which I suggest are adequate to meet the situation.

Senator Murphy:

– But that . would have applied to, say, Senator Cole, when he was the only representative of .the Democratic Labor Party in this chamber.

Senator ANDERSON:

– But he was not recognised by the Senate as the leader of a political party.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, he was.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The situation, on the advice I have been given, is firstly, that the proposal applies to the second nongovernment party. Secondly;- the person has to be the leader of the Party. If he is the sole member, he has no-one to lead. The word ‘leader’ has the connotation of leading numbers of people. Thirdly, the party has to be a recognised political, party.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I see some validity in the question that has just been asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I can understand his fear that a precedent might be set by this request, which I propose to support. But lel us understand clearly that the salaries of members of parliament are usually fixed for the life of that parliament. It is true that they may extend into the ‘life of the next parliament. But the circumstances that have produced the present situation are entirely new. If it can be said that this request sets a precedent one way, surely there is equal precedent to cover the situation that Senator Murphy has enunciated as being the dangerous one. During the. years in which Senator Cole sat in this ‘Chamber as the only representative of the Democratic Labor Party, and as the Federal Leader of that Party, he received no extra emoluments at all. Whether he should or should not have done so is an argument that perhaps we should not pursue here.

I am sure that Senator Murphy would appreciate the fact that, when a national party had only one representative in the Commonwealth Parliament, for years the Parliament had a member who was virtually sweated labour and who worked from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, performing duties not expected of any other senator. J do not know whether Senator Murphy is proud of the fact - I do not want to put words into his mouth and did not indicate that in any way - but had I been here at the time I would have been just a little ashamed that an organisation as important to the whole of the Australian community as the Commonwealth Parliament was prepared to sweat the labour of one man when the arduous duties that he had to perform because of his unique political situation, irrespective of the politics involved, were known to everyone. But that is past. Here tonight we are discussing an entirely new situation.

It is said that we are discussing this matter in too great baste. I do not know what the speeches at the Committee stage will be like, but, if the haste with which we considered this legislation at the second reading stage was too great, it certainly did not cause the honourable senators who spoke to speak ill prepared. They all made very long, well thought out and well considered speeches on the legislation. On this issue it was said in the second reading debate that there had been some twisting of arms. When it comes to increasing wages and salaries, I am one who in his career has twisted many arms. I suppose 1 started twisting arms as a trade union official, because 1 always thought that I was worth more than the boss was paying me. 1 was never shy about bowling into his office and telling him so. I find it difficult to appreciate a different atmosphere. I admit that it is a different atmosphere when one has the responsibility of representing what one thinks one is worth and the added responsibility of fixing the salary that one thinks one is worth. That is a situation one does not strike in the atmosphere in which I have operated previously. But I was one of those who were of the opinion that the changed political circumstances in this Parliament-

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator LITTLE:

– I think everybody will admit that circumstances in the Senate have changed considerably since the Richardson Committee made the specific report to which reference has been made. I pay a compliment to the Prime Minister who, because of that change - it may well have been because of something that I or Senator Byrne had said - gave further consideration to one aspect of the legislation and came forward with a proposition which, if it is not entirely just and does not satisfy my instincts as a trade union negotiator, at least sets about establishing some measure of justice which I think would be conceded by all honourable senators.

It is to be remembered that the proposal relates not to an individual as such but to the leader of a Party of the size of ours, with the responsibility that we happen to have. I may have some knowledge - perhaps more than any other member of this chamber - of our leader’s dedication and the amount of work he does. I am certain that even the members of the Opposition, but particularly the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government must be conscious of the dedication of the leader of this particular Party and the amount of work that he puts into his job on behalf of the whole of the people of Australia, not merely those whom he represents and who may have voted for him, but the whole of the people of his own particular State and the whole of the people as the national leader of the Party to which he belongs. They must also be conscious of his value to this Senate. He is the leader of a Party which we have read in the newspapers is not without a great deal of responsibility and importance in this chamber and it is necessary from time to time for both the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition to discuss with him what may or may not be done in this Parliament in connection with legislation and everything else. Both these gentlemen must, therefore, at least glean some faint knowledge of the responsibility of the leader of this corner Party which, though numerically small, is indeed large in responsibility, and the value of the work which he does.

When the Bill was presented in its original form in the other place, both members of the Opposition and members of the Government parties expressed to me the opinion that the leader of this party was nominated in it. They had confused the reference to the leader of the third party being subject to certain conditions. Indeed, many of them were surprised that the leader of this Party bad been specially recognised at that stage by being granted some recompense for his added responsibility and the added amount of work that he has to do as a leader of a party. That classification did not apply to him at all. It. was because of the remarks that certain members of the Opposition and certain members of the Government had made to me that I expressed the views which I did so forcefully. Those views might have been carried back second hand to the Prime Minister. Now we have his proposition that justice should be done.

Because I feel that the value of Parliament rests not only on the dignity and prestige of the Government but also on the dignity and prestige of the Opposition 1 should think that, whatever fears this body composed of Labor men who seek justice in wages at all times, may have that some great precedent may be established, they would be offset by the precedent that has already been established. That is that when this Party in the Commonwealth Parliament comprised one senator that senator did not receive any- increased emoluments for the services that he rendered as a leader. In view of this I submit that Opposition senators should not adopt towards this measure a political attitude that can be described in no other way than as the venting of political spleen because of the political disputations that they and -we may have at different times. I should think that they would be big enough to recognise the justice of what is proposed in the request that has been honestly submitted to the Senate by the Government. I believe that if these honourable senators vote in accordance with their instincts as Labor men they will do what we will do in this measure. They will vote for its passage through the Senate in the way in which it ought to be passed - as a measure of justice to a senator who is well worth what the Parliament and the Government suggest as some recognition for -the services he is rendering to the Parliament.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I do not think anybody would quibble at granting special remuneration to the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party for the work he does. He is the. leader of a party. 1 know he is a very capable parliamentarian and I have no doubt he does a great deal of work. Therefore, there is no quibble about his being selected’ for some special payment as holder of his present position.

What concerns me is that 1 find on perusing the Hansard of another place that the Bill which was introduced in that place less than 24’ hours ago contained no mention whatever of this proposal.- Suddenly, changes have been made. -As I have said, I am not quibbling about the change with respect to this particular office.

Senator Little:

– It may be because this Party was not consulted when this matter was discussed.

Senator WOOD:

– My complaint concerns the unseemly rush in presenting the legislation. I have already protested against that. As an illustration of just how hurriedly the Bill is being rushed in, I mention that there are other anomalies which the Government has not had time to correct. Probably this is because Ministers are not affected. Here the Government suddenly decides to patch up the Bill in order to rectify some omission so far as the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party is concerned. In his speech, the Leader of the Government said:

In the case of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who contributes .at one-quarter of the Minister’s rate - .

Senator Anderson:

– That is a different Bill.

Senator WOOD:

– I am sorry. In all this rush, I have picked up the wrong Bill. My point is that the Government has no time to fix up an anomaly with” relation to a member of the Labor’ Party, the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition. I cannot understand why there should be this difference in the treatment of officers of parties in this Parliament. If the Government has time to fix up one anomaly, why has it not got the time to fix up another? This is an indication to me that the Government is in such a rush and tear to get the measure through that it really has not given it due and proper consideration. This convinces me more than ever that the legislation has been introduced at a terrific and disgraceful speed.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I feel that I should enter the debate at this stage and offer my interpretation of Labor’s attitude to this particular payment especially as the accusation has been made that, as former trade unionists, we do not want to see justice done in the way of proper remuneration for a job done. There has always been recognition of the fact that the Parliament is comprised of two political groups, one forming the government and the other forming the Opposition. Salaries and allowances have accordingly been paid to those who accept the responsibility of a portfolio and those who accept the responsibility of preparing and presenting a case on behalf of the Opposition. All who sit on this side of the chamber form the Opposition. But we are now reaching the stage where a third group is seeking recognition.

In view of the policy differences between the Democratic Labor Party and the Australian Labor Party, and the fight for support by both groups, there is some justification for rewarding both groups for the work done. But the ALP has never recognised the DLP as a bona fide political party. Honourable senators may recall the occasion when the Government agreed to recognise Senator Cole as the Leader of a political party. He was a one man band. The Opposition claimed that he had no more entitlement to recognition than did Senator Turnbull, an independent. Of course, if Senator Turnbull and the honourable member for Batman (Mr Benson) in the other place were to team up they would have a better claim for recognition as a political party because they would have representation in both Houses. Whilst the ALP has never recognised the DLP as a bona fide political party, the DLP has achieved increased representation in this chamber. Three DLP senators were elected as a result of the increased Labor vote in Victoria and Queensland. I give due credit to Senator Little because he won on his own merits. But this position can be reversed at any time.

The ALP is of the opinion that the DLP is in existence for one reason only. It is in existence not for the good of the nation but for the destruction of the ALP. Surely I cannot be expected to support the payment of further remuneration to a group which exists for the sole purpose of white anting the very Party that I represent. The question was asked earlier tonight: ‘Do you pay the hangman to hang you?’ The Opposition is not prepared to remunerate a group which has only one purpose in mind and that is the destruction of the ALP. By running candidates in every State the DLP receives a respectable percentage of the votes polled. But the ALP still does not recognise the DLP as a political party which should receive increased payments as a separate organisation.

Senator Byrne:

– Is it not the honourable senator’s principle that one man should have one vote and that members should represent people and not acres?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The principle of one man one vote will be an interesting exercise in the future if the honourable senator will agree to a matter that is now on the notice paper being debated. I have particular views on this principle of one man one vote. But I cannot see what the principle of one man one vote has to do with the remuneration of a member of the DLP. No longer is there solely a government and an opposition; there is a government, an opposition and the DLP. I do not know how the DLP lines up. I do not know whether it is part of the Opposition or part of the Government.

Senator McClelland:

– They call it the second non-government party.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, it is the second non-government party. It is not the Opposition. But I acknowledge the work that Senator Gair does. I think he does a lot of work throughout Australia. Senator Little said that Senator Gair has to advance the cause of his organisation throughout the

Commonwealth. That is correct. But it is the cause of his own organisation. I have yet to find out what he contributes to the welfare of the people of Australia. He has possibly a harder fight than any one to sell his policy to the people of Australia. Whilst he is working hard to this end - and he needs to work hard - there are many members of the ALP out on the propaganda trail. I am not idle during the recess.

Senator Marriott:

– They are like Jim Fraser; they do not receive much reward.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Senator Marriott is not idle. He has to attend beauty contests and baby shows in Tasmania. But he is not remunerated for that work because he is advancing the interests of the Liberal Party of Australia, lt could well be that there are backbenchers doing as much work in the advancement of their political party as their leader, but the Government does not remunerate them for this. Now it is to remunerate the leader of one particular political party because he does a lot of work. If he were to be paid for the work he had to do to get fifty-one votes for the DLP candidate in the Millicent by-election he would be worth more than the $43,000 that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) is receiving at the present moment. But the whole point is: What benefit is it to the nation? Let us not have condemnation of the Labor Party for opposing this proposal for a special remuneration for the Leader of the DLP. If we agree to grant him this increase it will mean recognition of the DLP as a bona fide political party. The Opposition does not recognise it as such. The DLP has the principal purpose of destroying the Labor Party and as I have said we will not pay the hangman to hang us.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

– I support the amendment now before the Committee. I think we have to look at things realistically. I do not go along with the Australian Labor Party’s belief that the Australian Democratic Labor Party is not a bona fide political party. The DLP represents a large proportion of the people of the Commonwealth. We should concede that it has a right in the Senate as a political party. We should recognise that it is worthy of recognition in the way proposed in the amendment now before the Committee. We recognise those members of the DLP who are members of Senate select committees and the newspapers recognise the Party as a political force in this Commonwealth. I do not think that the ALP is being just and fair in opposing recognition of the DLP. Let us take the hypothetical case where - and I hope this does not ever eventuate - the Liberal Party dominates the Opposition because it holds 33 seats in this chamber and the Labor Party, the Australian Country Party and the DLP have 9 seats each. Would the Opposition still argue that its present attitude is just?

Senator O’Byrne:

– We had 35 to 1 against us once.

Senator BULL:

– Never mind that. I support the DLP. I hope that the Labor Party will accept that it is fair, just and right for the Government to recognise that Party.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I should like the Minister to tell the Committee in what way he intends to define the second non-Government party. There is no provision in the Parliamentary Allowances Act denning such a party. I believe that it is very important that some substantial definition should be provided as to what constitutes a second nonGovernment party. I should like to know whether it is a temporary measure only and whether a group of four people would be recognised as a party, despite the fact that they would not be recognised if the same numbers were in another place. Of course it is the prerogative of the Senate to be able to mould its own affairs and its own destiny. The Government has seen fit to create this new term, the second non-Government party. Is it the intention of the Government to incorporate a definition of this party in the Act?

Could the Minister state what will be meant in future by a second nonGovernment party? If there were another splinter group in this place - perhaps a group of five under the leadership of Senator Turnbull - and that group were to get additional members, would the additional payment that is now made to the second non-Government party be given to the nonGovernment party with the greatest number? Fate plays some interesting tricks and it is quite possible that the benches now occupied by the Country Party will no longer be occupied ‘by it and that members of the Country Party will be sitting alongside the Democratic Labor Party. In that event, if the Country Party did not have as many members as the DLP, would it be recognised as the second non-Government party? I am merely asking that the term be denned in the Act so that we will know what is meant by it. Supposing the time came when there was only one member of the DLP, as happened on an earlier occasion. There was another senator who called himself the Australian Independent Party. In that event, which would be the second non-Government party? This situation is not covered and I ask the Minister to make provision for it. Now that the Government has seen fit to introduce new terminology into the Act to describe this situation, the matters of which I have spoken should be dealt with. 1 should like the Minister to clarify the position.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I want to make it clear that here we are dealing with a situation in which we have a recognised and accepted second non-government political party in the Senate. If the situation alters and it is decided to recognise another party as the second non-government political party we will have to legislate to meet that situation. But in this legislation we are dealing with the situation we now have. There is a second non-government party in this place and we are recognising it by this provision.

Senator Ormonde:

– Supposing that party changed its title?

Senator ANDERSON:

– It is not a question of title; it is just a recognition of a second non-Government political party. I suggest to honourable senators that if they have a view different from that which I have expressed the question should be put to the vote so that we may have a decision on it.

Question put:

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the Bill by adding the proposed new clause.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The Committee will recall that during my speech on the second reading I explained that the Opposition took the view that there should at least be equality between a senator’s electoral allowance and that pertaining to a city electorate. We know that there are many anomalies, that in fact some of the electorates described as country electorates are actually in the cities and that the growth of the cities has converted socalled country electorates into city electorates. But apparently there has been no corresponding adjustment in the designation of those areas. We know the arguments that have been advanced in this chamber that the electorate allowances be equal -.s between the Senate and the country electorates of the House of Representatives. I do not wish to go over any of those. The carriage of this proposal would mean that we would be making a request which, if acceded to, would at least remove what is regarded by all senators, I think, as an injustice, that is, that a senator’s electorate allowance should be this certainly small - but significant in that it exists at all - amount below that of every member of the House of Representatives. That is not merely the view of senators on the Opposition side; it is the attitude of the whole of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in accordance with a decision made on this matter.

Senator Cormack:

– Is that a caucus decision?

Senator MURPHY:

– If the honourable senator is referring to a decision of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party as a caucus decision, yes. it is a matter of justice that the electorate allowances should be equalised in this manner. At least the Opposition in both Houses has recognised that this differential is without any real justification and should not exist. I do not know that anyone could attempt to justify it. Certainly the members of the Australian Labor Party can find no justification for it and that is why it is their collective decision that this differential ought to be removed.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– We have canvassed the arguments on this proposal. The Government has indicated that it is not prepared to accept the request in its present form. I do not think that we can make any further progress in debating it. I suggest that we put it to the vote.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– As an amendment to the request which has been moved by Senator Murphy, I move:

That is the form of the amendment and it is moved because it is desired by this Senate to assert a principle. If that principle is accepted by the Committee it could mean that the allowances of members of the House of Representatives and of senators would be the same on the basis applicable to metropolitan electorates, or the same on the basis applicable to country electorates. Embodied in the amendment which I have moved is the assertion of a principle. We, in the terms of what Senator Murphy has requested, are being asked to increase the amount of the allowance payable to a senator. I think that implicit in all that he has said is that the increase is immaterial. What is relevant and important is that the status of the Senate be recognised, and if that involve an increase or a decrease in what a senator would receive as against what a member of the House of Representatives would receive, that is immaterial. It is the status which is important, and I suggest to the Committee that the amendment which I have moved gives effect to that principle rather than seeking a particular - and in this event a relatively small - amount by way of an increase of a senator’s allowance.

I feel that the point which I desire to make has been sufficiently made. It is essentially a question of whether the principle is important to the Senate or whether the amount which is asked for in expression of the principle is the more important matter. I feel it redounds more to the credit of the Senate that it should express the principle rather than a request for a particular amount. I appreciate that this form may be unusual for a request but I suggest in justification of it that when the Senate recognises a principle and desires to assert it there ought to be no impediment to its sending that request to the House of Representatives and asking the House of Representatives to recognise and give effect to it. Any Bill which appropriates the revenue is a Bill which must originate in the House of Representatives, and inasmuch as an amount has to be appropriated for the purpose of the allowances involved in the measure it is appropriate to leave it to the House of Representatives. As I said.

I think the principle is a very valid one which we all recognise and desire to have expressed. I invite the Senate’s consideration of the amendment which 1 have moved.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr Chairman, it seems to me that what Senator Greenwood is endeavouring to do - if I have apprehended his remarks correctly - bears out the principle which lies behind what I have been contending. It is a little difficult to see how his proposal could be an amendment to what 1 have put. Perhaps it could be a further request. I must say that his proposition creates some difficulties, apparently for every honourable senator, at this late stage in the debate. My Party has made a decision on this matter. I would say that Senator Greenwood obviously is endeavouring to arrive at the same result.

I do not think honourable senators who support this proposition and, indeed, those who are considering it, do so on the basis of the quantum involved. I think the honourable senator is trying to avoid the problem of quantum. I cannot see how his proposition could be an amendment. It may involve some slightly different considerations. However, I suggest to the Committee that no honourable senator is considering this matter on the basis of whether we want $2,750 or some other amount. The amount is not the critical thing. If the Bill contained a provision for the amount payable for members of the House of Representatives to be fixed at $2,500, I think the Senate would be seeking the same figure. Everybody knows that some members of Parliament spend more than their allowances; others may not spend as much. We are not arguing so much about the question of quantum as about the question of principle.

Subject to what is said about Senator Greenwood’s proposition being in order, I suggest that if the Committee carries the motion for the request put forward by the Opposition the question of principle will be resolved. The question of quantum could be looked at on some other occasion. Whether senators should receive the country electorate allowance or the city electorate allowance, at least we would have asserted that there should not be this differential between the allowance for members of the House of Representatives and that for senators.

I do not think Senator Greenwood’s proposition really is an appropriate amendment to my request. I do not know whether the request could be dealt with first and, if the question is decided in the negative, the other proposition could be dealt with; or whether the Chair considers Senator Greenwood’s proposition is in order to be classed as an amendment. I would like the ruling of the Chair as to whether the honourable senator’s proposition is an appropriate amendment to my request.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– Mr Chairman, if you rule that Senator Greenwood’s proposition is not an appropriate amendment to Senator MurpHy’s request, it seems to me that we should dispose of Senator Murphy’s request on the understanding that Senator Greenwood has the right to put his proposition and let it stand in its own right. I give no assurance that the Government will accept any future amendment. However, what I have suggested might be the way to deal with the matter from the aspect of sheer mechanics. .

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Mr Chairman, I am prepared to accept the suggestion,, which I think was put by Senator Murphy, that I withdraw my proposition for the time being, on the assumption that if the request moved by Senator Murphy is not accepted by the Committee I might then present it again and submit it to the will of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair will now accept Senator Murphy’s request. After dealing with that request, if Senator Greenwood wishes to put his proposition the Committee will then consider it. The Chair seeks permission from the Committee to deal with Senator Murphy’s request, which is in two parts, as one question. I want the approval of the Committee to put’ the question relating to Senator Murphy’s request in this way: That the request be agreed to. There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Question put:

That the request (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Mr Chairman, shortly I will move in the form of a request the proposal which I had previously suggested as an amendment to the request by Senator Murphy. I do not desire to elaborate the reasons why I propose it. I think that I stated them sufficiently clearly before to express my purpose and my intention. I would ask the Senate to recognise that there is involved in this matter the position and the status of the Senate in relation to the House of Representatives. Accordingly, I move:

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I will be very brief because we have canvassed this matter very well. I must say that the Government is not prepared to accept the request moved by Senator Greenwood for the reasons that have been transparent throughout the debate. This amount has been fixed right through. Again I suggest that it would be appropriate to get this matter decided by the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In the short time that I have had to study this request, I am not satisfied that it is in proper drafting form to be sent to the House of Representatives. There are two requests here. I believe, Senator Greenwood, that you should make up your mind which one you want. Therefore, at this stage, I have no alternative but to rule it out of order. Are there any further requests?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Mr Chairman, as one who could not grasp the request moved by Senator Greenwood, will you read it out so that we may, if we so decide, contest your ruling?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will ask the Clerk of the Senate to read the request. (The Clerk having read the request) -

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr Chairman, this request has been ruled out of order. That produces a certain consequence. My request was dealt with on the basis that if it were defeated the request proposed by Senator Greenwood would then be dealt with. The Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) agreed with that proposal, and I think that all honourable senators proceeded to vote on that basis. My request was dealt with in the light of the fact that there was a second request which was of the same nature. In these circumstances, I ask that as a matter of logic, commonsense and everything else the last request be re-committed.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I accept that proposition. I said to the Committee: Look, you can dispose of Senator Murphy’s request on the assumption that you can come to the request proposed by Senator Greenwood’. In good faith, I said that. What Senator Murphy says is right. 1 have to stick to it. Therefore, if it is the will of the Committee that there should be a recom.mital of the request I will not argue.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Mr Chairman, may I ask by way of interjection whether, if Senator Greenwood deleted the words ‘or other’ from his request it would be in order? the CHAIRMAN- Order! I intend to ask the Committee whether it will recommit the last request. If any honourable senator wishes to rise to his or her feet in the meantime, I will give that senator the call.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Mr Chairman, I am prepared, if this meets with the concurrence of yourself and of the Committee, to withdraw the words ‘or other’ so that the request will read in part: ‘. . . one of the allowances payable to a member of the House of Representatives’. I do not know whether that would meet the objection that you sense is involved in the request that I have moved. If the basis of the objection would be eliminated by the removal of those words and the motion would then be in order, I would remove those words. My sole concern at this stage is to have the Committee record what it regards is the appropriate principle. In the light of the fact that two allowances are payable to members of the House of Representatives, it is not for this Committee to assert that it wants or believes that one or other of those allowances should be payable. All the Committee is concerned to do is to assert its own privileges, as I see them. It is for that purpose and for that purpose alone that my request is couched in the language in which it is couched. I am prepared to withdraw the words ‘or other’ so that it will simply read ‘one of the allowances’.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! As Chairman, I cannot accept the drafting of the request even if the honourable senator withdraws the words that he has mentioned.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr Chairman, 1 ask that the last request be recommitted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave given by the Committee for the vote .on the request moved by Senator Murphy to be taken again?

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

- Mr Chairman, I wish to speak on this matter. I wish to foreshadow a request similar to but not identical with the request which has been moved by Senator Greenwood. My request will obviate the necessity for recommitting the previous request. I will read it. My proposed request reads:

That the allowances payable to a senator -

This is pursuant to clause 4 (2.) of the Bill:

  1. . be brought into parity with the allowances to members of the Mouse of Representatives upon whatever scale shall be determined by the House of Representatives.
Senator Anderson:

– That still gives a choice.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will not accept that motion. I asked whether the Committee granted leave for the recommittal of the request moved by Senator Murphy, ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. The question now is: That the request as moved by Senator Murphy be agreed to.’

Senator Byrne:

– What is Senator Murphy’s request?

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Murphy’s request is: ‘Leave out the words “two thousand six hundred and fifty”; insert the words “two thousand seven hundred and fifty”.’

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

- Mr Chairman, I wish to speak to this matter. I take it that the amount of $2,750 is the amount which is specified for certain electorates in the House of Representatives.

Senator Murphy:

– For city electorates.

Senator BYRNE:

– In those circumstances, I think that the proposal that Senator Murphy advocates to put the Senate in its proper relative position. is tantamount to an abrogation of the position of the Senate itself. The level has been fixed in relation to. the House of Representatives. We come along pleading that we shall fail into parity with the House of Representatives. 1 would agree with this proposal if we were to say that we should determine the figure ourselves and were to let, the House of Representatives determine its figure. But I think the very acceptance of this proposal will be a total abrogation of the independence and the position of this chamber as the superior House. For that reason, I am not prepared to support the request.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr Chairman. I cannot follow that argument at all. As the amendment reads, it seeks to leave out ‘two thousand six hundred and fifty’ and to insert ‘two thousand seven hundred and fifty’.

Senator Byrne:

– Which is the figure determined for a city electorate represented by a member of the House of Representatives.

Senator MURPHY:

– It is the figure determined by the Parliament. The process we arc going through now is the determination of a figure bythe Parliament. Certain senators opposite have endeavoured to assist by saying: ‘We do not care which one. It is one or the other. It should be apparent to them that that method cannot be followed, notwithstanding their attempts which we welcomed. They were trying to make clear whatI think must already be clear - that it is not a question of fighting over a quantum. A question of principle is at stake. I ask that those honourable senators opposite accept the proposition that it has to be one or the other. The matter of quantum can be looked at at some other stage. I ask them now to support the request which has been made.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We have already debated this question and the Committee has givenme leave to re-commit it. I will now re-commit it.

Question put:

That the request (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 24

Majority . . . .

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Some other requests have been set out on the document which has been circulated.

Senator Anderson:

– Is the Leaderof the Opposition agreeable to taking one vote on the remaining requests?

Senator MURPHY:

– I seek leave to take together the requests set out as Nos. (2) to (7) on the sheet that has been circulated.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that Senator Murphy be allowed to take the remaining requests together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– I move:

At the second reading stage of the debate I gave fairly broad details of the requests. If the requests were acceded to, it would mean that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives would each be treated in respect of salaries and allowances in the same manner as junior Ministers and in the same way as has now been brought about for the President and Mr Speaker. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would be brought onto the basis proposed, that is an additional salary of $5,000 and a special allowance of $1,500. Again these proposals have been agreed to by the Australian Labor Party. Even after the Bills had been introduced in the Parliament and, indeed, after they had passed through the House of Representatives and were on their way to the Senate, or were waiting to be dealt with in the Senate, a change was made. We note that an alteration was proposed to the salaries and special allowances of other office bearers, in that a request was foreshadowed for alterations so as to bring into the category of ‘other office bearers’ in respect of salary and special allowance the Leader of the second non-government Party. So there is a break not only in regard to the President and Mr Speaker. Their relativity has been altered. Also, this new provision in regard to the second non-government party has been made.

I have indicated that my Party considers that these proposals are just and that they should apply whoever occupies these offices and whichever party happens to be in Opposition at the time. To do less than this is not consistent with the proper responsibilities attaching to these offices. Certainly this would remove the degrading and insulting situation in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber has been placed. As I said before, I do not know anyone in this Parliament who would attempt to justify the treatment that has been meted out over the years to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. Indeed, many people on both sides of both Houses of the Parliament have expressed the view that the situation is insulting and a disgrace. My Party believes that at least we should state what we consider to be the proper provision that should be made in regard to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. I ask honourable senators to accede to these proposals and to let these requests be made.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I rise in my place although I know that honourable senators are becoming tired because the hour is getting on; but when the Minister replies to the Leader of the

Opposition (Senator Murphy) discussion of this aspect of the legislation before the Committee will probably be at an end. Tonight I listened with great interest to the arguments that were used at the second reading stage. I have also listened with great interest to, but not participated in, the debate that has taken place so far at the Committee stage. I enter the debate now in order to say that I am on record, in a debate that took place on a Bill for an Act to abolish the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives, as making the statement that the Senate is not coequal with the House of Representatives because the latter is the House of government. I assert that for the second time here in my place in this chamber. The rote of the Senate is not the role of the House of government. Yet several times since this debate commenced we have heard that the Senate has coequality with the House of Representatives. It is true that it has coequality, but not in terms of the Senate being the House of government. The Senate is the House of review and the protector of the Constitution. It is not the House of government and was never designed to be so. I have been challenged privately on this matter.

The assertion has been made that the Senate is coequal wilh the House of Representatives, and that therefore, in terms of the responsibilities of the Opposition in this chamber, it should be on parity with the House of Representatives. That is an assertion that I do not accept.

Senator Murphy:

– It is not even made in regard to this proposal. .

Senator CORMACK:

– I note the intervention by Senator Murphy. Earlier in the debate in Committee I heard him make several assertions about the role of the Senate. 1 have heard Senator O’Byrne say that the Senate has a role and that he is a defender of the Senate, and I have heard Senator Murphy say that the point of view that he has been espousing in this chamber tonight are the result of decisions taken not by the Opposition in this chamber but outside it in what I have described elsewhere as the political or parliamentary abattoir. In other words, what is decided by the Australian Labor Party in another place is what is espoused in this place. So this is not an area of freedom in which honourable senators opposite may move amendments freely, except in certain circumstances. 1 make this assertion to honourable senators: The proposals that have been discussed in Committee so far have been expressions of opinion by the Australian Labor Party sitting outside this chamber. In other words, 1 assert- that the request made by Senator Murphy to the effect that the electorate allowance for a senator should be equal to that pertaining to a city electorate was the result of a decision that was not taken in this chamber. Senator Murphy assented to that assertion when I interjected to say that the request was the result of a decision taken by the Australian Labor Party, not a decision taken in this chamber.

Senator Murphy:

– -BY the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.

Senator CORMACK:

– Well, by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party or, to use the normal political term, the caucus. Therefore I am interested to discover whether the decision to seek parity between the Leaders of the Opposition and Deputy Leaders of the Opposition in both chambers was also taken in the caucus. I make the assertion that it is not a decision taken in the caucus. ) make the assertion that this is not a caucus decision. It is a decision that has evolved in this chamber. For reasons that I have expressed already about the duties of the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber and the Senate not being the House of government, the parity or consonance, to use the word that Senator Murphy used, is of such an order and nature that in no circumstances should honourable senators agree to this request for parity between the Leaders of the Opposition and the Deputy Leaders of the Opposition in the two chambers.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I indicate that the Government is not prepared to accept the requests proposed by Senator Murphy. I ask the Committee to forebear from embarking upon a constitutional debate at this time. Obviously Senator Murphy will seek the call when I sit down, but I suggest that we should limit the debate to the requests that have been proposed.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to correct a serious misunderstanding expressed by Senator Cormack. He has asserted that if this request were acceded to it would mean that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber would be on parity with the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is treated as a senior Minister. One should look not so much at the situation as between the Houses as at the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is treated as the equal of a senior Minister. Senator Cormack may find some reason for supporting that situation because he has supported the proposal to keep that equality as far as the House of Representatives is concerned. That situation should continue. We are not suggesting that there should be any departure from it.

So one must look at the functions of the Leaders of the Opposition, whoever they may be. In one House provision is made for the man who has no ministerial functions but who has the functions of the Leader of the Opposition in the legislature to be treated as a senior Minister. No doubt he will be surprised to learn that the proposal which we are putting .forward here is not that but the far more modest one that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should be treated on the same basis as a junior Minister. It is certainly far from parity. The suggestion is that there be an adjustment of the present position which would also have the effect of dealing with the extremely poor provision which is made for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

It is true that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party has considered this matter. Is one to understand from what Senator Cormack has said that these matters were not considered by the Government Parties?

Senator Cormack:

– I did not say that.

Senator MURPHY:

– I do not know why these constant references should be made to the fact that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party considers the matters which come before this Parliament. Of course it does. At times, when a motion such as that proposed by Senator Greenwood is put forward, decisions have to be made on the spot without our having the opportunity to consult our colleagues. Federal Parliamentary Labor Party considers matters whenever it has the opportunity to do so. Why make some great point of this? I would be amazed if we did not come together to consider matters. I would also be amazed, if the Government Parties did not come .together and consider matters.

Senator Gair:

– They do come together.

Senator MURPHY:

– My understanding is that the Liberal Party meets and the Country Party meets and they come together. I am not criticising them for it. It is only commonsense that they should do that. This criticism of the Labor Party for meeting is an extraordinary thing. I would assume that the Democratic Labor Party comes together in a meeting. Whether you like to call it a caucus or a Party meeting, it is the same thing.

The Senate ought to treat this matter as a matter of justice, not as a matter of parity, because it does not achieve parity. It is some step away from what might be described as a ‘gross injustice’ in the case of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and it represents what the Opposition considers to be its statement of what ought to be achieved at the present time now that the position has been reopened by the Government in making provision for the leader of a second non-government party.

Question put:

That the requests (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– By leave - 1 move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment to the amendments contained in the Schedule -

Section 4, leave out: ‘Two thousand six hundred and fifty’, insert: ‘Two thousand eight hundred’.

The reason for this request is to endeavour to overcome some of the problems which have been voiced from all sides. It will not achieve parity with anybody but it will show that there is a clear intention that the amount in question shall not be less than the minimum amount for a city electorate. It shows also that the amendment is not requested with a view to achieving any great amount of increased allowance because the amount involved is only ,$50. more than the minimum allowance payable in the House of Representatives. I do not think I need to say any more by way of introduction. All the other things that could be said in canvassing this particular type, of amendment have already been said. .,

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– On behalf of the Government, I am not prepared to accept the request.

Question put:

That the request (SenatorRae’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Schedule agreed to, subject to requests.

Bill reported with requests; report adopted.

Friday, 22 November 1968.

page 2296

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2253).

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– In the course of dealing with the Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1968 it was necessary to look at this Bill in context.I do not think that there is anything further I wish to add to what I have already said. The Senate is well aware that this legislation affects only Ministers of State. I should imagine that the same considerations that were raised when the Senate was dealing with allowances for members and senators would also apply to Ministers. It is not for me to justfy these increases, but I certainly do not suggest that they should not be supported. I think that if the salaries of others are examined there is very little doubt that those occupying the position of Minister of State are not overpaid. I suppose we do have a curious attitude to those who exercise very great governmental responsibility in this country. I think in other countries there is not quite the same attitude of endeavouring to demean those who are at the head of government. In Australia there still seems to be some trace of this. I suppose it stems partly from our sturdy anti-authoritarian history. That may be why it persists but, in any event, there it is. Nothwithstanding what honourable senators have done not so long ago. the Opposition supports the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2296

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1968

Debate resumed (vide page 2254).

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– This Bill deals with the retiring allowances of members of Parliament, both senators and members of the House of Representatives, and it deals also with the retiring allowances of Ministers, Leaders of the Opposition, the President and the Speaker. The provisions in regard to senators and members are substantially unchanged, as I understand the situation. I have to use those words because I cannot claim to speak with great authority on the matter, not having been given the opportunity to read the legislation. I confess that I have barely been able to glance at it and certainly not to study it.

Senator Wood:

-And yet we will pass it.

Senator MURPHY:

– However, as Senator Wood properly observes, in this farce which we are witnessing, this process of indecent haste to which we are being subjected, one has to deal with it as best one can. It is a long time since adjustments have been made. We know that for some time there have been grave anomalies in this legislation. Anomalies which have been apparent for some time are those dealing with the members. We know that after a member goes out his pension remains at half the rate that he was receiving before he went out, .and although at the time he goes out this rate could be apparently an attractive sum, after a while with the inflationary processes it could lose its attractiveness and become something which seemed amazingly low. That is a feature that perhaps should be looked at. It is a wonder that it has not been looked at. So, substantially there is no real alteration in the position of ordinary members of Parliament. As their salaries go up, so will their contribution increase. That is provided for automatically. Present pension rates would bc adjusted accordingly.

As to the other provisions relating to Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition, there are some glaring anomalies which have been apparent for some time. One is the provision affecting the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Leader of the Opposition in this place. I do not know whether all honourable senators are aware of these anomalies. The fact is that those two persons have to serve 16 years to attain a minimum pension and must be 32 years in office io obtain the maximum pension. In the case of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Cohen), who is still a relatively young man, he would have to serve 32 years, not only as a senator but also holding that office, before he would become eligible for the pension.

Senator Bull:

– Does the honourable senator think that he will be in Opposition for as long as that?

Senator MURPHY:

– No, I do not, and that shows the stupidity of this scheme. Perhaps the honourable senator who has intervened shoul’d consider that this legislation, as I understand it. provides for service for 64 years in the office of Deputy Leader of the Opposition before becoming eligible for the maximum pension. That may seem to be very amusing, but this is a compulsory scheme to which people are expected to contribute. This kind of humour is put into the legislation by those who draft it and apparently they know that a period of service of that order would be required to qualify for the pension. I doubt whether they would draft provisions like that for themselves. Notwithstanding that these anomalies have been apparent for some considerable time, we still see in the second reading speech that it is said that the Government is going to look at it at some time in the future. Of course it would be much better for those concerned with it simply to be allowed to get out of the scheme altogether. lt is on a par with some of the other things in that it is insulting that there should be such a provision and that people should be compelled to enter into a scheme with provisions such as that. The Government may think that this is funny. I suppose it has a peculiar kind of humour to subject people to a compulsory scheme of this nature, but there it is.

Then we have the introduction of a provision for the President and the Speaker to be covered by the scheme. I do not see any objection to that, but there was an anomaly that seems to have been corrected while other matters are left uncorrected. I suppose there are all sorts of things in the community that ought to have been looked at before this and perhaps there are many more people in the community who deserve justice and a proper and close consideration of their claims than those affected by this Bill. Nevertheless we deal with matters as they come up. But it is curious to get this combination of a determination to make some adjustments when it affects those who have the power to make the adjustments and a postponement of the other anomalies in the scheme. For some of those who are affected it would be a scheme that ought not to have been introduced, and I suppose provision for them was introduced to give it some cover of respectability. It is only when one examines these things that one finds the anomalies which exist in it. That is how we see it. However, the decision is not to oppose this matter and we will not do so.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD (Victoria) [12.21 a.m.] - I rise not to oppose the matter but to bring to the notice of the Senate an anomaly that exists in respect of women members of this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has just made the point that all members are compelled to belong to the scheme but there is quite a difference in the benefits which members take out of the scheme. I do not know whether it is known by all senators, but married women have no pension rights as far as their husbands are concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) recognised this in 1955, when in this place he said: ‘Why is the Bill confined to pensions to widows, and why does it specifically forbid the payment of pensions to widowers?’ This is the anomaly that I wish to speak about because it seems iniquitous to me that we married women in the Senate -there are now two; there were three - are not allowed to obtain for our husbands the same type of protection as the married man gets for his wife. I would like to cite two examples. Two senators from my own State of Victoria, one a man and the other a woman, entered this Parliament on the same day. They paid the same contributions to the scheme. Immediately the man was able to feel that his wife would be secure because right from the day on which he entered this Parliament she would be entitled to a pension if he died. As honourable senators know, one male member did not take his place in the Parliament at all. The woman was Senator Marie Breen who, as all honourable senators know, suffered the tragedy of having her husband incapacitated through a motor accident. He subsequently died. The situation was that at any time from his accident to his death - there was an intervening period of 12 months - Marie Breen had no entitlement other than the money she had contributed herself and the Government’s subvention for the period. All honourable senators know very well that had she pre-deceased her husband the money would have gone into her estate in a lump sum. and would be subject to estate duty. It would also be subject to some amount of tax in that year. Therefore she had no protection for her husband. This applies to every married woman.

Senator Byrne:

– You have to pay the same rate of contribution.

Senator DAME IVY WEDGWOODWe pay exactly the same rate of contribution but all that we draw out of the pension fund are our own savings plus the Government subvention. As I say a man and a woman can enter this Parliament together and pay the same superannuation contribution. At any period after the man becomes a member his widow is entitled to a pension for life. On the death of the woman member her estate will receive only what she has paid in plus the Government’s subvention. I put this matter to the Government when I was the only married woman in the Parlia ment. I have made representations to the Treasurers, to the Prime Ministers and to the Party. Then we were three in number; now we are back again to two. But it is not only for ourselves that we are fighting. We talk about principles; surely there is a principle involved in this, and we should have the benefit of that principle. There are many other anomalies, and I think that honourable senators should realise this. Men who marry women younger than themselves - I think Senator Sim would be a case in point - find themselves in the situation that their wives have no entitlement to superannuation. I just feel that the time has come - it seems to be easy, as Senator Murphy has said, to remove anomalies as they apply to other people - to go right through the whole of the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme and right the wrongs that are being done to some of the members.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– I would like to say a few words on this Bill and express by disappointment that the anomalies in it are not to be cleaned up until the autumn session, because these anomalies have been in the Act since at least 8th June 1955. I pulled out Hansard for the month of June 1955 and I read it with a great deal of interest because the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), who was then Senator Gorton, expressed surprise at the anomalies in section 19 of the Act. I am fortified also because in the same debate Senator Byrne spoke. It would appear from Hansard that he was then a bachelor and was suffering under some disability.

Senator Little:

– He is still a bachelor.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am sorry. I offer the honourable senator my congratulations. I understand the concern expressed by Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood regarding a female member of the Parliament and I particularly take exception to sub-section 5 of section 19, which provides:

Where a woman who is otherwise entitled to a pension under this section as the widow of a person -

was younger than that person by more than 10 years; and

married him within 5 years before his death or within 5 years before he became entitled to a pension (as the case may be)

The trust has some discretion.

Senator Willesee:

– Total discretion.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, it is absolute discretion. 1 do not think the widow of a member of this Parliament should be called before a group of trustees to justify her reason for marrying her late husband. I think one can express this as damn cheek. No widow should have to go through that procedure. This anomaly does not affect me. I have been married for more than 5 years and I do not have a 10-year age differential. I think it is highly improper and impertinent that such a provision should be in the Act.

When the 1955 Bill reached the committee stage, Senator Wright moved an amendment in order to try to get over the peculiarity concerning a senator appointed to a casual vacancy at the expiration of his term of office. As I read the debates at that time, it seems that if a senator is appointed to a casual vacancy the time for which he contributes to the retiring allowances fund does not count until he is elected. In theory such a person could serve almost 3 years and no part of that service would be counted towards his 8 years of service. This is an anomaly which Senator Wright attempted to correct on 9th June 1955. He lost by 16 votes to 24. I hope Senator Wright also still has interest in this matter.

I am very interested in what Senator Gorton, as he then was, said at 3.34 p.m. on 9th June 1955. I imagine he was a backbencher at that time. He dealt at some length with this matter. The late Senator Spooner replied at length and gave some sort of explanation. Senator Gorton interjected at one stage and said:

I do not get it.

Apparently he did not understand the argument. The best that the late Senator Spooner could say was:

The senator is not a female member of Parliament.

I thought that was a brilliant piece of repartee. That is the sort of argument that the Government of the day used in respect of these anomalies. Senator Wood gave some very good advice at one stage in that debate. Senator Spooner interjected while he was speaking and said: lt poses the question, why should bachelors be in Parliament?

I suppose that is a fair question. Senator Wood replied:

Probably they are better members of Parliament through being bachelors.

Many of us ex-bachelors would agree with this statement. Seriously, I must express my disappointment that the Government can find time to consider certain sectors of the Parliament and present to us an amending Bill to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act dealing with them. It seems that the Government looks after the big boys while the poor old backbencher has to suffer his anomalies. I think it wrong in principle that such a course of action is taken. I am heartened because I understand an undertaking has been given by the Government that another amending Bill will be introduced during the autumn session to deal with these anomalies.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– The Government only said that this was expected.

Senator WITHERS:

– I understand that there is an undertaking by the Government. I have been given an undertaking by a member of the Government that a Bill will be introduced. In fairness I must say that the person who gave it expressed the opinion that the Bill might not deal satisfactorily with the anomalies so far as I am concerned but at least we would have a Bill before us which we could debate. I only hope at this stage that the Senate will jack up on a few of the anomalies in respect of female members or in respect of bachelors with dependent mothers, fathers or other close relatives. I hope it will also look closely at the position of senators who fill casual vacancies. With those words I shall retire from the debate for the moment.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I do not want to take very much time but I wish to comment on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Bill and to draw the attention of the Senate to the contribution rate of Wi% of the basic salary. This is very interesting. I had never realised until reading this Bill that this was the order of contribution made by a Minister towards his retiring allowance. It reminded me that I had better look into my own scheme when in due course it becomes viable and see what sort of contribution I am making. I imagine it is of the same order. Does any honourable senator know? Is it 1H%?

Senator Willesee:

– Yes.

Senator COTTON:

– Before coming to this place I was involved in quite a number of industries and in every case it was axiomatic that we did our best for our employees. We tried very hard to make the job worthwhile. We had superannuation schemes and thought they were very good. I think our best scheme was one in which the overall contribution to the fund for retirement was 124-%. The company paid 74% and the employee paid 5%. We had another scheme which worked on a basis of 10%, the company paying 5% and the employee paying 5%. I knew of another scheme in a large firm operating throughout Australia under which the overall instalment was 15% of the salary. The contribution by the employee was 5% and the company paid 10%.

It is fascinating to me to see this scheme so roundly condemned by the unknowing person in the community who says: ‘Look at these fellows in the Parliament. They are overpaid. They get too much money. Look at the retiring allowance scheme. It is a disgrace what they get out of it compared with what they put into it.’ I am astonished to see that the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund is one to which the employees - and in this sense we are the employees - contribute 1 1 1 % of their basic salary in order to get a retiring allowance. What fascinates me is that in the years prior to coming here I heard people refer particularly to the wonderful retiring allowance that parliamentarians received and what a burden it was to the taxpayer. They said it was a disgrace and asked why it should be tolerated. It fascinates me now to see that this system is totally supported by the employees themselves. They dip into their weekly pay packets to find 114%, which is about twice as much as you would find any other employee in any place I know contributing to a superannuation fund to cover his retirement. Why have we taken all this time to make it clear that this fund is largely self-supporting? It does not impose anything on anybody else. We have been doing this all this time and have been putting up with the odium which is not properly ours.

I think one can reach a stage in a parliamentary career when one puts up with too much. I speak now as a person who has had a very active political life ranging over 20 years or more, although it has not all been in the Parliament. It began with my first contest against the late Ben Chifley in the Macquarie electorate in 1949 and has continued to the present here in the Senate. I have been active in various ways in the political party of my choice for all those years. Very rarely have I ever heard in any field a member of parliament referred to as being underpaid. All members of parliament have been looked upon as being overpaid. It was singular that people talked about the retiring allowance, how fortunate parliamentarians were, how well off and how lucky they were.

I have come to the conclusion that the time is long overdue when members of Parliament should stop putting up with this kind of thing in the broad community. 1 do not think that I am overpaid. Having regard to what I have heard here tonight, although I have not looked into the’ matter thoroughly, I say that, if I pay 111% of my salary to the retiring allowances fund, 1 do not apologise to anybody. Nor da I think that any member of the Australian Parliament should apologise to anybody for the remuneration that he has received in the past or that we propose to try to get in the way of increases in the future. I do not think that we have to apologise for our retiring allowances.

As I said earlier, without in any way wishing to give myself any praise, I have been involved in industry on a fairly wide scope. I have worked with people at very many levels who have had great ability. I worked with senior . officers of the Commonwealth Public Service in the early years of the War and I have been a fairly wide bracket of ability in the community, including people for whom [ have worked and in some cases with whom I have worked. I have been an employer of labour on quite a large scale. I do not feel in the least able, having been through that sort of endeavour and having worked in this Parliament for 3 years, to join in the denigration of members .of Parliament in which some people in the community are pleased to engage. Those remarks apply even to some members of this Parliament. I am proud to be in the Parliament. I do not think that we are overpaid. I regard the level of ability here as much higher than I thought it would be and much higher than, is appreciated in the community at large. I believe that the time is long overdue when members of Parliament should, and are entitled to, speak up for themselves. We should stop apologising to anybody anywhere. I think that part of the trouble has been this tendency to take insults and to turn the other cheek. Maybe that day ought to be drawing to a close. As far as I am concerned, it is going to.

Senator Gair:

– We invite a lot of it ourselves.

Senator COTTON:

– I think that Senator Gair is quite right. In fact, he and I have talked about this matter before. 1 do not think that we really ought to be inviting this criticism; nor should we put up with it. I make another observation in passing. I have been delighted to be a member here. It has really been a pleasure for me to have been in the Senate and to have seen the singular ability that is demonstrated on both sides of the chamber on the many, many occasions in which we have been involved in debate. It was said to me when I first came here: ‘Never speak about something you know nothing about because you will find in the Senate that there is a man who knows a great deal about that subject’. All the time that I have been here I have found this proven to be true. There are people in this chamber- who, when they are all put together, know fairly accurately, responsibly and intelligently about practtically every sector of Australian activity.

I felt that I wanted to speak on this occasion. I have felt for a long time that we ought not to allow ourselves to be rubbished. We ought not to allow the idea to continue to prevail that in receiving our parliamentary salaries we are being overpaid. I do not think that we are at all, not by the standards of those people who measure things by ability. I do not think that the retiring allowances that we receive should in any way stand condemned by anybody outside this Parliament, particularly when we consider that we are finding about twice as much per week to cover our retirement as the normal employee contributes to an ordinary superannuation fund. I mention this matter because the people who receive these allowances know in their own minds the hazards and difficulties of parliamentary life. Now that we are on the point of saying something in our praise for a change, let me say this: This is a hard job for those who try to do it well. It is extremely hard on their wives and families. There are many People here who make great sacrifices. Their wives make sacrifices. So do their children.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– And their husbands.

Senator COTTON:

– I quite agree. I thank the honourable senator for her help This is something that is not appreciated. We do this work because we choose to do it. We are volunteers. We can always leave if we like. No-one makes us come here. Noone makes us stay here.

Senator Gair:

– There is no compulsory section in the Electoral Act.

Senator COTTON:

– We do in the main perform a very useful job. We try to do it well. Anybody who sits in this Senate in the ordinary working week can work it out. From Monday morning until Friday night, most of the senators that I know put in something like a 65-hour working week before they start their week-ends. Most senators engage in special activities. They are either leaders, deputy leaders or are involved as members of Senate select committees. The Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources, of which I happen to be the chairman, had an analysis of its work made in mid-September. My Committee began its work about the third week in March. From that time until midSeptember that Committee had sat on as many days as the Senate itself had met. This means that we had been working on Mondays and Fridays, in recess weeks and in vacation weeks. This is what we find over the broad scene in the Parliament in my experience. 1 speak only for the Senate for this is where I have worked. I do not think that we ought therefore to allow ourselves to be apologising for what might be a better scheme of retiring allowances than is found elsewhere. Look at the contributions that come from the employees. It is their fund. They are entitled to add to it if they want to. We note in the Ministers’ scale that the level of benefit will rise by 71%, but the contributions are to go up by 94%.

The only other comment that I. wish to make - I have for a long time wanted to have the chance to say something fairly blunt about all this business - is that if there are anomalies and injustices in this scheme - I am sure that there are because there are some in all schemes - and if these require amendment, I hope as does Senator Withers that these matters will receive an objective, thoughtful consideration because increasingly the superannuation scheme or the retiring fund, whatever we like to call it, is a scheme that belongs to the people who finance it. We ought to be looking at it objectively to see whether it is doing for us what it is intended to do. lt is well to bear in mind, as Senator Withers said, that the character of the demand changes and the need for the Fund to be under continual scrutiny is always with us. The age composition can alter. The burden can change. The rate of dependency can change. I believe that any fund that provides retiring allowances for Ministers or for members of Parliament ought to be under continual scrutiny and continual observation.

I am grateful to Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood for reminding me of something that we often forget. 1 refer to the women in Parliament that make sacrifices. They lose their family life as well as the company of their husbands. What is true of us and our wives and families is equally true of these women. We all have to do without that part of our family life. I conclude with a plea to everybody. 1 think the time has come for vis to stop-

Senator Byrne:

– Hear, hear!

Senator COTTON:

– The time has come for us to stop making apologies and to stop taking blame. We should stand up, should be seen, and should say: ‘We are proud to be in the Parliament. We think that the salary that we are getting is justified? If you do not like the retiring fund that we have we will not be upset, because we are paying for it all ourselves.’

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I only rise because of the interjection that I have just made which might indicate that I did not appreciate the contribution by Senator Cotton at this late hour. It was a contribution worth hearing and I do appreciate the fact that he has made it. I do want to put one thing to the Senate. When we try to assess the workload that falls at this point on our parliamentarians and particularly upon the ministerial group of parliamentarians, we must realise that this involves an understanding of the difference between our parliamentary system and the executive system of government in the United States of America. Senator Wood earlier, in his speech or by way of interjection, referred to wealthy men in the United States of America who gave up their great incomes to go into the American parliament.

Senator Laught:

– They do not go into the American parliament. They go into the American Government only.

Senator BYRNE:

– That is right. I am saying that they go into either the Congress or the Executive Government. Let us consider the relative workloads on a member of the Executive Government or the Cabinet in the United States as against the workload of a member of Cabinet here. First of all, the member of the United States Cabinet is not a parliamentarian. He does not sit in the House there. Therefore, he has no electorate. He is not required to present his own legislation. He is not required to present the estimates of his department. He is not required to defend his administration on the floor of the House. He is not required to be in the House to answer questions as is the case in the British parliamentary system.

Senator Wood:

– The point is that he is making a sacrifice.

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. I have mentioned this because the honourable senator raised the question of the United States system of government. A member of the United State’s Cabinet is not required to be present at the adjournment of the Congress to answer any questions that may be addressed to him concerning his Department.

Senator Laught:

– He might have to appear before a Senate select committee, which can be a rather terrifying experience.

Senator BYRNE:

– I suppose that is right. But a Minister in an Australian Government has all those responsibilities and in addition has executive responsibilities to Parliament. In the United States a ministerial head of a department - an executive head - is burdened by the necessity to attend international conferences and to fulfil1 all the functions required of an American Secretary of State. In considering superannuation schemes for Ministers or backbenchers such factors should be taken into consideration.

Under the British parliamentary system the work load on a member of Parliament is immense. I think a method will have to be devised by which the load can in some way be relieved. After all. the function of a Minister is not merely to be an executive. He must also have time to think and plan. That time is now denied to members of the Government because of the work load. It means that a great deal of the imaginative work of government is being left to the permanent Public Service. The primary task of a Minister should be to participate in the planning of policy. I repeat that I appreciated Senator Cotton’s speech in this debate.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– lt is traditional with me not to talk before breakfast and I do not talk with pleasure after midnight. However, 1 have some comments to make on this Bill. Senator Withers quoted from a Hansard report of 1955. 1 was then a comparative newcomer to the Senate, young in years, with family responsibilities and starting off in a post-war period. 1 was a critic of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund as it then stood. I was greatly annoyed by the number of references I saw in Tasmanian and other newspapers to the Fund. So I wrote an article which appeared in one of the Tasmanian daily newspapers. The newspaper supplied the headline, which read ‘Parliamentarians certainly earn their pensions’. 1 believe it is fair to say that the publication of that article, pointing out the truth about parliamentary retiring allowances for backbenchers, did much to satisfy the people that the scheme was not over-generous.

In the legislation before the Senate tonight something stands out as clearly as 1 hope the new and permanent Parliament House will one day stand out on the top of Capital Hill; that is that the people, whether members of the Cabinet or the Public Service or any committee of trustees, whose duty it is to see that the parliamentary retiring allowances system is fair and equitable are not now and have not been doing their work. It is apparent to me that when the late Prime Minister recommended a favourable review of salaries every 3 years, the people who deal with the parliamentary retiring allowances fund said: ‘Righto. We can forget all about the criticisms that have been made in past years and do nothing about them for another 3 years.’

My memory goes back over the past few months in which time various tips appeared in newspapers about increased parliamentary salaries and allowances. A comparison of the very early tips with what has been put into effect tonight shows that the tipsters were far more accurate than the person who gave me a tip for the last Melbourne Cup. Therefore 1 believe that it was known in high places some months ago what the increases in salaries would be and when they would become effective. Even if that is only nearly correct, it was known that there would be a change in parliamentary retiring allowances. I believe it was the duty of the people responsible for bringing this legislation before Parliament in this session to see that a full study was made of previous criticism, and if anomalies were discovered, that attention was given to solving them. But the speech that introduced this Bill states after a lot of verbiage that a number of questions relating to the ministerial and parliamentary schemes are currently under consideration and it is expected that they will be dealt with in legislation to be brought down in the autumn session next year. In other words, it is a public admission that the job has not been done.

One of the facts of political life is that any increase in parliamentary salaries or allowances, or any favourable alterations to a parliamentary retiring allowances fund will attract a period of adverse criticism. If the powers that be, or the people associated with them, or members of Parliament with a little inside knowledge, leak to the news media that things are brewing, adverse publicity starts as it did 4 or 5 months ago. lt will come to its zenith probably in the middle or towards the end of next week. But we can take it, if honourable senators believe as I do, the things that have been said by Senator Cotton and Senator Byrne about the work load and duties of members of Parliament.

I will willingly accept any criticism because my conscience is clear. I am ready lo accept the increased salary. Because proper attention has not been given to the administration of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund, the criticisms levelled over the years not only in the Parliament, but also in letters by Senator Wedgwood and others, and even by Party organisations to the powers that be, have been ignored, lt was known that a measure was to be introduced to get rid of the anomalies associated with parliamentary retiring allowances, but nothing has been done other than to make an admission that nothing has been done and a statement that something will be done in the autumn session.

Any news media that wish to pour more contempt and ridicule upon members of UK National Parliament will be able to start kite flying as to improvements that may flow to Ministers and members of Parliament from the revised parliamentary retiring allowances legislation which is promised for the autumn session. So it is safe to say that this source of criticism and contempt of the rights and allowances of members of Parliament will be given new birth after tonight, because more legislation is foreshadowed. I believe that we who want a fair deal - not only for ourselves but also for our dependants - should on both sides of the House be guardians of our own rights and should make sure that the legislation promised for the autumn session is then brought into the Parliament. Then we will have another period in which those who want to shoot at us will do so. But in my opinion we as the National Parliament must never be frightened of what is said in what is rightly a free Press and in what should be a television and radio news medium that is, free and not interfered with politically. We. must be sure that we ate ready to take it. I believe that it was Disraeli - 1 have never tried to follow or pattern myself on him - who, when he had been given a rough time by the Press, called a Press conference and said: ‘Speak of me; speak ill of me if ye will; but for God’s sake speak of me’. I support this legislation. I am sorry that it is not the completed job. I believe that it reflects a lack of concentration on a job that should have been in hand. We look forward to some improvement and the wiping away of the anomalies that have been pointed out by other speakers tonight.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I understand that we have a few minutes in which to deal with this Bill. This is not easy legislation to write, because of the unusual occupation of members of parliament. As Senator Cotton pointed out, the contribution rate is extremely high and, whereas most super annuation schemes aim to pay two-thirds of the salary on retirement, our scheme aims to pay one-half. The reason for the very bad conditions - they are bad when compared with those of other superannuation schemes - is the difficulty of knowing for how long people will contribute and how much they will contribute.

I agree with Senator Marriott that this legislation is long overdue and that many other amendments should be made. One raised by Senator Withers relates to a matter in respect of which I got the shock of my life when I first read it about 15 years ago. I refer to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust having the responsibility of saying, in the case of a person who was married within the last 5 years of his life and whose widow is 10 years younger than he, whether she is entitled to any pension at all or only to that prescribed by the Trust. I agree with the comments that have been made about other matters that should be amended.

There is one anomaly on which 1 have written twice to the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). Two years ago he said that he would give the matter favourable, consideration. Six months ago he said that he was still giving it favourable consideration. When a person retires from this Parliament and goes into any branch of the Public Service, at one time he did not receive any superannuation, but now he receives half of his entitlement. This provision should be altered. There is a clear precedent for altering it. The Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme has been altered so that if one of its superannuitants comes back into the Service he still receives the whole of his superannuation entitlement. This provision in our scheme should be amended, and amended rapidly, not only for the good of the person who goes into the Public Service but also because no government or semi-government body should deny itself the opportunity to grasp people who have spent a fair bit of time in association with government and administration.

The big challenge that faces all superannuation schemes throughout the world has two facets. One is that there should be more superannuation and that it should be much easier for people to move in and out of industries, whether private industries or government industries, without affecting their superannuation entitlement. This is essential because it can make such a tremendously important contribution to the social structure. The other facet of the challenge is the maintenance of payments in the face of inflation. I understand that this has been mentioned previously and that it has been stated that this is one of the matters that will be examined. People can join the Commonwealth Public Service in their teens and work there until they are 65 years of age. They do not do that because of the big money that they make; they do it for security of employment. Theoretically they are protected by superannuation over all that period, but that is not so if they commit the crime of living for a few years too long.

This problem has been met by the Commonwealth Treasury, both in our own scheme and in the Commonwealth Public Service scheme, by looking at the situation from time to time and making increases in the rates of superannuation being paid. This is obviously unjust because there must always be a lag and during that period of time people can die and people can suffer injustice. Although everybody is boggling at it, there has to come a time when the value of the pension, whatever it is - in our case one-half of salary and in the case of the Commonwealth Public Service twothirds of salary - will be maintained automatically. This is the challenge. It is something at which people who administer superannuation schemes throughout the world are boggling. Unless we do this we will make a mockery and a sham of superannuation.

It is not good enough to make adjustments every few years. There is nothing mandatory about that. Because the Commonwealth Public Service makes an adjustment, that is not to say that every other superannuation scheme does so. In fact, I understand that certain semi-government schemes do not take this factor into consideration. The situation is that people plan for a certain retiring age and envisage receiving a certain payment, but it is completely eaten away by inflation. This is the great challenge. This is the fundamental challenge to all schemes. Because our scheme is a small one, this matter could be attacked very easily in respect of it. We have complete control of it. We have quite high rates of contributions. We have it within our own power to make adjustments to meet such situations. This is the fundamental problem. The other matters that have been mentioned are not of fundamental importance. Many of them should never have been written into the Act. They certainly should be taken out of it at the very first opportunity.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I wish to say a few words on this Bill. I do not intend to detain the Senate for very long in view of the ridiculous hour at which we are considering this legislation. Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood and Senator Withers have brought forward a number of features which have persisted in this legislation and about which the Government has been too tired and lazy to do anything. Because they affect not Ministers but mostly just private senators and members of the House of Representatives, nothing has been done about them. This has been going on Ibr many years. I remember one point about which I argued, namely, single parliamentarians with dependants. Of course, nothing was ever done about that. The stupid’ reply that I received from the Minister of the day was: ‘Go and get married’, or something like that. The Governments adopts a lackadaisical attitude to this type of legislation. It completely ignores what private senators and members of the House of Representatives say. Then, when legislation is brought before us and the Government admits that certain things probably should be done in relation to other matters, they have to wait until the autumn sessional period. This indicates to me the type of rush legislation that is introduced.

Senator Murphy is a man of high legal training, but even he said that he was not able to deal with the Bill because of the short time that we have had it before us. I rise to register a protest again and to say I oppose this legislation because in my opinion it is disgraceful and contemptuous of the Parliament and the people to rush through legislation such as this in the way that it is being rushed through. Nobody can tell me that he can deal with legislation of this type honestly and decently when this procedure is adopted. This Bill has been before the Senate for about two hours. During that two hours the sitting was suspended for the dinner break. Party meetings also were held during that time. Senators probably had only half an hour during the suspension of the sitting to consider the legislation. That is not sufficient time and I take this opportunity of again registering my protest and of saying that I oppose the legislation because of this ridiculous situation.

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

– I wish to say something in line with what has been said by previous speakers. In particular, I wish to say something about members themselves and to offer some reasons why I think the retiring allowances should be adequate. Indeed, I feel that they should be something more than adequate. They should be generous. I suppose I would not have done any more than any others have done, but one day during this week I was in my office at 8.30 a.m. I attended four meetings during the day, plus a Cabinet meeting, and I also attended a sitting of the Senate. I left my office well after 1 1 o’clock that night.

Senator Scott:

– Were you tired?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– I was very tired.

Senator McClelland:

– What were you doing in your spare time?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– I was having a sleep. One of the things about this career that some of us, particularly the young men, have embarked upon is that firstly it means a complete dislocation of the life one has been leading up to the time of starting that career. If one happens to be a member for a swinging seat, one may go out of the Parliament after five or six years and one’s whole career could have been interrupted with great disadvantage to one’s wife and family.

Senator McClelland:

– The kids grow up without knowing him.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– That is very true. That is one of the things that I wanted to touch on also. Not only is the burden of looking after the children thrown upon the wife but, as the honourable senator points out, the children grow up without having the care they really need at that age from their parents.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Senator Anderson:

– A message has come from the other place. I would suggest that the sitting be suspended for half an hour in order that the Parties may consider it. I suggest that we reassemble at the ringing of the bells.

page 2306

QUESTION

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1968-69

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– by leave - Pursuant to leave granted by the Senate last night, I had incorporated in Hansard today questions that I asked during the consideration of proposed expenditure 1968-69 and answers thereto since provided by Ministers. I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some of the Budget Papers of the Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly and the Budget Speech delivered by the Treasurer of the Territory. In my speech on the motion for the adjournment last night, I informed the Senate that I would be making this request.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being ho objection, leave is granted. The material will be incorporated in the Senate Hansard of Tuesday next.

Sitting suspended from 1.15 to 1.45 a.m.

page 2306

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1968

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had made the amendment requested by the Senate to add new clause 5 to the Bill and that it had not made the amendment requested by the Senate to the Schedule of the Bill.

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives’ message.

The Schedule.

Senate’s request -

The Schedule. Section 4, leave out “ ‘Two thousand six hundred and fifty’ “, insert “ ‘Two thousand eight hundred’ “

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That request No. 2 be not pressed.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Request No. 2 was not moved by the Opposition; it was moved by Senator Rae. I do not wish to pre-empt his position, but I assume that he has indicated his intentions to the Government. I give him the opportunity- of opposing the motion of the Leader of the Government if he wishes to do so. Senator Rae has not indicated his attitude to the Senate. He has not offered any opposition to the motion. In the circumstances that have arisen - including the circumstance of Senator Rae’s request - it seems that the Opposition will have to accept that the request it proposed is not acceptable to the Senate, although the Opposition thought it was a request which would achieve the desired result. I think the Opposition’s proposed request was twice rejected by the Senate. Senator Rae’s proposed request was supported by the majority in the Senate. We of the Opposition, although it was not our request and although it differed appreciably from our request in the sense that it was based on different principles, nevertheless supported the request.

Apparently the Government Parties, of which Senator Rae is a member, decided in the other place to refuse the request, lt seems that there is no chance of the request being accepted in the other place, lt is a pity that the Opposition’s proposed request was not accepted by the Senate, but that was the will of the Senate. Had the Opposition’s proposed request been accepted. 1 think it might have had much chance of being accepted in the other place also. But it was the will of the Senate not to accept it. I understand that Senator Rae is not pressing his request. I ask Senator Rae whether that is so?

Senator Rae:

– Yes.

Senator Murphy:

– If Senator Rae is not pressing his request, the Opposition sees no purpose in opposing the motion moved by the Leader of the Government.

Despite what has happened I think the Senate has clearly demonstrated by its vote on Senator Rae’s request its feelings on the matter. I am glad to see that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) is sitting in the gallery of the Senate. It is a very gracious act of the Treasurer to come across here,’ especially at this hour of the morning. We welcome his presence. Having heard of what happened in this chamber tonight, he should know that there is a very strong feeling here that the Senate has not been treated justly or fairly. Although only a .small amount of money is involved, there is very strong feeling in the Senate on the matter. The difference in the electoral allowance for members and senators should be corrected in the future. But in the circumstances, no purpose would be served by taking the matter further now. We hope that the lesson has been brought home and, that these anomalies will be removed and will never again be the source of contention between the members in both Houses.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I think that this is not just.’a matter of how Senator Rae feels about it; this is a stand that the Senate took on a matter of principle. I am not concerned about the amount; I am talking about the principle so far as the status of honourable senators is concerned. Therefore it now becomes something which refers to the Senate and not just to an honourable senator. The Senate having taken the stand and having believed in what it did, it should send this request back to the House of Representatives.

Senator Cormack:

– No.

Senator WOOD:

– It is all right for Senator Cormack to say that should not be done, but this is my view. If he likes to take that attitude, that is his business. I am expressing my view. The Senate, having taken a stand on a principle, should send the request back to the House of Representatives stating that we again press it. This is the type of thing that the Senate should do. I feel that if we just accept this meekly and say that is that, this sort of thing will1 happen again and again. It will happen unless the Senate takes a definite stand. This is an opportunity that we have to make a stand. There is no doubt about it. The vote indicated that not only the Opposition but also the majority of Government senators’ felt the same way.

Senator Marriott:

– Not the majority of Government senators.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, the majority of Government senators. The vote indicated quite clearly that a considerable majority of the Senate supported it.

Senator Cormack:

– The honourable senator absented himself from one vote.

Senator WOOD:

– I absented myself for a particular reason. I could say some things about Senator Cormack and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee if i wanted to. I press the point that 1 believe the Senate should take a stand on this matter if honourable senators believe that what they were doing was right. The thing that concerns me is that outside this chamber the dogs were barking that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) would not accept this request and thai Mr Gough Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition, had promised him that he too would oppose acceptance of the request. It is a peculiar set-up and it rather leads mc to something that Senator Gair, the Leader of: the Democratic Labor Party, said about the connivance of the two major parties in the whole of this set-up that we have seen here tonight. It indicates to me that Mr Whitlam is apparently in the Prime Minister’ pocket on these matters.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– In view of the concluding remarks made by Senator Wood I feel that it is necessary to say a few words. Firstly, the amendment proposed by the Labor Party to grant to members of the Senate the same allowance as is paid to backbench members of the House of Representatives was rejected. We wanted recognition of the prestige of the Senate and that also was rejected. This was expressed as a sum of money which was not associated with any amount paid to members of the House of Representatives; it was a figure which would give us the same monetary recognition as has .been considered suitable for those in another place. The move did not originate with the Labor Party. As Senator Murphy has told the Committee, wc were under some obligation because of a caucus decision to vote for the request proposed by Senator Murphy. Accordingly, members of the Labor Party voted as nearly as possible in line with the caucus decision on the request relating to back bench members of this chamber. That proposal was accepted by the Senate and sent to the House of Representatives. The matter now comes back to the Senate. Obviously the Labor Party cannot proceed further with it because those who originated the resolution are not now prepared to take it further.

Sentaor Poke - They have gone to water.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know about that. During the suspension of the sitting I met the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and other Ministers going into the room which is occupied by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) for the purpose of holding a meeting.

Senator Cormack:

– That is an assumption.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– They were going into the room and there was a big assembly. Obviously it was not a caucus meeting. As a result of this meeting there is silence among the backbench Government supporters who originally moved the resolution.

Senator Marriott:

– There was silence in the House of Representatives from the Australian Labor Party Opposition.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Never mind about that. Never again let us have this argument that there is a freedom to vote and a freedom of choice for members of the Government Parties. We have had an illustration tonight of what actually happens. However, there is nothing that we can do about it. I am very much concerned with what Senator Wood said and what has been heard in the lobbies by other Liberal senators, that the Leader in whom we have placed confidence to lead our Party -

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. I ask that no reference be made to a member of the House of Representatives, and I ask especially that no emphasis be given or further reference be made to the matter which was referred to by Senator Wood. What was said by Senator Wood was in the nature of a reflection that I thought should have been withdrawn. I thought that the Chair might do something about it, but as the time passed 1 felt that perhaps it was better not to add emphasis to the matter. I would ask that Senator Cavanagh not refer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in this place.

Senator Anderson:

– I suggest that we have reached the point where we should put the question. I understand that Senator Cavanagh has the right to conclude his speech, so when he has concluded his remarks I shall move that the question be put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– A point of order has been raised on which I rule that an honourable senator may refer to a minister of the House of Representatives but he must not refer to him in a derogatory manner.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My leader has been referred to in a derogatory manner and I want to correct this. I take exception to what was said by Senator Wood. I suggest that what he said was entirely untrue. It was a statement that I do not accept for a moment. I have no desire to denigrate the Leader of the Labor Party in whom 1 have the utmost confidence and to whom I extend the utmost loyalty. I simply do not accept that the attitude of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party is as was expressed by Senator Wood. I agree with Senator Murphy that it is regrettable that the matter was raised in this place, it is more regret table that rumours have been circulating in the lobbies. However, my main reason for entering the debate is to exonerate a man in whom I have every confidence.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I have been, to an extent, challenged to speak here and I do wish to speak. I simply want to say that when the writing is on the wall and when something has become quite obvious it is silly to keep people up all night to press a point which has already been made. I believe that the point which the Senate wished to make tonight has been made. Those who are in a position to consider the point no doubt can consider it, and for that reason I do not wish to pursue any opposition to the motion which has been moved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Senate adjourned at 2.6 a.m.. (Friday)

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 November 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19681121_senate_26_s39/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant