Senate
27 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 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2403

COLONG CAVES RESERVE

Petition

Senator MULVIHILL presented a petition from the President of the New South Wales National Parks Association showing that the New South Wales National Parks Association expresses grave concern at the decision of the New South Wales Government to permit the mining of limestone in the Oolong Caves Reserve approximately 74 miles south south-west of Sydney which was gazetted for the preservation of caves in 1899.

The petitioner prays that the Senate use all the powers available to it, both direct and indirect, to render ineffectual the operation of the special lease and so to preserve the Colong Caves Reserve and its environs free of mining forever and thus permit the Reserve to be incorporated within the proposed Kanangra-Boyd National Park.

Petition received and read.

page 2403

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation seen Press reports of the spirited reply by Sir Frederick Scherger, Chairman of the Australian National Airlines Commission, which operates Trans-Australia Airlines, to what he called ‘Mr Ansett’s wailing over TAA’s alleged financial advantages’, which Sir Frederick said ‘had worn thin over many years’? Will the Minister convey the congratulations of a goodly number of senators to Sir Frederick for his masterly understatement?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have seen various reports of statements attributed to Sir Frederick Scherger, Chairman of TAA. 1 have also seen reports of a public meeting of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Both these companies, which are competing against each other for Australian airline business, are making statements one against the other in a truly competitive fashion and this, I think, underlines the value of the wonderful two airline policy which this Government has carried on so successfully over a number of years.

page 2403

QUESTION

BOOK PRINTING

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister seen a reference in this morning’s Press to a statement that a leading firm of Australian publishers, Angus and Robertson Ltd, is considering having all its books printed in Asia in order to be able to compete with other companies which already do this? Will the Government take some action to preserve the book printing industry for Australia and Australian craftsmen?

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

– 1 have not seen the statement, but there have been questions asked in this place in relation to this matter. As I recall the position, the information I was able to give in answer to such questions was that this matter was under consideration by the Minister for Trade and Industry. There was some suggestion that representations had been made to him by the industry itself. I will follow the matter up, and I hope to be able to give the honourable senator some further information tomorrow.

page 2403

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Has the Government made any assessment of the value to the nation of building a standard gauge railway line from Darwin to Alice Springs and from Alice Springs to Adelaide? If not, will the Government make such an assessment?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– As yet the Government has not made any assessment of the value of constructing a standard gauge railway from Alice Springs to Darwin. The Minister has various propositions put to him as to what may be the best method of building a satisfactory railway line which will be open for service every day of the year between Alice Springs and the southern lines, connecting at, I think, Tarcoola, or Adelaide. In view of the interest which the honourable senator has taken in this subject, and especially as the question relates to the construction of a railway line between Alice Springs and Darwin, I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice and I shall obtain an anwer from the Minister for him.

page 2404

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. As a means of assisting family budgeting at Christmas time would the Minister seek to have child endowment cheques and similar benefit cheques, which I understand would normally be payable on 26th December, pre-dated to Monday, 23rd December?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I believe that the Minister for Social Services is considering the matter and will be making an announcement shortly. I shall convey the honourable senators comments to him.

page 2404

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport: Is it a fact that the Federal Government is considering granting financial assistance to the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to enable that company to extend its shipbuilding facilities at Whyalla? If so. will the Government reconsider ils attitude towards allowing the Verholme United Shipyards N.V. to establish a shipyard in southern Tasmania to compete on equal terms with existing major shipbuilding yards in Australia and advise the Tasmanian Government accordingly, thus demonstrating that its interest in the establishment of shipyard facilities extends to Tasmania as well as the mainland States?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– In view of the importance to Australia of shipping and the building of ships the Government is anxious to have larger ships built here. T understand that the Minister made a Press statement today to the effect that the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd was proposing to build ships of a capacity in excess of 80,000 tons - I think possibly 86.000 tons - at Whyalla. The construction of such ships would, of course, reduce freight costs because of the larger cargoes they would be able to transport. There are six or seven ship building yards in Australia. I ask the honourable senator to place on notice that part of the question as to whether the Government will come to the assistance of the shipbuilding industry in Tasmania so that I can obtain for the honourable senator an answer from the Minister.

page 2404

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. With the introduction of container shipping and roll-on roll-off shipping methods to Australia, can the Minister say what steps are being taken to protect Australia against the introduction of exotic diseases such as foot and mouth disease?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Knowing the Senate’s interest in quarantine, I have obtained some information from the Minister for Health which I think will answer the points raised by the honourable senator. The introduction of containerised transport, including roll-on roll-off shipping, will present quarantine problems. The Department of Health, in co-operation with the Departments of Customs and Excise and Trade and Industry and the various commercial interests involved, is giving this matter much study and every endeavour is being made to anticipate the problems which may arise. It is important, for example, to know what items of quarantine interest have been packed in individual containers and this is especially important if the container is designed to a rural area. The importance of accuracy in documentation of contents of each container has been stressed and requirements have been prescribed regarding the use and prior treatment of wooden components and wood dunnage and the avoidance of straw as a packing material. Continuing checks will be made to detect any inaccuracy of documentation.

Container owning companies have been advised that a certificate of cleansing before packing must accompany containers entering Australia. Any container without the certificate will not be permitted to proceed direct to the consignee but will be directed to a depot for inspection and, if necessary, treatment.

I also inform the honourable senator that the Department of Health has issued a book concerning quarantine. It is entitled ‘Notes for Importers’ on plant and animal quarantine. This gives advice concerning quarantine. A brochure has been issued. It describes how containers will be handled in relation to quarantine in Australia. I can assure the honourable senator that quarantine will cause no unnecessary delay in the movement of containers, provided the trade does its part in observing the conditions which have been laid down.

page 2405

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is it correct that prosecutions are pending against King Island residents who were under the impression that, because of indifferent television reception on the island, the payment of their licence fees would be delayed until the reception was improved? Will the Government request the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to investigate further the possibility of the installation of a translator on King Island to improve reception?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– In reply to the first part of the honourable senator’s question I can only say that I will refer this matter to the PostmasterGeneral. But in respect of the second part of the honourable senator’s question I would inform him that the technical and economic difficulties involved in providing a television service to King Island lie not in the distribution of television signals over the island but in the programming of such a station. A station could be established on the island on or near Mount Stanley which would provide service over all of the area. But considerable investigations, including field work and observation, have made it clear that because of the long distance between King Island and the locations of the existing Tasmanian stations direct relay of the programmes of those stations is not at all practicable. Attention has also been given to the possibility of providing service from intermediate relay points, but this course would necessitate the erection of high powered installations involving high capital and operating costs. Similar problems exist with respect to making use of the signals of Victorian stations. The matter of possible means of provision of television services to King Island is being kept under constant review.

page 2405

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the decision announced by the Prime Minister to charter and subsequently purchase ships for over seas trading mean that the Government has been converted to the Labor Party’s policy, or is this decision due to the urgent necessity to reduce our overseas trading deficits, of which transport charges are a substantial factor? As insurance charges also constitute a major factor in trade deficits will the Government promote an Australian insurance company for the purpose of insuring overseas freight?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As to the first part of the honourable senator’s question, I would not know what the Australian Labor Party’s policy is in that particular field because there have been such variations of the policy over the years that one becomes bewildered trying to keep up with it. I think the substantive part of the honourable senator’s question would be more properly directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport to get an answer in depth. 1 shall certainly direct that part of the question to him.

page 2405

QUESTION

MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the . AttorneyGeneral. Has the Australian Government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance Obligations, which is designed to help women and children who have been left without adequate provision by husbands and fathers who have migrated to other countries?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– In answer to the honourable senator’s question I wish to inform him that I am not in possession of that information but I shall ascertain it and advise him.

page 2405

QUESTION

TARIFF

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. What is the estimated amount of tariff protection on a money value basis afforded’ individual secondary industries in Australia? What is the estimated total of tariff protection in terms of money afforded to alt Australian secondary industries?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– With great respect to the honourable senator, to answer those two questions as presented would, 1 suggest, involve providing a reproduction of the complete tariff. I think I could get a general answer for him, but if he asks what a rate of duty is on secondary industry, that would vary right across the whole board of the tariff itself. I am sure he would appreciate that. I wonder whether on reflection he would redraft his question and narrow it down. Otherwise I shall send it to the Minister for Trade and Industry who I am sure would be in a situation where he would be giving a generalised answer because tariff items go to 99 chapters and about 999 pages.

Senator Little:

– I would indeed be grateful if he would give me an answer, because it was asked on notice previously and was not answered after a month. I do not mind if the answer is no.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I shall’ take up the question as presented.

page 2406

QUESTION

BOOK CENSORSHIP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Customs and Excise give reasons why his Department has banned the book ‘The Wonderful World of Barry McKenzie’ by Australian satirist Barry Humphreys? Will the Minister agree that the comic strip of the same name is outstandingly successful in the London publishing world? Why is a satire that is on sale openly in London and many other parts of the world not suitable for Australian readers? Will the Minister agree that it is time Australia endeavoured to vacate its leading position as a book banner?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– A proof copy of the publication referred to by the honourable senator was prohibited in terms of regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations in September of this year. An appeal against this decision was disallowed in October. The publication is a comic strip of 90 pages. It relates to the exploits of an Australian male adult tourist, Barry McKenzie, in London. It is considered that the publication depends too heavily on indecency for its humour. Several segments of the comic strip which appeared in the British periodical ‘Private Eye’ contributed to the prohibition of a number of issues of the magazine over recent years.

page 2406

QUESTION

MELBOURNE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government who represents the Prime Minister’ in the Senate. Has the Government made any decision on a request by Sir Henry Bolte on behalf of the State of Victoria for financial assistance of the sum of $40m to hel’p in the construction of an underground railway in Melbourne? If so, what was the decision? If not, when is it expected that a decision will be made?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not aware of the position. I shall seek the information and make it available to the honourable senator.

page 2406

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral been directed to a statement attributed to Mr Cowan, the General Manager of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, questioning the reasoning underlying the release of information in the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which discloses that about 50% of people questioned in a survey conducted by the Board said that they would like to see more cultural programmes on commercial television stations? Did the survey show also that nearly 65% of the people interviewed expressed a wish for more Australian drama in evening programmes, whilst only about 25% said that they woul’d prefer less? In view of the clear inference from Mr Cowan’s remarks that commercial stations know better than anyone else, including the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Australian public, what the public should see or should want to see-

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. The honourable senator is not asking a question; he is giving a series of short lectures.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Will the Minister ask the Board to issue an instruction to commercial stations that any future breach of the Board’s programme standards by any station will be viewed seriously when applications for a renewal of licences are under consideration?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall convey the points raised by the honourable senator to my colleague the Postmaster-General.

page 2407

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister been drawn to the suggestion that 82% of the population of Australia now lives in urban areas? Has the Federal Government given serious consideration to the problems which are being created in major cities and which will lead to inefficiency in the production and movement of Australian produce and, perhaps more important, add to the psychological problems of humans who live in confined areas? Will the Federal Government give prompt and serious consideration to the request for financial assistance to conduct a continuing survey of such problems? Will the Federal Government view with renewed vigour the request already in the Government’s hands for assistance to carry out such a survey as has been sought by the non-profit national organisation of the Australian Institute of Urban Studies?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The whole question of decentralisation is constantly under study at all levels of government. In some of the sovereign States, including New South Wales, there is a Minister for Decentralisation. I do not think the honourable senator’s question lends itself to a reply from me. The question will need a very careful analysis in a number of portfolios. I am sure that everybody agrees with the fundamental point advocated by the honourable senator, that there should be, wherever practicable, some conscious effort to achieve decentralisation. As to the honourable senator’s reference to a particular organisation, I shall have that matter referred in the first place to the Treasurer and I shall obtain a reply for the honourable senator.

page 2407

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories aware that it costs $2.45 to feed an indigenous plantation worker for a week in the Port Moresby district of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and $2.26 in the Goroka district? Is he aware also that it costs between S3 and S6 a week to feed each of the fourteen police dogs housed in the building which cost $16,597 at the Bomana Police College? Can the Minister state what action is being taken by the Australian Government to ensure that the standard of the indigenous plantation workers is brought up to the standard now being enjoyed by the police dogs?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answer to the first two parts of the question is no. The answer to the third part is that it will have consideration.

page 2407

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator YOUNG:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. With Australia’s participation in the Associated Container Transportation consortium, which involves the cellular container method of transport, can the Minister say that Australian exporters - I refer particularly to wool shippers - will have flexibility of choice in the type of transportation they desire, be it by containers, strap pallets or any other method?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Australian wool clip is sold mostly by auction and/or privately in some States. Very little wool belonging to growers is shipped to England to be sold by auction. I can assure the honourable senator that Australia’s participation in the ACT consortium will enable purchasers and/or shippers of wool to use the organisation’s vessels if they so desire. They also will have the opportunity to use the conventional type ships, the roll-on rolloff type ships or the Scandia type ships. No doubt they will choose the vessels which will give them the best service. The Government is doing nothing to prohibit that.

The Government’s decision to enter the shipping field with ACT will provide a service to the United Kingdom and North America and, in conjunction with the K line, a service to Japan. Any shipper of wool will have an opportunity to take advantage of the vessels which now are controlled partly by the ACT consortium in which Australia will have an interest. The most interesting part of this set up is that the Australian Government will be able to examine from time to time competitive freight rates charged by other shipping companies and to compare them with those charged by the consortium in which it has an interest.

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Will the Minister accept our congratulations on the Government’s adoption of Labor policy by entering the overseas shipping trade? Can he explain why it was necessary to do so with ships built in British shipyards? Will he tell us what consideration was given to the drastic lack of orders for Australia’s own shipbuilding industry? Can he give us precise details of the financial arrangements entered into and, in particular, why the Government, according to Press reports, will pay $7m to enter the consortium plus $8.5m to hire two ships for 5 years when the total cost of buying outright the two vessels would be less than $14m, an apparent saving of $I.Sm? Will he explain also the savings to be effected by placing Australia in a position where the vessels chartered will have to be purchased by us after 5 years at a further cost of about $7m? Is Australia paying more than S8m merely to participate as a minor partner in a powerful consortium, as the Prime Minister commented, to gain information?

Senator SCOTT:

– The Australian Government, which has taken the decision to participate in this shipping venture, has looked at the matter for a number of years. The present proposition gives the Australian people the opportunity to participate in a venture which is soundly based financially. We believe that by entering the container method of shipping, we are starting off at the beginning of a new type ot shipping which will play an increasingly important part in the transport of our goods to overseas countries.

In particular, I would like to mention that, because Australia has become such an important nation industrially and because it has large shipments overseas, the Government thought, -wisely too, I consider - and here I accept the congratulations of the Leader of the Opposition - that we should participate in this shipping and at least know exactly what the overseas shipping companies are making. This participation will give us the opportunity to examine closely the freight rates charged by overseas shipping companies operating to and from Australia.

page 2408

QUESTION

STEEL RAILWAY WAGONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise, by saying that I raised in the Senate last Wednesday evening the question of the alleged dumping in Australia of steel wagons by a Japanese firm. I now ask: Has the Minister been successful in having his officers investigate the complaint of alleged dumping of steel railway wagons in Australia by a Japanese firm to the detriment of Queensland workers and Queensland industry?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

- Mr President, this question was raised in the Senate a fortnight ago. In answer to it, J think 1 must have explained to the honourable senator that a company - Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd - had placed an order with a Queensland company for the supply of a number of railway wagons - I think about 200 in all - and that there was a further requirement of 120 wagons for which a company in Japan tendered. That company was. I understand, the successful tenderer.

I wish to point out to the honourable senator that the duty on the wagons is 47i%. Consequently, if the tender by the Japanese company, including provision for the payment of duty, was lower than the Australian tender, it was right and proper for the Hamersley company to accept the tender that it thought was of the most advantage to it. In relation to the part of the question as to whether there is any dumping, I will obtain the information and convey it to the honourable senator in writing.

page 2408

QUESTION

DEFENCE REVIEW

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. As the Parliament is about to go into recess, it is evident that the Government’s promised defence review will not be presented. I ask: Will the Minister assure the Senate that this long awaited defence review will not be announced away from the scrutiny and the advice of the Parliament?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

- Mr President, it is anticipated that the Senate and the House of Representatives will rise until the autumn session - who knows - today, tomorrow, the wee hours of Friday morning or next week. I would hope tomorrow. As to the question implicit in the statement by the honourable senator that any announcement that the Government may make on defence should be held over until such time as the Senate reassembles, this is a matter of policy and I would need to refer the question to the Government.

page 2409

QUESTION

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Last night at 8.30 p.m. I understand that a film was shown on ABN Channel 2 entitled ‘A Plague on Your Children’. This was a British Broadcasting Corporation production on the subject of chemical and biological warfare. In view of the great importance of the subject and the interest which the film would have for honourable senators, will the Minister see whether arrangements can be made to show this film at Parliament House early next year?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I did not see the programme last night, nor did I know about it. 1 will be pleased to place this matter before the PostmasterGeneral for his consideration and will inform the honourable senator of the result.

page 2409

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration whether she could furnish details of the itinerary of the Minister of Immigration when he visits Yugoslavia in the near future, ostensibly to finalise an immigration agreement between Australia and Yugoslavia.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– It is true that the Minister for Immigration will be leaving Australia at the end of this week for a short overseas visit. He will be visiting Yugoslavia between 9th and 14th December. The purpose of his visit is to negotiate wilh the Government of Yugoslavia. The honourable senator asked for details of the Minister’s itinerary. I can supply nothing beyond the broad details 1 have mentioned.

page 2409

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by informing him that a reply is listed today to my question No. 736 on the notice paper. Can the Minister tell me why it has taken 3 weeks plus 1 day to obtain information on such an urgent matter as poaching by foreign fishing vessels off the north Queensland coast?

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

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no, I cannot give him the reason. However, I can inform him that 1 will be asking for leave to make two statements in connection with fisheries a little later this day.

page 2409

QUESTION

TIPPING

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Referring to the promotion of international tourism in Australia, what steps, if any, can the Minister take, and what steps has he taken, to ensure that it is known as widely as possible that Australians generally are opposed to the pernicious system of tipping which is so prevalent in many other countries but which has not reached such damaging proportions in Australia? Does the Minister agree that every effort should be made to discourage this costly and quite undesirable practice which is a heavy and unnecessary additional burden on tourists, many of whom have budgeted for holidays after many years of disciplined saving?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I think it is well recognised that tipping has an important bearing upon tourism. I think a reference to France will be sufficient to impress on honourable senators the truth of that statement. All I wish to say at present is that the matter is receiving consideration, and it would be premature for me to make any further comment at this stage.

page 2409

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. 1 remind him that it is reported that two political parties have recently been formed in the Territory of

Papua and New Guinea to counter the Rabaul basedMelanesian independence Front which seeks separate independence for the islands of Bougainville, New Britain and New Ireland, and which has found growing support in those areas. What steps has the Government taken to counter this secessionist movement and to solve the problems of the islanders who do not think they benefit sufficiently from the Territory’s economic policy or from the new industries of the islands?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Surprising as it is, prosperity in the making for Bougainville Island seems to be bringing apprehension to the population there. It has become a political problem. Honourable senators will recall speeches - to which reference was made in the Senate last week - on the part of the Administration of the Territory counselling all sections of the New Guinea population, and particularly of Bougainville Island, that unity on the part of the Territory is essential for the continuance of Australia’s interest and support.

page 2410

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator GEORGES:

– In directing a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General I refer to the answer given yesterday to my question on transfers within the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Towards the end of her answer the Minister stated that the Department of External Affairs briefs ABC personnel1 who go abroad to make programmes, but does the same on request for journalists or commercial radio and television teams going abroad tocover subjects coming within the Department’s area of responsibility. I ask: Does this mean that all ABC personnel are briefed by the Department of External Affairs before going abroad to make programmes, or is this done only on request? If it is a regular practice to brief all ABC staff men before they go abroad, can the Postmaster-General explain its necessity? Can the Minister assure the Senate that it is not done to inculcate a particular viewpoint in the minds of the journalists before they begin work on a particular project?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I must say that I think the honourable senator has a very suspicious mind. I will repeat part of the very sound answer fur nished by the Department of External Affairs. The Department stated:

The Department of External Affairs briefs ABC personnel going abroad to make programmes, but it does the same on request for journalists or commercial radio and television teams going abroad to cover subjects coming within the Department’s area of responsibility.

Ibelieve that the practice must be to the advantage of the people who are going abroad. They are going to different areas in which they are not familiar with local problems and conditions. 1 believe that the briefing given to them by the Department of External Affairs must be tremendously valuable to them.

page 2410

QUESTION

TOURIST INDUSTRY

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. I understand that he has sought from honourable senators information on their grading of areas of greatest tourist attraction in Australia. Does he intend to use the information so obtained; and, if so, in what way? Does the Commonwealth propose to subsidise facilities in any such areas?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I was obliged to my colleagues in the Senate for their responses to an invitation that 1 gave them to indicate to me, for my information and to increase my general knowledge of the tourist potential of Australia, their views on the major tourist attractions. I am sure that it would be of general interest to all honourable senators to know that Government senators placed Ayers Rock, the Great Barrier Reef, the Snowy Mountains, Tasmania and Canberra in the first five places. I indicated in a Press statement yesterday that the development of major tourist attractions that would rank as ones of national status is a matter of interest to the Australian Government, whose responsibility is to promote international tourism, part of whose task is the development of the potential of the product that we sell. I am advising the State Ministers responsible for Tourism of the precise terms of that statement today.

page 2410

QUESTION

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE RESEARCH

Senator COHEN:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Supply. Is Australia a party to any formal agreement with the governments of the United Kingdom, the United

States of America and Canada for the sharing of chemical and biological warfare research findings and for the shared use of testing grounds? If there is such an agreement, will the Minister make a statement to the Senate covering the terms of the agreement, the parties te it, its date and duration and the areas in which it is operative?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Recently I made a statement in some depth on this matter. I think it was made in response to a question asked by Senator Wilkinson or Senator Georges. I will now take up the subsequent question and make a further statement on the matter tomorrow.

page 2411

QUESTION

COLONG CAVES

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Mindful of his reply to Senator Laught on tourist attraction ratings, I ask whether he will accept the invitation that I conveyed to him on behalf of the Colong Committee to visit the Colong Caves area, which is in western New South Wales, in the forthcoming recess.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have indicated to the honourable senator that, after discussion of his concern for this area, the New South Wales Minister for Tourist Activities, Mr Eric Willis, advised me that he regarded the reservation of such areas as a State responsibility. I believe that it would be inadvisable for me at the present time to take any further interest in a matter that seems to reside wholly within the responsibility of the State.

page 2411

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Supply, refers to redundancy in the aircraft industry in Victoria and at Parafield. Recently he made a statement concerning the position there. Is he now able to give us details of any examination of, or discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on, the displacement of this labour?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have no further information today, beyond knowing that the normal procedures have been adopted in relation to this matter. But if any information comes to me I will be happy to make it available before the Senate rises.

page 2411

QUESTION

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFIT FUNDS

(Question No. 579)

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many separate organisations are registered as medical and hospital contribution fund organisations in Australia?
  2. ls this number of organisations necessary to disperse Government funds for health and hospital services?
  3. What are the total funds held in reserve by all fund organisations, and what are the reserves held by the first ten medical and hospital funds, in order of registered members?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. As at 30 June 1968, there were 117 registered medical and hospital benefit organisations participating in the distribution of Commonwealth benefit. Of this number 70 organisations pay both medical and hospital benefits on behalf of the Commonwealth, while 39 are registered for payment of hospital benefits only and 8 for payment of medical benefits only.
  2. This matter comes within the terms of reference of the Commonwealth Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, viz. - ‘To inquire into - <16). Whether the interests of contributors, would be better served if there were a greater or a lesser number of registered organisations.’ It would not be proper for me to comment on this aspect until the Committee has completed its inquiry and has made its recommendations on the matter.
  3. As at 30 June 1967, the latest date for which figures are available, the total free reserves (that is excluding provisions for outstanding and unpresented claims) were $22,933,190 for the medical funds and $53,484,332 for the hospital funds.

The free reserves of the ten largest organisations in the Commonwealth (in order of fund membership) were $16,963,146 for the medical funds and $43,829,378 for the hospital funds. It is not the practice to disclose either the financial position or the membership figures for individual funds.

page 2411

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 629)

Senator LAUCKE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Treasurer seen an article appearing ing the ‘Financial Review’ of 14 October concerning the inflow to Australia of British and European portfolio investment capital?
  2. Has there been a drastic decline in such investment in recent weeks?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers:

  1. Yes.
  2. Weekly figures for overseas porfolio investment in companies in Australia are not recorded. However, short term fluctuations in the stock market should not be taken as an indication of trend. So long as investment prospects generally in Australia remain attractive, capital inflow can be expected to continue. There are no indications in the balance of payments figures of any drastic fall-off in overall capital inflow in recent times. It will be some months before there is any statistical information as to the inflow of portfolio investment and institutional loans in the September quarter.

page 2412

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

(Question No. 672)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What is the Government’s attitude to a nuclear deterrent as a viable option for Australian defence?
  2. Does the Government regard an Australian nuclear deterrent as a credible option for Australia’s defence?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

Australian policy on the acquisition and need for nuclear armaments recognises the dangers which could arise from the spread of nuclear weapons and from an increase in the number of nations possessing such weapons. In existing strategic circumstances the Government has not considered it necessary to arm our forces with a nuclear capability, but the collective defence arrangements with our allies are important for security against both conventional and nuclear aggression.

page 2412

QUESTION

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

(Question No. 673)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What are the main points in the text of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on which Australia wants assurances from: (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, and (c) the U.S.S.R?
  2. What are these assurances?
  3. Have any of these assurances been obtained?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. The main points in the text of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons on which Australia has indicated that it wants further clarification from, inter alia, the nuclear weapon powers were sei out in the statement made in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 17th May of this year by the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Patrick Shaw.
  2. . and 3. The Government has since received information by way of clarification on some of these points, and this information is still under study. (Question No. 674)
Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice: ‘

Does the Australian Government regard the nuclear guarantee of the three nuclear signatory powers to the Non-Proliferation Treaty sufficient to safeguard Australia from nuclear attack?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

In his statement to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 17th May of this year the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Patrick Shaw, in referring to the proposal by the governments of the United Stales, the Soviet Union and Britain to submit a resolution to the Security Council which would offer assurances of assistance to non-nuclear countries which were party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons if they should be subject to a nuclear attack or the threat of a nuclear attack, said: ‘It has to be recognised, of course, that this resolution will not constitute a water-tight guarantee for any nation that any or all of the three nuclear weapon states will come to their assistance or take action, in their aid through the Security Council in the event of nuclear attack or threat of attack. Nevertheless, the Australian Delegation considers that the agreement of the three States to join together in this assurance would in itself be a notable political act and a not insignificant contribution to the security of nations. The nuclear weapon States are best able to deter nuclear attack by nuclear powers outside the community of the treaty. The Australian Delegation attaches great importance, therefore, to the continuing joint resolve of the nuclear weapon States to take action in the event of nuclear attack or threat of attack. In this respect it notes specifically the proposed re-affirmation by the three nuclear weapon States and the Security Council of the inherent right, ‘ recognised under Article 51 of the Charter, of individual and collective self-defence. This is important, as the Australian Government relies upon mutual security arrangements, into which it has entered with its allies, as the firm basis of Australian security against both conventional and nuclear aggression.’ (Question No. 675)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What support has the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons received from those countries capable of an early development of nuclear weapons?
  2. Does the Government regard the support of near nuclear countries as essential to the success of the Treaty? If so, why?
  3. What is the likely effect of refusal by such countries to sign the Treaty on Australia’s decision to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply: 1, 2 and 3. The Australian Government regards the broad support of the so-called near-nuclear countries as necessary for the success of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; if the treaty does not attract this support it would be unlikely to constitute an effective barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons. Some countries which can be considered to have already achieved, or to have the means to achieve, a significant measure of nuclear development have already signed the treaty. The Government is in no position to anticipate the intentions of other countries which might be regarded as in the same category and which have not yet signed the treaty. (Question No. 676)

Senator MURPHY:

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

With reference to the Minister’s statement on International Affairs, presented to the Senate on 27th March 1968, in which it was slated that one matter for attention in considering the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was the impact on Australia of an effective and pervasive inspection system:

  1. What is the estimated cost of such an international safeguards system?
  2. What is to be the method of selecting safeguards inspectors?
  3. Will the Australian Government be able to veto the choice of an inspector it considers unsuitable?
  4. What safeguards will there be against possible commercial espionage?
  5. Will Australia contribute to the international safeguards system by (i) payment for its own safeguards costs, or (ii) contributing to an international fund? and
  6. What is the estimated cost to Australia of contributions under (e) (i) and (ii)?
Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. to (f). Questions relating to the application and the effects of an international safeguards system under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have not yet been decided. (Question No. 677)
Senator MURPHY:

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

To what extent, if at all, would the ratification of the Non-Proliferation Treaty prevent Australia’s research and technological development of nuclear activity for non-military purposes, and in what way would this result from the Treaty?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

Whether ratification of the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons could prevent Australia’s research and technological development of nuclear activity for non-military purposes depends on matters that have still finally to be determined.

page 2413

QUESTION

PAPUA-NEW GUINEA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

(Question No. 680)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What legislative reference and research facilities are provided for members in the library of the House of Assembly in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea?
  2. What are the number and categories of books maintained in the library for members’ use?
  3. Are there any librarians to assist members of the House of Assembly? If so, how many, and what are their qualifications?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answer:

  1. Following a recent recommendation of the Speaker of the House of Assembly a research and information section has been created in the Department of the House of Assembly. The section will include an officer in charge, a senior research officer, a librarian and a typing assistant.
  2. 83 volumes Commonwealth of Australia Senate and House of Representatives Debates. 14 volumes Commonwealth Acts. 16 volumes Commonwealth Statutory Rules. 20 volumes Territory Laws. 36 volumes Colliers and Australian Encyclopaedias.

Numbers 14 to 53 Commonwealth Official Year Book.

Volumes 12 lo 16 Commonwealth Parliamentary Handbook. 5 volumes Times Atlas of the World. 2 volumes Office of Speaker. 72 books and pamphlets dealing with constitutional development.

In addition $2,000 worth of books selected and catalogued by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian are at present stored within the Territory’s Archives due to lack of space and proper supervision in the House of Assembly’s Library.

  1. None at present. See I above.

page 2414

QUESTION

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

(Question No. 683)

Senator MURPHY:

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

Is the Government satisfied that the NonProliferation Treaty gives sufficient provision for withdrawal, should this become necessary at some time after ratification?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

This is one of the questions relating to the application of the treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is still under consideration by the Government. (Question No. 685)

Senator MURPHY:

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

What advance has been made by the Government from the basic approach to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stated in March this year ‘that we want an effective and equitable treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, provided that it does not endanger our future national security and development, and we therefore want the nations of the world to arrive at a text of an effective treaty which we can support and adhere to.’?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The basic approach of the Government to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons remains as stated by myself in March of this year. The Government has directed its efforts since then to a careful and comprehensive examination of the provisions of the Treaty, both as to their meaning and as to their likely implications for Australia. This examination is still in progress.

page 2414

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

(Question No. 686)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

On how many occasions during the past 2 years have discussions ensued between the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Meat Industry Employee’s Union on matters pertaining to the industry?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Chairman of the Australian Meat Board has advised that no formal conferences have taken place over the last 2 years but from time to time Board representatives in the various States have discussed current problems with union representatives.

page 2414

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY WATERS

(Question No. 696)

Senator LAUCKE:

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

Are any waters being diverted into the Hume Dam which are normally not so diverted? If so, what is the reason for such diversion?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

No water is being diverted into the Hume Dam which would not normally be so diverted. It might be noted, however, that water passed through the Murray 1 power station of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme reaches the Hume Dam via the Swampy Plains River which is a tributary of the upper Murray. However, these are normal diversions associated with the operation of the scheme. At the present stage of development of the Snowy Mountains scheme the annual average release of the Murray 1 power station is 480,000 acre feet which includes (under average flow conditions) 283.000 acre feet from the Geehi, the balance being diverted across the mountains from the Snowy River.

When the Snowy-Murray development comes into full operation however the annual average release from Murray 1 power station will be 990,000 acre feet: 421.000 acre feet of this will come from the Snowy River at Island Bend or from Snowy storage in Lake Eucumbene and 286,000 from the Snowy waters stored in Lake Jindabyne. I might add that the scheme is designed to guarantee a minimum release of 870,000 acre feet per annum from Murray 1 power station. This slightly smaller release is made when storage falls to a predetermined level.

page 2415

QUESTION

FISHING

(Question No. 736)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to foreign fishing vessels which are again poaching in Australian waters off the north Queensland coast, what corrective action, if any, is being taken by the Australian Government?
  2. Why were Royal Australian Air Force aircraft not called into action to locate the foreign fishing boats immediately it was known they were in the area?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The following information has been supplied by the Minister for Primary Industry in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and 2. On receipt of reports that a foreign vessel had been sighted in the vicinity of Cape Grenville and that a Chinese vessel had landed crew members at Portland Roads arrangements were made for the Navy patrol vessel ‘Attack’, which was on a routine patrol of the Gulf of Carpentaria, to investigate. Arrangements were also made with the Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine for a fisheries officer authorised to act under the Commonwealth Fisheries Act to join ‘Attack’ at Thursday Island. The officer left Cairns on a plane at 6.00 a.m. the morning after the reports had been received and joined ‘Attack’, which sailed from Thursday Island immediately. Because of weather conditions Attack’ was unable to locate any foreign vessels in the area and had to anchor on Monday and Tuesday 4th and 5th November.

By arrangement with the RAAF an aircraft searched the area on Sunday 3rd November and located a Chinese vessel with two dories fishing at Great Detached Reef. The nearestland was Raine Island and the fishing operations were taking place outside the 12-mile limit. The RAAF aircraft was again used on Tuesday 5th November and the Chinese vessel was sighted with ten men working on the reef outside the . 12-mile zone. Attack’ proceeded to the area on Wednesday, 6th November and located the Chinese vessel in the same position but no fishing operations were being undertaken. As the vessel was outside the 12-mile zone no action was taken.

The Chinese vessel was identified as the Chin Chang Fwu, Registered No. CT 30629, the vessel previously reported at Portland Roads.

page 2415

QUESTION

AYERS ROCK RANGER SERVICE

(Question No. 739)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Have the services of Mr Bob Gregory, ranger at Ayers Rock, been terminated?
  2. Did this action emanate from complaints by certain tourist bus companies which resented the dedication of Ranger Gregory in ensuring that visitors did not indulge inlitterbug or other antisocial activities?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

Mr Gregory is employed by the Northern Territory Reserves Board which has the responsibility for the employment of its staff. From the inquiries I have made of the Board I understand that Mr Gregory’s services as Ranger (Curator) were terminated as a result of the submission of his resignation on 24th August 1968.I am informed that there is no truth in the suggestion that the termination was brought about by complaints by the tourist bus companies. I am also informed that subsequent to Mr Gregory’s resignation as Ranger (Curator), he sought and was accepted for the position of Assistant Curator with the Board, and in this capacity has remained at Ayers Rock.

page 2415

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 749)

Senator YOUNG:

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

Has the Minister any further information on the question previously asked by Senator Young regarding the report that the ‘K’ Line, which will be operating with the Australian National Line on the Northbound Conference between Australia and Japan, was finding difficulty in obtaining a licence to build a roll-on roll-off vessel in Japan?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

I have no additional information to that which I previously gave to Senator Young, namely that an order for the building of the ‘K’ Line’s matching vehicle deck ship may not be placed before April of next year. This will not, however, result in any delay to the introduction of the Australian National Line vessel into the Japan-Australia trade.

page 2415

QUESTION

BIRD SMUGGLING

(Question No. 753)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen an article in the Sydney ‘Bulletin’ of 21st September, wherein reference is made to the Netherlands being the centre of international bird smuggling? If so, did the Minister observe in the article that his Department is seeking to equip its officers with stethoscopes to detect cases of bird smuggling?
  2. What diplomatic approaches have been made to the Netherlands Government with a view to intensifying measures to smash this bird smuggling racket?
  3. Have appropriate officers of the Minister’s

Department yet received their stethoscopes?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

-I now have the following information for the honourable senator:

  1. Yes.
  2. No diplomatic approaches have been made to the Netherlands Government but my Department maintains close liaison with Dutch and other Customs authorities.
  3. Two stethoscopes have been purchased for evaluation purposes. Should they prove successful a general issue will be made.

page 2416

QUESTION

BOMBING INCIDENT

(Question No. 759)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Does any evidence exist to suggest that the bombing of a station wagon, owned by Mr Leko Pepdjonovic, a South Melbourne nightclub owner, stemmed from Ustashi element activities in Victoria?
  2. Are Commonwealth Police collaborating with the Victorian Police to determine this aspect of the incident?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answers:

  1. I am not aware of the existence of evidence of that nature at present.
  2. The Commonwealth Police Force and the Victorian Police are collaborating in the investigation of the incident.

page 2416

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 765)

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

In view of the inability of the numerous groups representingthe wool industry to agree on any method of marketing the Australian wool clip, and taking into account the present economic plight of this industry, will the Minister give consideration to extending the powers of the Australian Wool Board so that something positive can be done in the interests of genuine wool growers?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply:

The Australian Wool Industry Conference has under consideration a scheme for the modification of the present woo] marketing arrangements based on proposals made by the Australian Wool Board. The Conference is due to meet at the end of this month to further consider the proposals. In the circumstances, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the wool industry is unable to reach agreement on the question of woo? marketing.

The suggestion made by the honourable senator that the powers of the Australian Wool Board be extended in the field of wool marketing appears to envisage action by the Government without the prior consent of the industry. Such an approach would be contrary to the policy of the Government in respect of wool marketing.

page 2416

QUESTION

STEEL WAGONS

(Question No. 767)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What was the landed price of 120 steel wagons built by a Japanese firm to be used by Hammersley Iron Pty Ltd?
  2. Is it a fact that the tender submitted by Commonwealth Engineering, Rocklea, Brisbane, for such 120 steel wagons, is lower than the landed cost of the wagons supplied by the Japanese firm?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am now able to supply the following information:

  1. As the wagons have not been imported it is not possible to furnish the landed price.
  2. I am not aware of details of tenders submitted and therefore am unable to make any comparisons.

page 2416

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 768)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. In what year were concessional tax allowances for people in remote areas of Queensland introduced?
  2. What were the financial values of such concessional tax allowances when introduced?
  3. What are the financial values of such concessional tax allowances currently applying?
  4. Is there any prospect of these allowances being reviewed, with special emphasis on the restoration of the relativity which existed when they were first introduced?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer:

  1. The zone allowances were introduced in 1945 and first applied to the income year ended 30th June 1946.
  2. The amount of the concession at that time was a deduction from income of $80 for residents of Zone A and $40 for residents of Zone B.
  3. Currently, the amount of the deduction for residents of Zone A is $540 plus one-half of the total deductions allowable for the maintenance of dependants and for a housekeeper. For residents of Zone B it is $90 plus one-twelfth of the total deductions allowable for the maintenance of dependants and for a housekeeper.
  4. The zone allowances have been noted for review, along with other requests for taxation concessions, at the time of preparation of the next Budget. The point raised will be taken into consideration at that time.

page 2417

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 772)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

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

Further to the answer to my recent question regarding the numbers of Royal Australian Navy personnel in Queensland, in which it was revealed that there is only one person, a lone petty officer at Townsville, stationed on the 1,500 miles of coastline from Brisbane to Cape York, can the Minister advise whether any provision has been made in the past, or will be made in the future, for the relief of this petty officer when he desires to take his annual holidays, or is the eastern coast of Queensland, from Brisbane to Cape York, left unguarded for 3 weeks every year when this petty officer takes bis annual holidays?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

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

The petty officer located at Townsville is stationed there for naval recruiting duties in the North Queensland area. When absent on leave those duties which cannot await his return are undertaken by his Army and Royal Australian Air Force colleagues. The Navy is continually engaged in considerable operational activity along the Queensland coastline and an indication of the extent of this can be gauged from the fact that during the last 12 months a total of sixty-two visits by naval ships have been made to Queensland ports of Brisbane, Cairns, Gladstone, Hervey Bay, Mackay, Thursday Island and Townsville.

In addition three RAN minesweepers have been engaged on Barrier Reef survey tasks, and a survey vessel, HMAS ‘Paluma’, based in Cairns has been engaged on tasks in the Cape York area.

page 2417

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 803)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does Article 13 of the Income Tax International Agreement entered into between Australia and the United Kingdom provide that income derived by public entertainers, such as theatre, motion picture, radio or television artists, and musicians, and by athletes, from their personal activities shall be deemed to have a source in and may be taxed in the territory in which these activities are exercised?
  2. Does Article IX of the Income Tax International Agreement entered into between Australia and the United States provide that an entertainer who is a United States resident is exempt from Australian tax on his earnings if he is in Australia for less than 184 days in the income year and the services he performs are performed for a United States resident, the same provision applying to an Australian entertainer in the United States?
  3. When these two agreements come up for review in the future, will the Government undertake to attempt to overcome this anomaly?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. This difference between the two agreements will be borne in mind in any review undertaken.

page 2417

QUESTION

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 18th September, Senator McClelland asked whether the Minister for Education and Science would request the Government to review further the recommendations of the Weeden Committee for the establishment of educational television stations. InJuly 1966 a meeting was held between Commonwealth Ministers (the present Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General) and Ministers for Education in the States and Commonwealth and StateDepartmental officers to discuss this subject. As recently as 10th September the Postmaster-General wrote to State Ministers for Education seeking their views on developments. The Minister for Education and Science and the PostmasterGeneral are keeping in touch on this question but until we hear the views of the States, the Commonwealth is not in a position to review the ways in which it might assist State education by the use of television.

page 2417

DEFENCE FINANCIAL REGULATIONS

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

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

One hundred and third report - Defence Financial Regulations.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Senator FITZGERALD:

– In 1960 your Committee examined the causes of delays that had arisen in the processing of financial regulations. Arising from that inquiry, your Committee recommended in its fiftiethreport that early action should be taken to ensure that departments would cease making payments prior to the necessary amendment of enabling regulations, would observe legislative requirements promptly and would keep their Ministers fully informed in regard to these matters. Your Committee also recommended that the Public Service Board and other authorities involved should ensure that adequate administrative machinery is available to permit the expeditious drafting of regulations and that immediate attention should be given to the staffing problems in the drafting division of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. As a period of some 7 years had elapsed since that inquiry, your Committee felt that it should examine again the position in relation to the Defence Department’s financial regulations.

Our inquiry revealed that as at 18th March last there were sixty-nine proposed amendments to the regulations concerned, of which twenty-eight had been outstanding for 2 years or longer and a further nineteen had been outstanding for more than 1 year. Inquiries made during the last fewdays, however, indicated that no less than fortyfive of these proposed amendments have been tabled in the Parliament subsequent to our inquiry while a further eight have been withdrawn or are under consideration for withdrawal. The evidence showed that a wide range of factors has impeded the processing of regulations. To overcome these impediments your Committee considers that Departments should ensure that amendments that they propose to make to regulations are consistent with existing statutes and in accordance with Government policy. We also believe that they should make strenuous efforts to improve the quality of the instructions put forward for drafting and that they should ensure that they have obtained appropriate ministerial approval before issuing drafting instructions to the Parliamentary Draftsman. Your Committee believes that these objectives would be promoted if departments were to consult with the Parliamentary Draftsman at the earliest opportunity in the development of proposed amendments to regulations. Your Committee also considers that departments should keep proposed changes to regulations under close and efficient surveillance.

The evidence also showed that the Attorney-General’s Department has continued to experience problems in relation to the staffing of its drafting division notwithstanding reorganisations and salary reclassifications that have occurred in recent years. On the basis of both the public and confidential evidence that was tendered, we consider that the Department should present to undergraduates in the universities, an indication of the opportunities available to them in legal drafting with a clear appreciation of the challenging and the imaginative nature of the work involved. We also consider that a more formalised method of training for parliamentary draftsmen subsequent to their recruitment should be explored and that the Department should persist with experiments that it has conducted recently of transferring officers to the drafting division from other divisions.

Further, your Committee believes that until such time as the staffing problems within the drafting divisions have been resolved, the placing of selected drafting work with well qualified and carefully chosen counsel should be continued. Finally, we consider that the principle inherent in the use of financial regulations should be preserved. I commend the report to honourable senators. I move:

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I regard the report that has been presented, but which none of us has seen, as of fundamental importance to the working of Parliament and to the working of the Government. I would like to commend the Committee for what is obviously a very detailed report on a matter of great importance which I have stressed from time to time in the Senate. I accordingly consider that there should be a debate on this report and I therefore ask for leave to continue my remarks after I have had an opportunity to study a report.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2418

PARIS PEACE TALKS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I present the following papers:

Paris Peace Talks -

Statement by the Government of the United States of America;

Statement by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate these two documents in Hansard.

STATEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

This statement is designed to answer the questions which have been raised by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam about new meetings in Paris.

  1. Prior to the President’s announcement of October 31 of the stopping of bombing against North Vietnam, agreement had been reached in Paris between North Vietnamese and United States negotiators that a meeting to discuss a peaceful settlement in Vietnam should be convened in Paris.
  2. During the earlier discussions with the North Vietnamese representatives, United States spokesmen made clear that the stopping of bombing and the holding of such a meeting would not be possible without agreed provision for the participation of the Republic of Vietnam as a separate delegation forming with the United States delegation one side of the meeting. United States negotiators made clear to Hanoi that it might bring on its side of the table any persons it wished.
  3. The North Vietnamese representatives in Paris accepted this proposal and indicated that they would bring to the meeting members of the so-called National Liberation Front.
  4. In the light of these facts the arrangements agreed in Paris provide in essence for a twosided meeting. Hanoi clearly understands that our side will be constituted as separate delegations of the Republic of Vietnam and the United States.
  5. Whatever others may claim and however they may organise their side, the United States has not agreed and will not agree that the meeting is, or can correctly be described as, a four-sided or four-party conference.
  6. Consistent with our view of the nature of the so-called National Liberation Front, we will regard and treat all the persons on the other side of the table - whatever they might claim for themselves - as members of a single side, that of Hanoi and for practical purposes as a single delegation.
  7. In the discussions between the United States and North Vietnamese negotiators it was made clear throughout that, whomever Hanoi chose to bring on its side, the arrangement involved no element of recognition whatever. The United States Government has repeatedly made clear, publicly and privately, that it does not recognise either the National Liberation Front or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam). Concerning the so-called National Liberation Front in particular, the United States Government has at all times regarded it as a creation of North Vietnam and an agent of Hanoi’s aggression against the Republic of Vietnam. The National Liberation Front is not in any sense a separate entity, much less a government.
  8. Following the stopping of the bombing of North Vietnam, if Hanoi fulfills its repeated undertakings to enter into serious talks - undertakings repeated throughout the contacts between North Vietnamese and American representatives in Paris - the North Vietnamese delegation must talk directly and seriously with the Republic of Vietnam’s delegation.
  9. In the Paris meetings, the Republic of Vietnam delegation will play a leading role, as was explicitly affirmed in the Honolulu communique of July. The Republic of Vietnam will take the lead and be the main spokesman on all matters which are of principal concern to South Vietnam.
  10. The new Paris meetings will be expected to explore all avenues to end Communist aggression against the Republic of Vietnam and to reach a peaceful settlement. They will start with n clean slate. The sole agreements mat have been reached in the earlier Paris talks between North Vietnamese and United States representatives have concerned the stopping of bombing and the convening of a new meeting. The United States considers that there cannot be productive talks in an atmosphere where the cities arc being shelled and the DMZ is being abused.
  11. In the new meetings the United States Government will operate in the closest co-operation with the Republic of Vietnam, and in continuing consultation with the nations that have contributed military forces to the defence of South Vietnam.
  12. The substantive position of the United States Government will be based on ‘ respect for the sovereignly of the Republic of Vietnam, and on the joint communiques of Manila and Honolulu. In particular, there has been no change whatever, and will be no change, in the position of the United Slates Government toward a so-called coalition in South Vietnam. The United States does not believe aggression should be rewarded and will not recognise any form of government that is not freely chosen through democratic and legal process by the people of South Vietnam. The imposition of any coalition government would be in conflict with this principle.

STATEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM

In its constant search far peace, the Government of the Republic of Vietnam has been discussing with the United States Government during the past weeks the ground rules and arrangements for the new meetings in Paris which would enable the Government of the Republic of Vietnam to send its delegation to Paris to engage in direct and serious talks with the Hanoi delegation, toward the ending of communist aggression and the establishment of a just, secure, and guaranteed peace in Vietnam.

  1. As a result of these discussions the United States Government has submitted to the Government of the Republic of Vietnam a statement. By mutual agreement, that statement is being made public in both Saigon and Washington at this time.
  2. In that statement, we find that the major points in the message of the President of the Republic before the Joint Session of the National Assembly on November 2nd, and the two-side formula proposed by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam on November 8th, have been given satisfaction in their essential aspects.
  3. The sovereignty of the Republic of Vietnam has been respected.
  4. The Governments of the other allied nations have been consulted and wholeheartedly support the agreements achieved through the close cooperation between the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.
  5. Once again, the solidarity between the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and allied governments has been eloquently demonstrated in the face of the intransigent attitude of North Vietnam and its auxiliary forces.
  6. Therefore, the Government of the Republic of Vietnam decides that it is prepared to participate in the new talks in Paris with the Hanoi delegation to show the good will of the Republic of Vietnam and to test the good faith of Hanoi.
Senator ANDERSON:

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Senator ANDERSON:

– Honourable senators wilt be aware that the statements relatingto the meetings in Paris were issued in Saigon and Washington this morning. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has now made the following statement:

I welcome the fact that as a result of discussions between the United States and the Republic of Vietnam, the way is now open for talks to proceed in Paris.

AsI informed the House on5th November, Australia had already advised the South Vietnam Government that we felt their interests would be best served by their representatives attending the talks in Paris. 1 am therefore glad that as the outcome of talks between the United States and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam an understanding has been reached that clears the way for the Governmentof the Republic of Vietnam to take part.

The Australian Government has always regarded it as essential that the position of the Republic of Vietnam should be safeguarded both in the conduct of hostilities and in any moves to bring those hostilities to an end.

page 2420

AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES COUNCIL

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard a statement made in the House of Representatives today by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony). It reads:

Honourable members will be aware that for a number of years State and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for fisheries have met from time to time to discuss common problems and other matters of mutual interest. The Government has recently accepted a recommendation from one of these meetings that, recognising the successful contribution to CommonwealthState collaboration provided by the Agricultural Council and in line with what has been done more recently to establish the Forestry Council, the Water Resources Council and the Minerals Council, an Australian Fisheries Council be established. All State Governments have now endorsed the proposal, and the Council is now formally established.

The membership of the council will comprise the six State Ministers responsible for fisheries and the Commonwealth Ministers for Primary Industry, External Territories, Education and Science and Interior. The Chairman of the Council will be the Minister for Primary Industry. In reaching this decision the Governments had regard to the present developments in the fishing industry and the need for a broad approach by Governments to the problem involved. Accordingly, the Council, which will be an advisory body, has been given broad terms of reference designed generally to promote the welfare of the Australian fishing industry.

In accordance with established practice, a Standing Committee of the Council has been created. The Standing Committee on Fisheries will comprise the chief fisheries officers in each State, a representative from each of the Commonwealth Departments and Primary Industry, Interior, External Territories and Treasury and a representative of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industial Research Organisation. The functions of the Standing Committee will be to advise the Council on matters put before it. It is intended that the Council shall meet at least annually, the venue rotating between the States and Territories. The first meeting of the Council will be held inDarwin about the middle of 1969.

page 2420

AGREEMENT ON FISHERIES

Ministerial Statement

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation - by leave - With the concurrence of honourable senators 1 incorporate in Hansard a statement made in the House of Representatives today by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony · New South Wales · CP

. It reads:

Honourable members will be aware that the Government when introducing the Fisheries Bill 1967, indicated that it would examine the position of nationals of other countries who have been fishing in what is now the 12 miles declared fishing zone and that it would consider whether, as a matter of international comity, a short phasing out period might be allowed in any appropriate case. On 18th September 1968, my colleague the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck) informed the House that discussions had taken place between delegations of Australian and Japanese officials with a view to reaching agreement with respect to Japanese tuna long-line fishing in waters of Australia and certain of the Territories including Papua and New Guinea. He undertook that the Government would give early consideration to the report of the delegations.

The Governments of both countries considered the draft Agreement contained in the report of the delegations and agreed that it should be signed and submitted to the two Parliaments for ratification. Signature took place in Canberra at 10 o’clock today. The Australian Government considers that the Agreement will be of benefit to Australia. It provides that at the end of the period specified in the Agreement, Japanese fishing operations in the declared fishing zone will cease for all time. In addition, the Agreement further contributes to the friendly relationship enjoyed by the two countries, which have come to the conference table and amicably settled their problems.

Turning to the agreement itself, honourable members will doubtless be interested in a brief review of its provisions. All Japanese fishing apart from approved joint ventures with Australian partners and tuna long-line fishing, will cease in the declared fishing zone. Tuna long-line fishing by Japanese vessels will be permitted to continue at present levels in the declared fishing zone for 7 years on the east coasts of Tasmania and the mainland as far north as Sydney; off Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island; outside the Barrier Reef and off islands in the Coral Sea; off a small stretch of the northwest coast and off Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island.

With regard to Papua and New Guinea, the phase out period has been limited to 3 years after the signing of the agreement. During that period Japanese tuna long-line vessels may engage in fishing within the 3-12 mile zone off the coast of Papua and New Guinea, with the exception that in the area off the south coast of Papua west of 145° east longitude there will be no Japanese fishing and in the area between 145° east longitude and 151° east longitude Japanese fishing will only be allowed up to 6 miles from the coastline. In order to protect traditional native fishing grounds tuna long-line fishing will not take place on and around reefs in certain waters off the south coast of Papua.

Japan will be responsible for ensuring that its fishermen observe the provisions of the Agreement but Australia has the right to inspect any Japanese fishing vessel within the declared fishing zone. Japanese boats will be licensed under the Fisheries Act. They will be permitted to enter Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart and Fremantle for supplies during the period of continued fishing operations and this concession will be reexamined before the end of that period.

The Government is pleased that a compromise has been reached with Japan on this matter, which is one on which Japan as the world’s most advanced fishing nation has strong views. The reaching of this compromise has avoided the possibility of adverse effects on the increasingly close relationships between the two countries. In addition, it is in accord with this Government’s policy of reserving the fishery resources of the declared fishing zone for the exclusive use of Australian fishermen, which will be achieved immediately in most areas and within 7 years in the areas I have already mentioned. The Agreement also brings Japanese operations voluntarily within the provisions of the Fisheries Act throughout the declared fishing zone.

So far as the provisions of the Agreement in relation to Papua and New Guinea are concerned, the Government of Japan will make every effort to see that joint ventures are established in Papua and New Guinea. Such ventures should make a significant contribution to the development of a fishing industry in the Territory and thus to its overall economic development. They would also provide substantia! employment and technical training opportunities for Papuans and New Guineans.

There is one other matter connected with the Agreement which is the concern of this House. On the advice of the Executive Council, His Excellency the GovernorGeneral has made regulations under the Fisheries Act prescribing a rate of licence fee in respect of foreign tuna long-line boats. These regulations which will be gazetted tomorrow will- be tabled in both Houses immediately the Parliament reassembles. The Government has had regard to all the pertinent factors, when agreeing to submit these amending regulations for approval and is fully aware that the Japanese Government will be unable to ratify the Agreement if the regulation should be disallowed. The benefits for Australia of both countries ratifying the Agreement are considerable and the Government therefore commends the Agreement and the amending regulation to the House.

page 2422

PATENTS BILL

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales Minister for Supply · LP

– by leave - The Government has decided not to proceed in this Session with the Patents Bill in this House. The Bill includes provision for a system of examination on request or deferred examination designed to enable the Patents Office to cope with mounting arrears. The Institute of Patent Attorneys, which while it has not been happy with this aspect of the Bill, had at an earlier stage informed the Government that it accepted the necessity for the introduction of examination on request, yesterday made strong representations for further consideration of this aspect. The Opposition which supported the Bill including this aspect of it in the House of Representatives, yesterday decided to alter its attitude and to oppose it in this House. Certain senators on this side of the House have also indicated uneasiness with this aspect of the Bill. In the circumstances the Government is prepared to give further consideration to this matter and accordingly will defer this Bill until the autumn session.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– by leave - The Opposition is pleased that the Government has seen fit to stand this matter over until the autumn session.

Senator Anderson:

– My note on this says that we will defer this Bill, and I should stick strictly to my brief.

Senator COHEN:

– 1 understood thai it was not lo come on today, tomorrow or in the early hours of Friday morning.

Senator Anderson:

– Not at these sittings.

Senator COHEN:

– It is deferred and will not come on during this session?

Senator Anderson:

– That is right.

Senator COHEN:

– I am not sure, as 1 followed the Minister’s remarks, that I agreed with everything he said about what the Opposition’s attitude was, nor do I think - I say with respect - that he accurately set out some of the history of the matter. In fact, as I understand the position, the Institute of Patent Attorneys made representations of its current position to the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) on 18th September last, and the Minister allowed the debate in another place to conclude with his own winding up of the second reading debate on 14th November without adverting to these proposals. Nevertheless, the position now is that the Institute of Patent Attorneys is convinced that there is an acceptable and alternative set of proposals - which have emerged since 14th August when the substantial second reading debate took place - which would make the scheme workable without damaging the essential elements of the Bill, many of which, of course, are to be welcomed. The Opposition is not finally judging the Institute’s proposals. I want to say only that had the matter proceeded we would have sought adjournment of the consideration of the Bill to beyond this sessional period and we would have asked the. Attorney-General to appoint a committee to inquire into the proposals which have been referred to by the Minister in his statement. There not being a formal debate upon which we can formally put that position, on behalf of the Opposition I ask the Minister to request the Attorney-General to appoint such a committee to inquire into and report upon these alternative proposals submitted by the Institute of Patent Attorneys in September of this year and repeated publicly in a statement made yesterday.

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave - I shall certainly convey the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s remarks to the AttorneyGeneral. I really thought that he was rising to thank the Attorney for being right on the wavelength.

page 2423

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WATER POLLUTION

Debate resumed from 26 November (vide page 2352), on motion by Senator Davidson:

Thai lnc date for presenting the report of the Senate Select Committee On Water Pollution be extended to 31st December 1969.

Senator DAVIDSON (South Australia) [3.38J - L seek leave to move a motion to amend my motion of yesterday.

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

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I move:

Motion bc amended as follows: Omit ’31st December 1969’ insert ‘3)st October 1969’.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Senate will recall that I raised some query when the first proposal was made in relation to the Select Committee on Air Pollution as to why it was necessary for the Committee to seek an extension of time until September of next year. Some indication was given then that there was a great deal of work still to be done. As we all know, this was followed by a request from the Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs for a similar extension. I think we all knew that that Committee was engaged in a mammoth task. Now we have a proposal from the Select Committee on Water Pollution for an extension of time until 31st October 1969. The Chairman of the Committee has outlined, not to the Senate but certainly to the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) and to me, a definite programme which has been planned and which would require until October of next year for its implementation in a way which would enable the subject matter to be handled efficiently and in the manner that we would expect from the Chairman and members of the Committee. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, 1 agree to this proposition.

I should like to say that there was common sense in what was stated by Senator Cormack yesterday. The Committee has almost 12 months in which to report and I am sure that honourable senators would feel that that is a long time. I do not know that what I suggest would require a formal motion, but I should think that each of the Senate Select Committees should come to the Senate, perhaps every 3 months, and let the Senate know what is happening. I am not suggesting that there should be an interim report indicating the nature of their recommendations, but at least they should tell the Senate, in effect, how often they have met and what has been the situation with regard to witnesses. Perhaps they could let us have their minutes to that date so that the Senate would be exercising a substantial sort of supervision. I believe that point was referred to by Senator Cormack. In this way the Senate would know what was going on.

The matters considered by the Committees are not matters only for members of the Committees, lt is a serious thing if a Committee spends a long time on its inquiry because, as we know, the fact that some Committees are operating tends to prejudicially affect the setting up by the Senate of other Committees. On the occasion of the proposal for a Committee to investigate the establishment of a national disaster organisation it was said that whilst the majority of the Senate was in favour of the proposition a Committee could not be set up because the manpower was already in use, that there were not enough resources to enable us to appoint other Committees. So we are quite concerned about Committees continuing beyond their appointed time. I hope that without any formal motion from me my suggestion that they should from time to time tell us what is happening will commend itself to the Senate and to members of the Committees. Bearing that in mind, I support the motion.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I take strong exception to some of the remarks made by Senator Murphy. The Senate Select Committees which have been appointed are composed of members from both sides of the House. I am a member of one of the Committees. If the honourable senators appointed to the Committees are not to be trusted to do their jobs the Senate should not have appointed them in the first place. I believe also that it is contrary to the Standing Orders of the Senate for members of Committees to disclose any of the information gathered or any parts of their report before the Committee is ready to present the whole report. I can assure Senator Murphy that the Committee of which I am a member has not wasted any time. We have found that the ramifications of the subject which we are investigating are much greater than were expected by members of the Senate when the Committee was appointed. The inquiry has required an enormous amount of time here in Canberra and travelling throughout the States. We will need much more time to complete our inquiry.

The Committees have been appointed with honourable senators from both sides of the chamber and they have now been granted an extension of time in which to present their reports. The Acting Chairman of the Committee on which I serve has already given an undertaking that we will present a report as soon as possible and considerably before the deadline, if we possibly can. That assurance should be accepted. I do not think we should be expected to make interim reports which, in any case, are contrary to the Standing Orders.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I should like to make a few brief points about the Senate Select Committees. I think they would be assisted greatly if they were given more secretarial assistance. I used to shudder at the surprising amount of work that was done by the secretary of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution between the hours of 5 p.m. and 11 p.m., a time when he should have been in bed. I believe that the secretary of the Air Pollution Committee, on which I served, needs additional assistance. I believe also that in the interests of the Senate and for the efficiency of the Committee there should be a bigger membership. I am not now a member of the Committee - for personal reasons I had to retire from it - but very often we found it difficult to establish a quorum. With a Committee of only 5 or 6 members a quorum cannot be maintained if more than one member is absent. All sorts of things can happen to disrupt the whole Committee. I propose to make two suggestions. Firstly, there should be an increase in the secretarial assistance provided to committees. The secretaries are working very hard and doing all sorts of things that they should not be doing, quite apart from writing the minutes.

Senator Gair:

– If they should not be doing these things, they should not be doing them.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Having to look after the honourable senator would be one of their duties.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I suggest that the honourable senator link his remarks with the motion that the Committee be given an extension of time until October.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I am supporting the motion, but I am asking that for the remainder of the life of the Committee it be given additional secretarial assistance. I suggest also that something be done to increase the number of members on the Committees so that they will not have so much difficulty in maintaining a quorum. I ask that my suggestions be considered by the Senate.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– As Chairman pf the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, the only Committee with no time set for presenting its report, I feel that I should assure the Senate that it is hoped that in the lifetime of members of the Committee we will be able to present our report. In reply to the small homily from Senator Murphy, although I agree with his general conclusion I believe that his own processes would have been aided if he had served on a Senate Committee.

Senator Murphy:

– I have:

Senator COTTON:

– I am not being critical. There is a lot of work involved in this Committee process. I suggest to the Senate that I would be very happy on behalf of the Off-shore Petroleum Resources Committee to tender to the Senate, perhaps early next year, a report of what we have tried to do. Perhaps at that time we could be given a date for the finalisation of our inquiry because, if I can ever finish the report, no-one will be more pleased than I.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2424

STATES GRANTS 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 the States Grants Act 1965-1967 to authorise the payment of §15,500,000 to Western Australia in each of the years 1968-69 and 1969-70. These payments, which will be in addition to the financial assistance grants determined under the formula contained in the States Grants Act. will replace the special grants which Western Australia has been receiving on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

At the Premiers Conference held in June last, the Premier of Western Australia indicated that the growth and development of Western Australia’s economy had now reached the point where he felt it would be appropriate for Western Australia to withdraw from the system of special grants. The terms on which Western Australia might become a non-claimant State were discussed and agreed upon at that conference. This Bill is therefore designed to implement the decisions reached at that conference.

It was agreed that Western Australia should cease to be a claimant State as from the end of June 1968 and that, in each of the next 2 years- 1968-69 and 1969-70- Western Australia should receive, by way of an addition to its financial assistance grants, an amount equivalent to the special grant which it received in 1967-68, namely SI 5,500,000. As the financial assistance grants formula is not due for review until 1970, it was agreed that these additional payments will not be incorporated in the formula and will not be subject to escalation over the next 2 years. It was decided, however, that for purposes of the review of the financial assistance grants arrangements, the sum of $15,500,000 paid in 1969-70 would be regarded as forming part of the State’s financial assistance grant for that year. I might add that the Premiers of all the other States concurred in these proposed arrangements. lt was also agreed with Western Australia that it would be appropriate if that State were to receive the final adjustment which the Grants Commission would be recommending in due course in respect of Western Australia’s special grant for 1966- 67. Payment of this final adjustment is provided for under the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1968 and is referred to in my speech on that Bill.

As honourable senators are aware, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has endeavoured over the years to help the claimant States to overcome their special difficulties and has recommended special grants which are designed to enable the claimant States to provide services comparable with those in the standard States provided they make similar efforts in raising their own revenues and in controlling their expenditures. Under this special grants system, first South Australia and now Western Australia have progressed to the stage where they have felt able to move to the position of being non-claimant States. The Government commends the Giants Commission for the valuable work it has done over the years in developing the principles and methods which have contributed so much to the progress of the less wealthy States and of the federation as a whole. I feel sure too that honourable senators would wish to join me in congratulating Western Australia on achieving its new position as a non-claimant State and in wishing the State every success in the future. T commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition, of course, does not oppose this Bill. Its purpose has been outlined clearly by the Minister. As has been pointed out, Western Australia has followed fairly hard on the heels of South Australia in moving from being a claimant State to being a non-claimant State. This has come about at probably a very fortuitous time in the history of Western Australia because of the tremendous mineral discoveries which have been made there and the developments which are following hard on those discoveries. One has to stop and remind oneself, even though he is a Western Australian, of the tremendous developments in the State, with very large towns being built where clay pans existed previously. They are starting from the very grass roots. That is development in anyone’s language. We in Western Australia accept the Government’s congratulations and its wishes that our State will enjoy every success in the future.

We support the Bill. We are confident that Western Australia never again will be a claimant State. We only hope that Tasmania, the last remaining claimant State, soon will follow in the footsteps ofits brother and sister States.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2426

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) 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 main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment in 1968-69 of a special grant of $16,810,000 to Tasmania and of a final adjusting payment of $582,000 to Western Australia in respect of its special grant for 1966-67. The payment of these amounts has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its thirty-fifth report, which has already been tabled.

In my speech introducing the States Grants Bill 1968 1 have outlined the arrangements for the withdrawal of Western Australia from claimancy. They include the payment of $15,500,000 to the State in 1968-69 and 1969-70 in lieu of special grants. The arrangements also provide for the State to receive in 1968-69 the final adjusting payment to its special grant for 1966-67 and this Bill authorises that payment. It was also part of the understanding reached with Western Australia that there would be no adjustment to the advance payment of $15,500,000 paid in 1967-68. In the normal course of events such an adjustment would have been made in 1969-70 and, if the Commission had adhered to normal procedures, the adjustment would have been a negative amount of $244,000.

I turn now to discuss the special grant that has been recommended for payment to Tasmania in 1968-69. The amount of $16,810,000 is made up of a negative adjustment of $1,190,000 to the grant for 1966- 67 and an advance payment of $18,000,000 for 1968-69. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate in Hansard a table which compares these amounts with those paid in 1966-67 and

1967- 68.

The negative adjustment in respect of 1966- 67 means that the advance payment of $19,500,000 made in that year has proved, after detailed examination and calculation by the Commission, to be an over-estimate of the State’s needs for that year. Mainly because of this the Commission has recommended as an advance payment for 1968-69 an amount which is considerably less than the corresponding advance grants paid in 1966-67 and in 1967- 68. The advance grant for 1968-69, which is based on a tentative estimate of the State’s needs for the year, will of course be subject to adjustment in 1970-71. In accordance with usual practice, the Bill also authorises the payment of advances to Tasmania in the early months of 1969-70 pending the receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and the enactment of new legislation.

The recommendations of the Grants Commission are based on a comparison between the budgetary positions of the claimant States and of the States taken by the Commission as ‘standard’. From 1959- 60 the Commission has taken New South Wales and Victoria as the standard States for this purpose. However, in its 1967 report the Commission announced its intention of adopting a standard derived from the experience of the then fournon-claimant States. In its latest report the Commission has reaffirmed its intention to use a standard which takes into account the experience of all the non-claimant States. However, the Commission has also announced that - contrary to its earlier decision to adopt the new standard as from 1 968-69 - it does not propose to introduce this change until 1970-71. The Commission has given two main reasons for this postponement. First, as the effect of the change on the size of the grants would be not insignificant, this postponement would give Tasmania more time to adjust its budget policies and to spread the burden of such an adjustment over a period of years. Secondly, as the financial assistance grants arrangements are due to be reviewed in 1970, the Commission points out in paragraph 95 of its report that such a review could lead to changes in the arrangements which would have a bearing on the standard to be used by the Commission. The Government believes that these views are fair and reasonable. No other major changes in principle or method are announced in the Commission’s report for this year. The recommendations of the Grants Commission have been adopted by Parliament in each year since the Commission’s inception and the government considers that they should again be accepted on this occasion. Accordingly, 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 2427

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL (No. 3) 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.

On 29 May 1968 when presenting the report of the Commonwealth Actuary on the third quinquennial investigation of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund I informed the Senate of the decisions the Government had taken in the light of that report and a minute addressed to the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board. This Bill gives effect to those decisions. As well, it makes provision for members of the forces under 18 to contribute to the Fund and provides for increases in certain existing invalidity pensions. The Bill also includes some machinery amendments of a minor nature.

As honourable members are aware, the Actuary’s investigation covered the 5-year period from 1 July to 30th June 1964 and was the first fullscale actuarial review of the Fund since the revision of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme following the Allison Committee report of 1959. The Actuary’s valuation as at 30th June 1964 showed that the Fund had a surplus of $4,465,770 in respect of members who became liable to contribute to the Fund before 4th December 1959 and a deficiency of $3,260,000 in respect of those who became liable to contribute on or after that date.

The distinction drawn by the Actuary between the two classes of member, to whom I will refer as pre-1959 and post-1959 entrants, recognised the different bases on which the two groups contribute. Pre-1959 entrants contribute on much the same basis as Superannuation Fund contributors - that is they purchase units of benefit commensurate to their age and rate of pay. Post- 1959 entrants contribute a percentage of pay which applies to each member during service regardless of changes in pay. At present the percentage is normally 5% but it increases to 12% for higher ages of officer entry. The Bill provides for the surplus amount of $4,465,770 in respect of pre-1959 entrants to be distributed amongst eligible contributors and pensioners.

The provisions of the Bill in general are modelled on provisions in Act No. 97 of 1965 pertaining to the distribution of the surplus in the Superannuation Fund. The amount available for distribution will be allocated by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board amongst eligible pensioners and contributors in such manner as is determined by the Treasurer, after receiving advice from the Commonwealth Actuary. The simplest possible basis of allocation is being devised commensurate with each person concerned receiving a fair and reasonable share of the amount to be distributed. Even so it will be some lime before payments can be made; there are many thousands of contributors’ records to be consulted and many thousands of calculations to be made.

In my statement of 29th May I informed the Senate of the measures proposed by the Government to restore the solvency of the Fund in respect of post-1959 entrants and the Bill makes provision accordingly. On and from the first pay day after the date of operation of the legislation the contributions of those post-1959 entrants who entered the Fund at age 20 or above will increase by i%. Such a member now contributing 5% of pay will in future contribute 5i% while a member now contributing say 8% will in future contribute 8i%. In the case of a Private Group 1 who entered at age 20 the increase in terms of the new pay scales will be from $4.38 to $4.81 pex fortnight. The contributions of post-1959 entrants who entered the Fund at age 18 or 19 will also increase but not to the same extent. The Bill provides for them to receive the benefit of the new lower rates that are to apply in future to those members who enter the Fund before age 20. The age 18 entrant now paying 5% will contribute at a 5.2% rate while the age 19 contribution rate will increase from 5% to 5.35%. 1 shall deal with the new provisions regarding younger members in more detail later.

The Bill also provides for an increase in the Commonwealth’s contribution to the pension benefits payable in respect of post- 1959 entrants. On and from the first pension pay day after the date of operation the Commonwealth’s contribution to pension benefits will increase from 77±% to 80% thus reducing the proportion of benefit to be met from members’ contributions to 20% . Having regard to the levels of pension benefits payable this makes the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund scheme a generous scheme by any standard. In respect of pensions payable to or in respect of pre-1959 entrants the Commonwealth at present meets 85% of entitlements taken up before 14 December 1959 and 771% of entitlements taken up on or after that date. Consistent with the action being taken in respect of post-1959 entrant pensions, provision is made for the Commonwealth also to meet 80% of pre-1959 entrant pensions in future. However, the new percentage will not be applied to pre-1959 entrant pensions payable to or in respect of persons who ceased to be members on or before 30th June 1964, the date on which the quinquennial period ended.

As I informed the Senate on 29th May, it is not the Government’s intention that the variations in the Commonwealth’s contribution to benefits payable should, of themselves, lead to future surpluses in the Fund which would be regarded as available for distribution. Accordingly, the Bill pro vides that the Actuary is to disregard any surplus to the extent that, in his opinion, it is attributable to the variations being made by this Bill to the Commonwealth’s contribution to pension benefits.

On 11th June 1968, when the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1968 was introduced, the Senate was informed of decisions the Government had taken in the matter of younger members of the forces after considering proposals submitted by the Government Members’ Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee. The Bill provides for the implementation of those decisions.

As was then explained to the Senate, membership of the DFRB Fund is at present confined to eligible persons aged 18 years or more. Members aged 18 and 19 years contribute at the same rate as an age 20 entrant but are covered only for death and invalidity pension, benefits until age 20 when service commences to count towards a retirement pension. Members under the age of 18, of which there are now over 3,000, have not been permitted to join the Fund even though many receive adult rates of pay. For such non-contributory members a small invalidity pension only is payable, even though the disability might be such as to impair seriously the member’s earning capacity for life.

The Bill removes the present minimum age limit of 18 years so that all younger members of the Forces who are able to meet the other qualifications for entry can contribute to the Fund. Because contributory service before age 20 does not count as service for ordinary pension purposes new lower rates of contributions will in future apply to those members who are under 20 when they enter the. Fund. The lower rates of contribution, which will apply throughout their Service careers, are on a sliding annual scale and range from 4i% of pay for an entrant at age 15 to 5i% of pay at age 20. These rates, which were calculated by the Commonwealth Actuary, take into account the increases provided for in post- 1959 contribution rates to which I have already referred.

Existing post-1959 contributors who entered the Fund at age 18 or 19 years also will benefit from the new rates which will apply to them during the remainder of their contributory service.

Because the invalidity pension entitlement of some younger members would be unduly low in the initial years of their service if it were to be determined by the member’s rate of pay and level of contributions to the Fund, provision is made in the Bill for a basic rate of invalidity pension. Under the provision the invalidity pension that will be paid to a member in receipt of less than the minimum rate of pay will be the pension that is payable to a private group 1, the minimum adult pay grouping applying to age 17 entrants. The main categories of personnel who will benefit from the provision are cadets, apprentices and junior recruits.

Contributors who are discharged on invalidity grounds without pension entitlement receive gratuity at rates which are higher than normal rates. At present, service prior to age 18 does not count for invalidity gratuity purposes even though such service does count for ordinary gratuity purposes. As members under the age of 18 years are now to become contributors to the Fund, it is appropriate, and the Bill so provides, that the existing restriction on the service that can be counted for invalidity gratuity purposes be removed. Non-contributory service as a member before age 18 of existing members serving at the time the new provision comes into operation will count for these purposes as well as contributory service by younger members after that date.

The extension of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act to all younger members of the forces on continuous full time service for 12 months or more will make unnecessary the provision for special non-contributory pensions ‘ for members retired on invalidity grounds before reaching 18. There are, however,. 10 persons at present with pension entitlement under this provision, 2 having entitlement to class A pension of $546 per annum and 8 to class B pension of $273 per annum. These rates of pension were set in 1959 and could not now be regarded as adequate for persons whose earning capacities are noticeably impaired. In addition to these noncontributory pensioners there is a small number of former contributors who, by reason of their having been discharged before they became entitled to adult rates of pay, are also in receipt of small invalidity pensions. In these cases also the earning capacities of the pensioners are noticeably impaired.

In the light of the provision for a basic invalidity pension rate the Government has decided that it would be appropriate to increase these small existing invalidity pensions and the Bill provides for this. In determining the increases that should be paid the principles followed in the 1967 DFRB pensions increases legislation have been adopted. Persons in receipt of small contributory invalidity pensions because they were at discharge on less than adult rates of pay will have their pensions increased by five-sevenths of the difference between their pension and the pension they would receive if they were to be discharged on the day the provision for a basic invalidity pension comes into operation and the provision were to apply to them. The pensions payable to non-contributory pensioners will increase to $1,105 per annum for class A and $552.50 per annum for class B, which amounts represent fivesevenths of the basic invalidity pension rates. The increases will be payable on and from the pay day following the date of operation of the legislation. The cost, which is estimated in a full year to be $5,300, will be met by the Commonwealth.

The year 1968 has, indeed, seen great progress in the DFRB scheme. Through this Bill, and the legislation introduced into the Senate earlier this year, DFRB Fund membership will have been extended to an additional 24,000 servicemen and women so that the great majority of defence force members will now have access to the first rate death, invalidity and retirement cover that the DFRB scheme provides. The reappraisal of the scheme continues. As I informed the Senate last May, the Government has put in hand a general review of the contribution basis of pre-1959 entrants with a view particularly to ascertaining whether it would be practicable to convert the basis to a percentage of pay as in the case of post-1959 contributors. The Government Members Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee continues to pursue the interests of Fund members zealously and has submitted a number of proposals that are in the process of examination. There are also other proposed changes that are being considered. The Government would hope to be in a position to introduce legislation in respect of some of these matters during the autumn session next year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– This Bill undoubtedly improves the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund legislation. As the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) has just explained, it increases special pensions being paid to people under the age of 21 years and, together with the legislation dealing with the Fund which was passed earlier this year, brings in another 24,000 people. This is very desirable.It enables members of the forces to contribute to the Fund from the age of 18 and also takes into account those who enlist before attaining 18 years. It is axiomatic that this is necessary if people are to be encouraged to enlist in Australia’s armed forces. I have always believed that, in spite of a lot of talk not enough encouragement has been given for people to enlist. The attitude of the armed forces, particularly towards young people, has in the past not been such as to encourage young people to enlist at the age of 17 years. I have always held the personal belief that if a scheme to encourage enlistment had been pursued with greater determination over the years there would have been no need compulsorily to enlist boys in the Australian armed forces.

The Opposition believes that many of the matters dealt with in this Bill should have been included in the legislation some years ago. There has been a great deal of general dissatisfaction by participants in the DFRB scheme over the years. This Bill certainly goes some of the way, at least, towards alleviating the dissatisfaction. Great dissatisfaction has been voiced, particularly in defence forces journals, over many years. I noted that the Minister said there was to be another review of the scheme. He said a general review was in hand with a view:

  1. . particularly to ascertaining whether it would be practicable to convert the basis to a percentage of pay as in the case of post-1959 contributors.

He had been dealing with pre-1959 contributors. I hope the review is not confined to this one point. I note that the increases will be payable on and from the date of operation of this legislation. Because of this and for the other reasons mentioned, the Opposition supports the Bill and will give it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I have a brief request to make to the Minister. This Bill deals with a surplus of some $4m which is to be payable to pre- 1959 entrants to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. When explaining this in his second reading speech the Minister said:

Even so it will be some time before payments can be made; there are many thousands of contributors’ records to be consulted and many thousands of calculations to be made.

The fact that many thousands of contributors’ records are to be examined prompts me to ask the Minister - I realise that he may not be able to give a definite answer now - whether he will request his colleague the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) to make as soon as possible a public statement for the benefit of contributors who will be beneficiaries under this Bill, including a clearer announcement as to the time of payments than the statement ‘it may be some time’. If the Minister will undertake to do that, I will be very grateful.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Referring to the point raised by Senator Marriott: The Minister will recall that when similar changes were made to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund a request was made for interim payments, because the complete adjustments would be long delayed. The request was complied with. Quick calculations were made of the amounts owing to certain superannuitants and interim payments were made. The final adjustments followed some months later.It may be that in view of the experience gained on that occasion the same procedure is not necessary now. However, I suggest to the Minister that if final adjustments are to be long delayed the Minister or the Treasurer might consider following the practice adopted with the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund.

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

– I certainly will refer to the Treasurer the points raised by Senator Marriott and Senator Willesee. I am grateful to the Senate and the Committee for the speedy passage of this legislation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2431

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT 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.

This Bill is designed to effect two sets of amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act. The first is to provide for a court of not less than three judges to deal with matters arising under the proposed Legal Practitioners Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory. The second is to enlarge the rule making power of the judge of the Supreme Court to deal with certain matters arising under the Companies Ordinance of the Territory. There is in an advanced stage of preparation a comprehensive Legal Practitioners Ordinance for the Territory. This Ordinance will provide, amongst other things, for the admission of practitioners to practise in the Territory and also for the suspension and cancellation of the right of practitioners to practise.

The present position under section 8 of the Supreme Court Act is that the jurisdiction of the Court must always be exercised by one judge. The relationship between legal practitioners and the judiciary is such that it is thought undesirable that in matters relating to the admission, suspension, striking off, and disciplining of practitioners the Court should be constituted by only one judge. The amendment proposed by clause 6 will provide that in these matters the Court’s jurisdiction is to be exercised by not less than three judges. There are consequential provisions, such as which judge is to preside, and how the Court’s decision is to be reached when there is a difference of opinion between the judges. It is desirable that in these matters affecting the right of a practitioner to practise there should be a right of appeal to the High Court, and this is provided for in clause 12. Decisions of State Supreme Courts in matters of this kind are appealable to the High Court by special leave.

A further amendment, partly consequential upon the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, is made by this Bill to the qualifications for appointment as the judge of the Territory, that is, the resident judge, as distinct from an ‘additional judge’. The qualifications at present prescribed by section 7(1.) for appointment as the judge are that the person concerned must be, or have been, a practising barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State of not less than 5 years standing. Clause 4 extends these qualifications so as to include a person who is or has been -

  1. a judge of a Federal courtsuch as the Commonwealth Industrial Court) or of a Supreme Court of one of the other Territories; or
  2. a practising barrister or solicitor of a Supreme Court of any Territory of not less than five years’ standing.

I now turn to the amendments that deal with matters arising under the Companies Ordinance of the Territory. The present rule making power in section 28 of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act is confined to matters regulating the practice and procedure of the Court. A consequence of this is that the Rules of Court relating to the winding up of companies can apply only to windings up that are the subject of court proceedings. Voluntary windings up must be dealt with by separate provisions, which are in regulations made under the Companies Ordinance. It is desirable that the need for this distinction should be removed and that all windings up be governed by the Rules of Court. Clause 9 therefore widens the rule making power in section 28 so as to extend it to matters or things that are required or permitted to be prescribed by regulations under the Companies Ordinance. This amendment will bring the Territory law into line with the present position in New South Wales. Proposed subsection (5.) of section 28 provides that in the event of an inconsistency between the Rules of Court and the regulations, the Rules are to prevail. The Rules will, however, continue to be subject to the present power of disallowance by the Attorney-General, in section (4.) of section 28.

Under section 35 of the Act, the Registrar of the Court can be assigned by Rules of Court duties ‘in respect of proceedings pending in the Supreme Court’. It is desirable that the Rules should be able to assign to the Registrar powers and duties in respect of matters arising under the Companies Ordinance irrespective of whether those matters are the subject of proceedings pending in the Court. This is achieved by the new paragraph (b) of subsection (1.) of section 28. It is also desirable that a judge should be able to delegate to the Registrar the Court’s powers to deal with matters arising in the course of the winding up of a company, being matters which, while they involve the exercise of judicial power, do not from a practical point of view need to be dealt with by a judge. The proposed new section 35a accordingly enables the judge, when making an order for winding up a company, to direct all the proceedings for the winding up to be dealt with by the Registrar. The amendment provides that in dealing with such matters the Registrar is to have all of the powers of the Court, subject to appeal to the Court. The amendment also enables the Registrar to refer to the Court any matter which he thinks proper to be determined by the Court. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2432

LOAN (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 November (vide page 1994), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Yesterday Senator Cavanagh raised a question concerning the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York and the provisions that exist in a number of these agreements against employment by the Commonwealth of persons who have been in the employ of the lenders. Section 9 of this Loan Agreement states:

The Commonwealth:

Future Employment. Covenants that during the period of 2 years after the date specified in the preceding sub-paragraph, the Commonwealth will not employ or enter into any understanding to employ any person (i) who was a director, officer or employee of Eximbank at any time during the period of 1 year prior to the date stated above, or (ii) who is a director, officer or employee of Eximbank at the time of such employment or understanding to employ, unless in either case such employment is approved in writing by Eximbank after full disclosure to it of all facts in connection therewith which it deems to be relevant.

It is to be noted that under these arrangements money is to be provided not only by the Export-Import Bank but also by the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York in the sum of $12.5m. In the light of the question Senator Cavanagh asked yesterday, can the Minister tell us whether any former Minister of the Federal Government is a member of the Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. or has any close association, whether as a partner or an associate, with that company or its associates?

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

– I have just been informed that the required information is not available to me. But we certainly will find out the answer to the honourable senator’s question and let him know. Yesterday 1 gave a general answer on the question of employment in the debate on the Loan (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill. Senator Murphy is now asking a specific question. I will attempt to obtain a specific answer for him.

Senator Murphy:

– Apart from that, is there any reason why these agreements do not contain a reciprocal provision to protect the Commonwealth?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I am told that these conditions are standard provisions that have been in other loan agreements and that this matter has not had any significance until now, when the honourable senator raises it. He has posed a question that should attract an answer in depth from the appropriate Minister. As I have done in the past, I will obtain the required answers and have them made available to the honourable senator.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2433

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 November (vide page 1996), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the Affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I refer to clause 4. I wish to ask the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), who represents the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), one or two questions about the term ‘security’, what it implies and what it actually means. The clause states:

  1. . the Treasurer shall not give a guarantee . . unless -

    1. proper security is, or is to be, given to the Commonwealth over the aircraft and related spare parts and equipment to which the loan relates;
    2. undertakings to the satisfaction of the Treasurer are given that the aircraft and other assets. . . . will bc insured, and kept insured, against all risks against which it is customary to insure, and to their full insurable value;

Will the Minister clarify, as briefly as possible, having regard to his wish to expedite the passage of this legislation, in which I concur, what would happen in a case - this is not without precedent - in which there was a cross-charter as between the airlines? I recall that a few years ago a cross-charter arrangement was made under which Trans-Australia Airlines, which at that time had got rid of its DC6 aircraft, was compelled under the rationalisation plan to take DC6 piston engined aircraft and to transfer Viscount aircraft, I believe it was, to Ansett-ANA. I would like some clarification, if the Minis ter can give it to me, of the position that would arise in such a situation and of whether, in the general terms of this contract, there is any provision that would have any relationship to a situation of that kind. I come now to paragraph (d). It relates to undertakings, and reads:

Undertakings to the satisfaction of the Treasurer are given that, for solong as theloan or any interest on the loan remains unpaid, officers employed in the Commonwealth Service will have full access at all reasonable times to the financial accounts of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Proprietary Limited when authorised in writing by the Minister for that purpose and each of those companies will do everything within its power - and so on. I should like to question the Minister about this. This paragraph provides that officers - presumably officers of the Treasury - may, when authorised in writing by the Minister, examine the financial affairs of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, which controls the airline operations, and Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd. I want to know whether these two sections of the Ansett Transport Industries complex relate only to the operations of the airline part of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd or whether in fact they take in all the other activities which make up the whole complex of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The only evidence that this Parliament has of the affairs of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd is that which 1 mentioned yesterday. I refer to the information contained in the annual report and financial statement of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The copy 1 have is for the year 1968. To what extent are the affairs of the organisation examined? 1 presume that officers of the Treasury will be conducting the examination. To what extent are the affairs of this organisation examined to determine, firstly, whether there is economic viability over the whole of the industrial complex of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd? Or will the examination be solely of the operations of the airline part of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to determine the financial viability of that section of the complex?

I suggest that this is the part of the whole matter which concerns us at this stage. One can imagine all sorts of situations arising. For instance, one can imagine a situation in which aloss has been sustained by the airline operation while profits are made in other aspects of Ansett Transport

Industries Ltd. These profits could be taken into account to determine the overall financial viability of the complex. But if we ignore the profits made by some of the other parts of this complex organisation we might find that the airline part of the organisation would not be in a financial position to meet its commitments. We can only take some sort of a certification, which is provided, presumably, in the Airlines Agreement Act, or whatever it may be, that the affairs of the company are in order and that there is a financial ability on the part of the company to meet its obligations for the repayment of this loan.

What is the purpose of the examination mentioned here? What does it set out to discover? What sort of practice is followed in making an examination of the accounts? Can the Minister tell me whether in fact an examination of the affairs of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has ever been made? No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that when Ansett Transport Industries Ltd no longer has any indebtedness to the Government and no longer has any obligation under this arrangement for the purchase of aircraft, an arrangement which is guaranteed by the Government, the Government will no longer have any right at any stage to examine the affairs of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd.

This is a matter of tremendous interest to me because I made an observation yesterday te the effect that the tail was wagging the dog. that instead of having some say in the airline industry of this country we were waiting on handouts from the boardroom of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. In fact, I suggest that the trend of airline operations in this country up to 1972 was determined in the boardroom of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd within only the last few days. In my view, I, as a responsible and elected member of this Parliament, ought to have some knowledge of what is happening and why somebody outside assumes the right to determine the airline policy of this country about which I have expressed some uneasiness and some unhappiness over the past few days. I leave it at that. I hope the Minister will be able to explain to me just what procedure is followed and that he will be able to answer some of the other questions I have raised.

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

– I would be the first to acknowledge Senator Devitt’s sustained interest in this particular side of our legislation, but it must be appreciated that I am here representing another Minister. It is a pity that when that Minister introduced this Bill in another place the questions now asked of me by Senator Devitt were not posed to him. But I shall do as much as I can. If I cannot give the required information now I shall forward the honourable senator’s questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) and obtain a reply for him.

Senator Devitt:

asked about security. The information I have been given really is the same as is mentioned in the Bill. The security is given to the Commonwealth over the aircraft. In other words, the Commonwealth will take a mortgage over the aircraft. The security is the mortgage over the aircraft.

The honourable senator also asked about insurance. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd undertakes to insure the aircraft and not to mortgage it in priority over the Commonwealth security or to take the aircraft outside Australia without the Treasurer’s permission. There will be very strict control over the matter in that way.

The honourable senator also asked about examination of the viability of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. This company undertakes to make its books available to Commonwealth officers nominated by the Minister. The honourable senator also asked some very penetrating questions as to how the examination is to take place, who makes it, under what circumstances it is made and as to whether the right to examine continues after discharge of liability to repay the loan. The Airlines Agreement Act continues in operation until, I think, 1977. Under the provisions of that Act the Minister can seek information, and he has sought it on occasions. That information is obtained not necessarily by Treasury officials. It may be sought by officials of the Department of Civil Aviation, or perhaps by officials from both the Department of Civil Aviation and the Treasury. The Minister makes a judgment based on the information that is provided to him.

The honourable senator has posed a series of questions relating to the form and, depth of the examination and the areas covered by it. I would be the first to acknowledge that they are important, but I am not competent to answer them now. I am sure the honourable senator appreciates that I could not hope to answer them now; but I shall most certainly direct his questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation so that a reply may be made available to him. It is always open to the honourable senator to use the forms of the Senate in future debates to advert to the answers that are given to him.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I wish to ask a question relating to clause 3, which reads:

The Treasurer may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, at the request of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and subject to the conditions required by this Act, for the purpose of enabling the purchase by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Proprietary Limited of one Boeing 727 aircraft and related spare parts and equipment, guarantee the repayment of, and the terms of interest on:

a loan or loans of an amount or amounts not exceeding in the whole Two million live hundred thousand dollars in the currency of the United States of America.

The Bill relating to borrowings by the Commonwealth for the Australian National Airlines Commission - in other words Trans Australia Airlines - had attached to it comprehensive schedules of the terms and conditions relating to both the Swiss agreement and the United States agreement. Those schedules contained the terms of repayment and the fees chargeable in some cases. They also disclose that the rate of interest to be paid is 6% I would like to know why a similar schedule in relation to Ansett Transport Industries is not attached to this Bill. Would the Minister have available the terms and conditions of interest and repayment and any other charges that are applicable to the loans? Is there any difference between the terms of these loans and the terms of the loans made to the Australian National Airlines Commission?

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

– My note in relation to clause 3 (1.) says that it authorises the Treasurer to guarantee the repayment of loans arranged by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd for the purchase of a Boeing 727 aircraft and associated spares and equipment. The total cost of the aircraft, etc., is approximately $5.6m and ATI will borrow $4.48m or 80% of the purchase price. I think the answer to the honourable senator’s query is that the agreement is between the parties. The Government is not a party to the agreement. The Government is not involved in these loans. It is between ATI, the bank and Boeing. That is why the terms and conditions are not attached to the Bill. If any further information can be gleaned I will attempt to obtain it for the honourable senator in the fullness of time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– CouldI take it that the actual terms and conditions of the loans, the rates of interest and other charges are not available to the Senate? Is this because the agreement is a private one sponsored by the Government and we cannot question the relative conditions pertaining to these loans whereas we can question the conditions of a loan entered into by the Commonwealth on behalf of the Australian National Airlines Commission? If that is so it means that the Parliament is not given access to the annual report and balance sheet of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and has no opportunity to make comparisons as to whether the shopping that is being done on the international level on behalf of one airline is just as effective, as efficient and as good or as bad a bargain as is made on behalf of the other airline. I think this question could well be answered. If the information is not available immediately could the Minister give an assurance that the Senate will have available to it such a comparison and also that the terms and conditions of the loans to both airlines are equal?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I speak on this matter only because I have listened with interest to what Senator O’ Byrne has said. I think that the questions he asked should have been directed more properly to the measure itself rather than to any particular clause. Surely it must be recognised, from the very terms of the Bill, that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has not yet borrowed the money. It will borrow the money, one assumes, only if it receives the assurance that its obligations will be guaranteed. In those circumstances it is very difficult to see how an agreement could be in existence at this time and how it could be attached as a schedule to the Bill. After all Ansett Transport Industries and the lenders, presumably, are negotiating at arm’s length. Whatever the agreement, it is for negotiation. The Commonwealth will guarantee only, as clause 4 indicates, loans which are made upon reasonable terms and conditions. If the procedure whereby the Commonwealth guarantees the loans appears to the Senate to be an inappropriate procedure, I would have thought that that goes to the very heart of the measure. It appears to me inevitable that once that procedure is accepted all one can do is to empower the Commonwealth to guarantee only such loans as are borrowed upon reasonable terms and conditions. 1 think, as a matter of practice, that the only feasible way to approach the matter is to have contained in clause 4 those provisions that are contained in that part.

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

– It is my understanding that the conditions of the loans, as contained in the two Bills, are identical. Again 1 indicate that if honourable senators want some subsequent information I certainly will obtain it. It is not available to me now. Senator Greenwood touched on some of the elements of an agreement that may or may not have been completed at this stage. The information that has been handed to me is that the conditions will be the same in both cases, subject to the taxation question which may arise and which we discussed last night.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– Just to finalise the matter, could I take it that although the Australian National Airlines Commission and the Department of Civil Aviation find it reasonable to include in schedules to the Bills the details, the fine print and all the material covering every aspect of the loans, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd is not required to attach an equivalent schedule to the Bill? We are called upon to pass a Bill which will allow the Commonwealth to assist Ansett Transport Industries to obtain its loans. I just ask why there is a difference between the loans to the two airlines. One airline gives in detail the requirements that are imposed by the lender, yet we do not see a similar schedule of the conditions that apply to the loans to the other airline. If there is some explanation I would like to hear it.

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

– I cannot add much to what I have said already. The Government is a party to one agreement for loans, but the Government is not a direct party to the agreement for the other loans. That is as much as I can state at this point of time. If the honourable senator wants further informationI shall obtain it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2436

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from . 19 November (vide page 2107), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– This short Bill is supported by the Opposition because it brings up to date the provisions of the Public Service Act. The situation is that at the moment the Public Service Board has power to grant leave, without pay, to an officer, on his application, for the purpose of service with a prescribed international organisation, or with the Government of ‘any part of the Queen’s dominions or of a British Dependency’. That might have been all right in the old days, but because of the one world situation we have today it is no longer suitable. So clause 3 of the Bill amends the Act to cover:

  1. employment with the government or an authority of a State or of, or of a part of. a country outside Australia;
  2. employment in ateaching capacity with a university, college of advanced education or other educational institution; . . .

I understand that paragraph (b) has been introduced because the Royal Military College at Duntroon is affiliated with the University of New South Wales and it could be desirable for teachers from the College to teach at the University. Primarily,the purpose of the Bill is to make it possible for the Public Service Board to authorise officers not only to work in British dominions and territories but alsoto go to places such as Asia and there is no need for meto underline the importance of that. Because of this we have no desire to question the Bill. We think it is a sensible extension. Obviously the Public Service Board is finding itself a bit circumscribed and has put this proposal to the Government, which has agreed to it. The Opposition, too, agrees to it.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I am pleased that the Bill intends to give a wider scope for the transference of officers of the Public Service into educational institutions, universities and teaching organisations not only in Australia but also outside it. I believe that this move to facilitate the transference of members of the Public Service to teaching organisations will, by introducing men who have had experience outside a purely academic area, bring to the teaching situation experience that will be invaluable. I have noted that in respect of periods over 1 year the Public Service Board would need to recommend to the Minister the acceptance of the transfers or to approve the transfers. Fear has been expressed to me by some people who are interested that there is a possibility that the intention of the legislation to enable a widening of this transfer may be reduced by a rather narrow interpretation of the wishes of the Government in this matter. 1 would hope that when applications for leave under this legislation are before the Board this situation will not occur and there will be a reasonably generous acceptance of this principle that an advantage is to be gained by the transference of Public Service people into educational establishments of various kinds, and to other countries. I mention this matter in the hope that this narrowing of the permission to move from one situation to another will not become a very prominent feature in the operation of this legislation.

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

– in reply - 1 can only say at the conclusion of the second reading stage that the observations made by the honourable senator will be drawn to the attention of the Minister. I feel that there will be a very proper application of this amending legislation and that there is in fact no need to have fears in relation to its application. Nevertheless, the honourable senator has put a point and I shall have it drawn to the attention of the Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2437

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 November (vide page 2107), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– This Bill virtually amounts to ratification of a loan to pay for the Fill aircraft. I move:

I do not want to initiate a long debate on this Bill, but I believe we should take advantage of this opportunity to have a look at some of the weaknesses associated with the Government’s decision to purchase these aircraft, as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Secretary of Defense and the Australian Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall), which is dated 19th October 1963. I think that we ought to examine this document in detail first before I set out the other reasons why the Opposition is opposing the Bill. The Memorandum reads:

  1. In the event the Australian Government decides within the next 30 days to purchase 24 FI 11 A aircraft (18 F111A and 6 RF111A) the Agreement would be based as follows:

    1. AVAILABILITY

  2. The Secretary of Defense, in consideration of the requirements presented by the Minister for Defence, and in consideration of the acknowledged capability of the Australian Armed Forces to improve the defensive strength of the Free World, will make 18 Fill A and 6 RF111A (plus such attrition aircraft as may be necessary) available for purchase by the Australian Armed Forces on a priority basis equal to that of the United Slates Armed Forces, lt is estimated that the first F111A aircraft will be available to the Australian Armed Forces, if they so desire, as early as the latter part of 1967. . . .

That is a year ago. The Memorandum continues: and that the first RF111A aircraft will be available by November 1969.

That is 12 months from now. The Memorandum continues further:

  1. The following pricing principles will be used:

    1. Australia will pay only the average estimated unit cost of development and production of the Fi 1 1 aircraft based on the total production run (it is estimated this will approximate 1,500 planes) rather than the actual costs associated with the production learning curve at the time of specific delivery of the 24 aircraft to the Australian Armed Forces. The final determination of the average estimated unit cost will be made at the time of delivery of the twenty-fourth airplane.
    2. The total programme cost for the Australian purchase will include the flyaway cost of each aircraft, reconnaissance equipment to the extent agreed, ground support equipment, training and training devices and I year initial spares. The Secretary of Defense advised the Minister of Defence that the general order of magnitude of this total program cost, based on a production run of 1,500 aircraft, is currently estimated lo bc approximately $125m. If desired, munitions may be provided pursuant to special arrangements.

That was the original agreement, but as we know, of course, there has been a wide variation. Honourable senators will note that it was anticipated that the production run was lo be in the vicinity of 1,500 planes. This has been subsequently reduced to a much smaller number, as I shall point out later in this debate. The total cost to the Australian Government, according to that forecast, was only a fraction of what it will in fact now be. In terms of hard, cold cash the estimate was $125m. I suggest that the Government entered into this contract in the same way as some people have entered into other contracts. Perhaps without being facetious I might refer as a comparison to the first American servicemen to visit Australia during the last war. The smart boys around Sydney used to sell them the Town Hall every second day. During the previous war Australian soldiers in London were able to sell (heir kangaroo farms back in Australia to gullible British residents. I suggest that this is on a par with the Fill purchase because, obviously, the Government was completely gullible when the agreement was made.

Another point of significance is that the Memorandum of Understanding is dated 19th October 1963. One must recall that this was in operation for 30 days, in which period the 1963 federal election was held. It is perfectly obvious that the purchase of the Fill was nothing more than an election gimmick. The tabling of the papers on the Fill led to much heartburning around this place. The Government was most reluctant to table any papers, and it has become equally reluctant to table all the documents. One wonders why this reluctance was so obvious, particularly if its basis was some fear that the contents of classified documents might become public knowledge. Only a few weeks ago a report in one of the metropolitan dailies indicated that in every Minister’s office in Parliament House drawers containing classified documents were left unlocked and that the doors to the offices were left unlocked with frequently no one in attendance in the offices. If the Government and its Ministers are so careless with classified documents, what was the great secret that the Government was afraid to expose to the public view? Was it contained in the documents associated with the purchase of the Fill?

Senator Greenwood:

– What has this to do with the honourable senator’s amendment?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It has a lot to do with my amendment. We are requesting that the passage of the Bill be delayed until the Parliament reassembles next year in order to enable the Government to reassess the capabilities of the Fill aircraft. That is of very great significance to the argument that I am developing in this debate.

Senator Sim:

– The honourable Senator has not talked about it yet.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I have talked about it but Senator Sim is incapable of understanding. By this Bill the Government is seeking approval to borrow in the United States $US75m - equivalent to SA67m - as part of the purchase price of twentyfour Fill aircraft, associated equipment, spares and services. Previously SA72m was borrowed, so if by the process of simple arithmetic we add that $72m to the $67m just referred to we arrive at an amount in excess of the original figure quoted to the Australian Government as the total purchase price of the twenty-four aircraft. In 1961 this Government was almost defeated and it knew that it had to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

In 1 963. in order to obtain the confidence of the Australian people and to increase its representation in the House of Representatives, the Government pulled this mangy rabbit out of the hat. The consequences of this action have ‘been brought home to the Government with monotonous regularity every month since then. At the moment the Australian people are paying the penalty for the ruthless attitude adopted by the Government in order to buy votes. Now we find at the end of this sessional period that the long promised defence policy, which already is long overdue, is not going to materialise. The reason that it will not materialise is that the Government will keep it as an election gimmick for next year. I and the Australian people generally hope that the Government does not intend to pull another Fill out of the hat. At the time of the decision to purchase the Fill the alternative plane, the TSR2, could have been available, but it was rejected out of hand, lt was partly as a result of the rejection by this Government that the TSR2 did not get past the drawing board stage. The Prime Minister and the Government at that time, in order to remain on good terms with the British aviation industry, decided to scrap the VIP flight and to buy British aircraft to replace those already in use. This was the sop that was thrown to Britain at that time.

The original price of SI 25m for the twenty-four Fills has now been more than doubled and it is not impossible that before the end of this year the price will be somewhere in the vicinity of $300m. But in addition there are other fringe charges that have not been publicised by the Government and, unfortunately, have not received a great deal of publicity in other areas. A few weeks ago in this chamber 1 asked a question about the amount that was to be spent on extending the aerodrome at Amberley. 1 asked also whether this would bc the only airstrip in Australia, apart from civil aerodromes, which would carry the Fill. I believe it is significant that 1 have not yet received a detailed reply to that question. We cannot rush this Government. It is never in a hurry, particularly at the end of a parliamentary session, because this is the time when it jams through the Bills hoping that they will receive a minimum of publicity and a maximum of support from outside, simply because the public does not know about them.

A further story was circulating some months ago to the effect that the Government intended to establish a second airport in Western Australia, possibly in the Exmouth Gulf area. This story was subsequently denied, but not with a great deal of enthusiasm - I think that might be the appropriate word. Perhaps the Government is still thinking about it. When the order for the Fills was first placed someone described the aircraft as being the greatest thing since angels. This was one of the publicity blurbs used by the manufacturers and by the Government. We were told that it would require a runway length of about 6,000 feet. We were told that this was quite a safe length in which the aircraft could land. But since then approval has been given for additional expenditure at Amberley to extend the runway length to 10,000 feet. That, by any standards, is a very long runway. So perhaps some of the sales talk and the gimmicks that wc heard in the early part of the negotiations for the purchase of these aircraft were not correct. It is true that the Royal Australian Air Force needs modernising, but do we need modernisation at the cost that has been placed on the Australian taxpayer to purchase this very sophisticated aircraft which might be a very good plane ultimately, if they ever get it off the ground? But the chances are, the way things are going, that it will get off the ground only in time for it to become a museum piece because by that time more sophisticated types of aircraft will be available.

Senator Little:

– The Fill has been flying.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the plane goes twice as fast and as high as the cost is going it might be quite a good plane. According to the figures to 30th June 1968 - the latest figures available - the current strength of the Air Force is 20,130 officers and men. According to the Department it was estimated that by 30th June next year the strength would have increased to 21,135. Let us consider the deployment of our aircraft in other countries and at the various RAAF establishments in Australia. Some very interesting figures are revealed. In Vietnam at present we have 8 Canberra bombers. These are the obsolete aircraft which have served their purpose very well but which have now outlived their usefulness for modern combat. Also in this area we have 16 helicopters and 6 Caribou aircraft. In Thailand we have a squadron of Sabre fighters and in Malaysia we have a squadron of Sabres and a squadron of Mirages, together with a transport supply element of Dakotas. On the Australian mainland at Williamtown we have two Mirage fighter squadrons and a Bloodhound surface to air missile squadron. At Amberley we have two Canberra bomber squadrons. That is where the two new squadrons of Fills are to be based provided, of course, that the Government does not decide to establish another aerodrome somewhere in the western part of Australia.

One of the fallacies about the purchase of this very sophisticated aircraft is that the Government is raising money outside this country at an interest rate greater than it would have to pay on money raised in Australia, in other words, the Government is borrowing money from someone, which it will have to repay, so that at some time in the never never it will be able to take delivery of two squadrons of new planes. At Townsville there is a Neptune maritime reconnaissance squadron. At Edinburgh in South Australia we have an Orion squadron, at Richmond in New South Wales we have two Hercules transport squadrons and one Caribou squadron. At Canberra we have helicopters and, of course, the very important VIP flight.

The price for the aircraft quoted to this Government was based on an original construction programme of about 1,500 planes. The number has shrunk considerably in the meantime and in recent months was as low as 493. Now, following Britain’s decision to withdraw its order for 50 of the planes the number is down to 443. So one can understand some of the reasons for the escalation in cost. But it may be even worse than that. Australia may be the only country in the world to finish up with this particular plane because on 15th November, only a few days ago, the United States Secretary of Defence, Mr Clifford, recommended that the American order be cut from 253 to 90.

Senator Sim:

– But they will still have the Fills. You made a false statement.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I did not make a false statement.

Senator Sim:

– You said that this would be the only country in the world with the aircraft.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, I ask you to suggest to the Liberal senator from Western Australia that if he listens closely and gets things right he may be able to understand what I am saying. I think America’s action is very significant because the United States defence forces are fed up with the manner in which the development of this plane has taken place. You will know that five of them were sent to Vietnam to be used in the private war that this Government has supported with great enthusiasm. That enthusiasm has been noticeably less since the field of conflict has changed slightly. The first two aircraft were immediate war casualties. There is no guarantee that they were shot down by enemy fire but there is a fair amount of suspicion that they fell out of the sky because, due to mechanical faults, they were not capable of staying there. It is equally significant that the remaining planes which were sent to Vietnam from America have been withdrawn from service.

Why are we so stupid as to keep on paying through the ears these millions and millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money on a plane that may never get off the ground? Is it not time that we stopped for a few weeks or a month to assess the position so that we can see it in perspective and so that, if we have to cancel the order, at least we will get out for less than it will cost if we pursue it to its logical conclusion? What is the cancellation price? Britain had a write-out price in its contract but this country, in its stupidity, does not have a write-out price. There are forecasts from some fairly authoritative American sources that the cost might be as high as $200m. If the plane is not to fly and is to cost us S200m or more, as it well might, it may be a typical1 opera house plane. Would it not be easier for us to go to America and say to the manufacturers: *We are sorry, but we will get out for what we can’? I believe we should take this opportunity to make an assessment of the position. I can remember a Federal government of the same political colour as the present Government telling us in 1938: ‘We have a magnificent Air Force. We can take on all! comers. We have Wirraways.’ We were sold down the drain with the Wirraways in the same way as we are being sold down the drain in 1968, 30 years later, with the Fills. 1 think I have made my points clearly enought for Government senators to understand. So in conclusion I shall refer to an article which appeared in the Sydney ‘Sun’ of Tuesday, 26th November, under a New York date line. The article stated:

Australia’s contract for the purchase of the Fill fighter bombers was cited today its an example of the Pentagon’s ‘shrewd bargaining’ skill.

The authoritative magazine ‘US News and World Report’ referred to the Australian Government’s much-criticised agreement to buy 24 of the troubleplagued fighter bombers.

In an article detailing the latest problems for the swing wing jet, described as former Defence Secretary Robert McNamara’s ‘biggest blooper’, the magazine said;

However much Mr McNamara is criticised for the Fill, even his bitterest opponents agree the Australian contract alone should ensure the Pentagon, under his administration, a reputation for shrewd bargaining.

The Australians signed a contract that had no definite price tag-

The documents which have been tabled indicate that there was no definite price tag. There was barely a rough estimate for the purposes of the 1963 Federal election campaign. The price that was exposed at the time for public consumption was looked upon as a good vote catcher. I return to the article:

The Australians signed a contract that had no definite price tag - but contained strict penalties for cancellation!

Is the Government prepared to tell us the cancellation price? 1 suggest that is one of the top secrets of this bargain that it made. I return to the article: (The contract to buy 24 Fills was signed in 1963 when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister. The planes, originally expected to cost around $A3m each, are now estimated to cost $A5m each).

The magazine said the entire Fill project was once again ‘caught up in a fight for survival’. It said President-elect Richard Nixon may be forced to cancel a large portion of the $4,000m investment.

I think that bears repetition. The forecast is that President-elect Richard Nixon may be forced to cancel a large portion of the S4,000m investment. The article goes on:

In November, in a pre-election speech in Texas, Mr Nixon indicated he would oppose any plans to scrap the Fill fighter bomber entirely’, the magazine said. *. . . At the Pentagon, officials are debating how much of the remaining programme should be cancelled’.

Do not let us get caught up in this net. We will be in a very pretty situation if we are involved in all this expenditure and find that the American manufacturers cannot supply the goods. The article then continues:

Defence Secretary Mr McNamara’s dream was for a tighter bomber that could be used both by the Navy and the Air Force and save a breathtaking $ 1, 000m. Mr McNamara envisaged a $3m fighter, bomber, reconnaissance plane and interceptor, and hoped that 1,700 would be built.

That was the ambition a long way ahead - some 200 planes ahead - of the original order and it must be galling, not only for members of this Government but also for those responsible in other places who were anxious to purchase this plane, to see the construction programme shrink in the manner in which it has. The article goes on:

The article pointed out: ‘Now that the price has been set, it will cost Australia about $ A 300m, one-quarter of Australia’s defence budget for 1968-69, for 24 planes and equipment. To cancel, the Australian Government would have to pay a penalty of about $200m

That is not the end of the article but I have read the relevant section of it. I suggest that it is appropriate - it is timely; indeed, it would be politically prudent - for the Government at this stage to accept the amendment which has been moved on behalf of the Opposition so that we can sit back in calmness for a few weeks before the Parliament re-assembles for the autumn session and decide whether we will pursue this very crazy defence programme that was adopted by the Government in a spirit of political panic.

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

– Mr President, it only needs mention that the F111C during the past 6 months has received a lot of publicity. A great deal of attention has been focussed on any remarks concerning this aircraft. I wish to make it very clear at the outset that the Government is not having second thoughts on the question of the purchase of this aircraft. I should explain also that this decision has been arrived at after consideration of the information that has been given to the Government by its engineers in the Royal Australian Air Force and also by those who have been in a position to test the capabilities of this aircraft. The Government has not made a decision on extracts from newspapers or on reports that have been mostly uninformed. It has made its decision on the grounds that I have just given. The decision of the Government made after consideration of the information given to the Government and of the factors that I have mentioned is that the FI 1 1C is a very good aircraft indeed. I would like to remind honourable senators opposite who are trying to interject that I listened to Senator Keeffe in silence.

Senator Cavanagh:

– At what price is it a good aircraft?

Senator McKELLAR:

– All right, the honourable senator may ask his question afterwards. Honourable senators opposite may not care for what I am saying but at least they might do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say not because I am speaking as an individual but because I am replying on behalf of the Government. I want to make this point also: This plane is the only plane that is capable of giving the performance and of living up to the specifications that-

Senator Poyser:

– The Government has not given any specifications.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– That shows the ignorance of the honourable senator. This aircraft is the only one that lives up to the specifications that the Air Force laid down for the plane that it required. These specifications have to be met. It is very foolish to talk about getting other planes. The manufacturing company knows the specifications that the Air Force and the Australian Government have laid down for the plane that they require. If this plane does not live up to these specifications, OK, we do not take it. Incidentally, Senator Keeffe asked me a question some little while ago about the length of runway required for the F111C to take off. He mentioned Amberley. Because the runway at Amberley is being lengthened to some 8,000 feet, the honourable senator queried whether this would be-

Senator Keeffe:

– It is 10,000 feet.

Senator McKELLAR:

– All right. Whatit was, the honourable senator asked whether Amberley would be the only airfield in Australia from which this plane would be capable of taking off. In other words, he asked whether we would need an airstrip of this length before the plane could operate off that airstrip. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that the information given to the Government is that this plane is capable of taking off in a distance of 3,000 feet under rough conditions. I am not suggesting that the plane would be fully laden. That is the capability of this plane.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about when it is loaded?

Senator McKELLAR:

– 1 have just told the honourable senator that the FI 1 1 C can take off from a runway of 3,000 feet under rough conditions. I am not suggesting that it would be fully loaded. After all, these planes are not loaded fully all the time. We all recognise that fact. I also wish to make the point that, naturally enough, a lot of attention has been focussed on the mishaps that various types of this aircraft have suffered.

Senator Keeffe:

– Too many.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I do not know whether the honourable senator knows this, but all the information in the possession of the Government indicates that this type of aircraft has not suffered as many crashes as most other aircraft-

Senator Ridley:

– They have not been able to get it up in the air.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I am only trying to give honourable senators the information that, I can assure the Senate, is the best that the Government can obtain and can provide. Because of the cost of this aircraft and because of the fact that it incorporates this unique swing back, folding wing concept, public attention has been focussed on it to a far greater extent than on any other aircraft. All aircraft - or most aircraft at any rate - when they are being tested and are first put into operation suffer misadventures. Defects are found and accidents occur. These problems arise not only with military aircraft but also with civilian aircraft as well. Metallurgists have gone to America from Australia - they are there now - to observe the tests that are being carried out on these aircraft in which defects or faults have been found. Australian pilots have been in America also. Everything that can be done to check on the tests that are being carried out on these planes to overcome the defects is being done.

Although Senator Keeffe did not use the word ‘gullibility’, that is what he meant when he referred to the action of the Government in entering into a contract of this nature. 1 want to remind the honourable senator that the Australian Government in effect was in partnership with the United States of Ameerica in deciding to develop these planes from the drawing board and to put them into production. By doing this, the Australian Government was assured of getting the F111C at a much earlier date than it would have if it had decided to stay outside the partnership, waited until the plane was built and then agreed to purchase.

Senator Gair:

– How many did the United States purchase?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– 1 do not know. But 1 understand that over 400 of these aircraft have been manufactured already. I do not know how many the United States is purchasing at the present moment.

Senator Georges:

– Who signed the contract?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– I do not know whether the honourable senator has read the papers that have been laid on the table of the Senate but I think he will find that in the conditions of the contract this is laid down. 1 also want to make a further point. Certain information in connection with this aircraft, naturally enough, is classified. This being so, I cannot for the life of me feel that the United States Government would bc very happy in the knowledge that, in making an agreement with the Australian Government, at any time the papers connected with that agreement showing even the most minute details of any deal made, could be called upon to be tabled in the Australian Parliament. This must mean, of necessity in my view, that any government - not only the United States Government - would be very chary indeed of entering into negotiations with the government of a country in which this could happen. I think that, in fairness to their country, honourable senators should realise that there is a point beyond which they should not seek information if the revealing of that information is to the detriment of their country.

Senator Cohen:

– The Minister has not given us very much so far.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– We did not get very much from the honourable senator either. But I will give him a little bit more. I remind the honourable senator that most of the criticism has come from people who are not engineers or who are not experts in this field. So-called experts have written this aircraft up in the newspapers. We know very well from bitter experience that many mistakes are made when newspaper articles are written. I mentioned earlier that the specifications were laid down by the Australian Government naturally after consultation with the Air Force regarding the type of plane that we wanted. These specifications set out its manoeuvrability, its speed, its capabilities and its performance. These specifications are known to the manufacturers. Once again I say that if the plane is not built according to these specifications, we will have another look at it. One of the other points that 1 want to mention is this-

Senator Cohen:

– Does it say that in the agreement?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– 1 want to refer to the tests that are being carried out on these planes. I have had certain feelings for some time about the air safety conditions that we impose upon our civil aircraft in Australia. I well remember the late Senator Paltridge when he was Minister for Civil Aviation saying to me that he felt that in many cases the conditions that were laid down with respect to safety precautions seemed almost to be far beyond what could be reasonably expected. But he did say that this was all to the good. I agree with him. For example, consider the case of a plane which is to be tested for air fatigue. Say that it is decided to have the test at 2,000 hours. If that aircraft shows signs of fatigue at SOO hours this is regarded as a defect. I am saying this to illustrate that stringent tests are applied to this aircraft. If there is a defect at 500 hours the test is looked upon as being equivalent to one of 2,000 hours. I am told that this is the procedure laid down.

Mention was made of a reduction in the number of these aircraft being ordered by the United States authorities. I am told that this has been brought about by budgetary considerations and has nothing to do with whether it is a good plane. 1 also understand that this matter is only under consideration and that a decision has not yet been put into effect. One could talk for a very long time about this aircraft and could refute the arguments voiced today by members of the Opposition. The Government cannot accept this amendment. We remain convinced that this is a very good aircraft despite the mishaps that have occurred. There are always risks taken when entering into agreements of this sort. We have not been fortunate in this respect but it is far better to find out these defects in the early stages than have them occur after we have our full complement of aircraft. Once again, Mr President, 1 urge the Senate to reject the amendment and vote for the Bill.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister Mc Mull in)

AYES: 23

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to refer to the matter raised in this chamber last night by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) regarding the peculiarity of agreements entered into in connection with loans such as this. Senator Murphy mentioned the reference to marine transportation. We find that this is referred to in the agreement on this loan. Article VIN, which deals with miscellaneous provisions, refers to marine transportation, lt states:

Any item or items, the purchase of which is to be financed in whole or in part under this Agreement and which shall be exported by ocean vessel to Australia shall be transported from the United Stales in vessels of United States registry, as required by Public Resolution. . . .

Senator Murphy said last night that this seemed to be a peculiar condition attached to the loan that we were then debating, lt is repeated in this agreement. We must use American vessels lo transport any part purchased under this loan. As this provision is repeated here it would suggest thai it is a normal condition attached to overseas loans. I suggest that this matter should be looked into when we are negotiating future loans, particularly in view of the fact that Australia may put ships on the American run. It will be very peculiar if we borrow money, and pay interest on it, in order to purchase parts which must be transported in ships of American registry when we have ships trading to the port of consignment. While possibly it was a feature of the conditions attaching to such a loan in the past, I think the Government should look at this question more closely when negotiating future loans and that the Parliament should scrutinise such measures to determine whether this should remain a condition of such loans.

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

– I agree with Senator Cavanagh. Something that has been the custom in the past could well be looked at in future when we have our own ships operating. I am sure that this will be done. The remarks of the honourable senator will be brought before the notice of those responsible.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.

page 2445

SALARIES BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be bow read a second time.

This Bill arises from the Government’s decision to increase the salaries of $15,000 and $17,500 for permanent heads of departments of state and certain statutory offices and to provide for the payment of annual allowances additional to these salaries. The new salaries will be $19,500 and $22,750 and the annual allowances will be $1,000 and $1,500 respectively, with effect from 1st December 1968. The Bill provides the new salaries and allowances for the holders of the statutory offices included in the First Schedule to the Bill and, by an amendment to section 30(1.) of the Public Service Act 1922-1967, for the payment of allowances to permanent heads. The existing salaries of these senior officers date from 1st November 1964. During this period there have been many changes in other salaries in the Commonwealth Service, including the substantial increase of December 1966 in the Second Division. The margin between the permanent head’s salary of $15,000 and the highest Second Division salary has been reduced to only $272. There have also been substantial increases in other comparable salaries.

The annual allowances are for the expenses of office in which these senior officials are necessarily involved but which, by their nature, cannot be met by direct reimbursement. Similar allowances are paid to senior officers in the New South Wales Public Service and in related government employment and, of course, in many positions in private enterprise. In reaching its decision, the Government has taken account of the constantly increasing demands placed upon the permanent heads of. the departments of state and statutory office holders and their very heavy responsibilities in the affairs of our country. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition will not oppose this Bill. We are very impressed by the salaries for which it provides. The decision to increase salaries of $15,000 and $17,500 to $19,500 and $22,750 respectively, and to provide annual allowances of $1,000 and $1,500 respectively reminds me of the discussions in the Senate last Thursday night on salaries of members of Parliament. I recall putting to honourable senators, and I repeat it now, that the salaries of members of this Parliament, particularly of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, are not consonant with the responsibilities involved. That does not mean that we take the attitude that the people occupying positions of responsibility outside Parliament should not be paid properly; they should. Any community ought to reward properly the people who carry out any task or occupy any office. I have no doubt that the remunerations provided for in this legislation are proper.

I hope that in the near future proper attention will be paid to the salaries of other people in the Public Service and those amongst us. Many public servants are paid far less than they ought to receive. The standards which they are able to maintain on their meagre salaries are not consistent with those that a supposedly affluent country like ours ought to be able to afford. However, at least a measure of assistance has been given to those in the highest positions. No doubt they are in a position to ensure that their claims are dealt with adequately, as has occurred. I hope that this Bill inspires the people who are to receive the increased salaries to ensure that justice is done to others, especially in the other ranks of the Public Service.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill, but there is one matter about which I am a little uncertain. On hearing the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) deliver the second reading speech on this measure I wondered whether any amounts were paid previously similar to the annual allowances of $1,000 and $1,500 that are now to be paid.

Senator Anderson:

– The answer is no. No allowances were previously paid.

Senator KENNELLY:

– They can look after themselves well.

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

– I want to take exception to this procedure. 1. think that it literally stinks, if one may use such a word in this august chamber.

Senator Marriott:

– You would be excused.

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

– And you would understand.

Senator O’Byrne:

– ‘Stinks’ is not a medical term. ‘Aroma’ is a better word.

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

– Perhaps so. It is no wonder that Senator Marriott accepts it. I want to know whether the document I hold in my hand is the Bill, lt seems to be a copy of the second reading speech. Where is the Bill?

Senator Maunsell:

– It is in the bag.

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

– It may be. If copies have been distributed I have not seen one. If they were distributed before the second reading speech was made I would like to see one now. It is all very well that because we have given ourselves vast increases we just quietly sit down and allow a Bill like this one to go through. It will immediately cause a spiral action. Very shortly the salaries of officers in the next division will go up, and so on. Yet we are back in the same position as we were in a month or so ago. The talk around Parlia ment House has been that our salaries should be tied to Second Division salaries. This means that within a month or two, or some time early in the new year, our salaries again will be below those of the Second Division by a considerable amount. Yet members on both the Government side and the Opposition side are treating this Bill as a space ship, as it were, and letting it whizz through this chamber without even waiting for it to be printed.

I take strong exception to this procedure. I do not even know what the allowances are and to whom they will be paid. Are they to be paid to the head of every department? Which departmental heads will receive them? No-one knows a thing about this Bill, lt is the end of the session; so the attitude is: ‘Let us throw things to the wolves and let everybody be happy. If we are happy, everyone else must be happy, too.’ I would like to know from you, Mr Temporary Chairman, where the Bill is, so that we may talk on it at the Committee stage and have a look at it ourselves.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laught:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I am having inquiries made at the moment as to the whereabouts of the Bill.

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

– Then 1 would like to move that the debate be adjourned until copies of the Bill are presented to honourable senators. I do not suppose I would have a seconder.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I support very firmly what Senator Turnbull has said. He has adverted to something to which others of us did not advert. I believe that it is wrong that we should be asked to vote for a motion for the second reading of a Bill, as we have done, and to pass to the Committee stage without copies of it. 1 believe that it is proper for us to insist that copies of the Bill be before us.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I suppose that I am served a little better than are other senators, but I have a copy of the Bill in my hand. It is a very simple Bill. However, I agree that if honourable senators have not received copies of the Bill they certainly should have copies. I suppose it is only fair that they should then have a chance to study the Bill if they wish to do so.

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

– My quite clear understanding was that copies of the Bill had been circulated. But if that is not so I will move that we report progress and seek leave to sit again at a later hour. When we resume I will answer the point that was made by Senator Turnbull. There is a perfect explanation. I move:

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

– I point out that I have already said that I wished to move that the debate be adjourned.

Senator ANDERSON:

– It is my prerogative to move that the Committee seek leave to sit at a later hour of the day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 2447

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That consideration of intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business, Notice of Motion No. 8.

page 2447

QUESTION

MAGNA CARTA

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– I move:

Honourable senators may recall that I gave notice of my intention to move this motion on 24th October last. I have brought it before the Senate for several reasons. With the indulgence of honourable senators I shall outline those reasons in a moment. But before doing so 1 wish to state quite categorically that I do not care over much whether the document is kept and displayed either in this Parliament building or in the National Library. Let me now proceed to my reasons for bringing forward this motion. My first reason is that I do not think it is proper for you, Mr President, to take any action concerning the copy of Magna Carta as the result of a petition which has been circulated and signed by some, or even a majority of, senators but which has not been presented to the Senate in accordance with the Standing Orders. 1 am strongly of the opinion that if you are to act in your official capacity of President of this place you must act as the result of an opinion expressed in accordance with the forms of this chamber. It is for that reason above all others that I have brought this motion forward: So that honourable senators may properly express their views and come to a conclusion upon which you would then be entitled to act. lt is also important, as was pointed out by Senator Marriott when this matter was last before this chamber, that the views of the minority be heard. This motion having been brought forward, I hope that those who have differing views on the display and custody of this document will be heard and that their views will be fully expressed. I have always believed it to be fundamental to our parliamentary system that no decision should be arrived at without proper debate; that no decision should be made until the minority has expressed its point of view; and that this chamber should come to a considered decision only as the result of argument, debate and facts placed before it. I believe this to be the proper procedure after which you, Mr President, should act in accordance with the decision of a majority of senators.

Turning aside from general principles as to how I believe the Senate should conduct its business, let me now give some reasons why I believe that the copy of Magna Carta should be kept and displayed by the National Library. The first matter to bc determined is: Who owns the copy of Magna Carta?

Senator Bishop:

– The Parliament.

Senator WITHERS:

– I will come to that in a moment. The copy of Magna Carta was purchased in .1.952 by the Presiding Officers of the Parliament for £stg1 2,500.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Who were the Presiding Officers at the time?

Senator WITHERS:

– I think Senator Mattner was the Presiding Officer in this place and Mr Archie Cameron was the Presiding Officer in the other place. The copy of Magna Carta was purchased for £Stg12,500 for the ‘Commonwealth National Library’ - the unofficial title used from 1923 until 1960 for the extraparliamentary activities of the Parliamentary Library. This was made clear by the then Speaker when he informed the House of

Representatives on 19th August 1952, as reported at page 381 of Hansard of that date, as follows:

The Commonwealth. National Library, which is governed by a joint committee of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, has recently acquired in England one of the fourteen known copies of Magna Carta.

I ask honourable senators to note that he referred to the ‘Commonwealth National Library’. After the then Speaker had made further comments on this matter, a statement was made by the then Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, as he then was, who referred only to the fact that the ‘Library Committee’ had acquired this remarkable and historic document. The then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Evatt, in his following remarks, referred again to the ‘Library Committee’. When the matter was reported to this chamber on 11th September 1952-

Senator Murphy:

– Did not Sir Robert Menzies say that it would be open to inspection in this building?

Senator WITHERS:

– I am not dealing with that point. I will leave the honourable senator to raise it if he wishes to. When the matter was reported to this chamber on 11th September 1952, as reported at page 1280 of Hansard, the then President reported as follows:

One of the two surviving copies of the 1297 ‘Inspeximus’ issue of Magna Carta has been purchased in London for the National Library.

There were further remarks by the President. He was followed by the then Minister for Trade and Customs, the late Senator O’sullivan, who, like the Prime Minister, referred to the Library Committee. The then Leader of the Opposition, Senator McKenna, also referred to the Library Committee.

I believe it to be a fair inference that, Mr Speaker and the President both having referred to the fact that it had been acquired either by or for the National Library, it was the Committee of the National Library that the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in both chambers were referring to when they mentioned the Library Committee.

I now turn to the position as to who actually paid for the Magna Carta. Was it the Parliament, or was it the national Library.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The people of Australia.

Senator WITHERS:

– I shall come to that in a moment. As I understand the position, until 1935 the Parliamentary Library Committee operated the one vote for both the collections for the Parliamentary Library and the collections for the future National Library. From 1935 onwards the purchases for the National Library were made on a separate vote from those for the Parliamentary Library. From evidence which I have, and which I believe to be correct, the Parliamentary Library Committee, at its meeting on 23rd May 1952 recorded the following in its minutes:

After discussion of the price, it was agreed that the Chairman write to the Prime Minister, in London, informing him that the Committee would be happy to leave in his hands all arrangements for bringing this copy of Magna Carta into the possession of the National Library.

We then come to the question: Out of which vote appropriated by Parliament was the Magna Carta purchased? Was it the vote for the Parliament, or was it the vote for the National Library?

I am informed, and believe it to be true, that the actual purchase of this document was begun with a deposit of £1,500 from the appropriation for the National Library, under the vote for Division 13 Bl, originally created in the estimates of the Prime Ministers Department in 1934-35 to allow the Presiding Officers of Parliament to make purchases as well as to employ staff for National Library purposes. The payment of the total of £Stgl12,500 was finally made by direction of the Treasury in 1953-54 from Division 187, item 39, of the appropriation for the Prime Minister’s Department, as other occasional special purchases for National Library purposes had been made before and were made later. It follows from this that no part of the purchase price of Magna Carta was debited to the estimates for Parliament.

While, therefore, it may be properly said that the ownership of, or property in, Magna Carta is with the Commonwealth of Australia, it cannot be said categorically, or at all, that the ownership of. or property in, Magna Carta resides within the Parliament. Within the general ownership of the Commonwealth of Australia, there is no doubt in my mind that the property in this document is with the National Library, lt is therefore, in my opinion, not unreasonable, that, the National Library, having had the cost of the purchase of this document appropriated by Parliament for the National Library, should be entitled to both the property in, and possession of, the document.

On a more soundly practical basis, one would imagine that the prime desire of members of this chamber is that as many people as possible should be able to view the document. Can we say categorically that more people will see it if it is displayed within the Parliament building than will see it if it is displayed within the National Library?

Senator Little:

– I should think so.

Senator WITHERS:

– I suggest that others would differ with the honourable senator. I suggest that this is merely a matter of judgment and it is doubtful whether proponents of display in either place can bring any real evidence that more persons will see it at one place rather than the other, although I personally have a feeling - and it is no more than a feeling - that as the National Library is open for longer hours on more days than is the Parliament building it is reasonable to suppose that more people would view it in the National Library than would view it iri Parliament House.

Finally, one might well ask: Is this a Parliament building, or is this place a museum?

Senator Little:

– One often wonders.

Senator WITHERS:

– That is quite so. Look around and see all the ancient relics that should be disposed of. I have no desire to take up any more of the time of the Senate on this matter. Personally, I would hope that the national1 Parliament would have far greater matters and greater issues to debate than merely whether a piece of writing almost 700 years old should reside in one place or another. In my view the important thing is what is enunciated in Magna Carta and not the mere physical display of a piece of parchment. It is far more important to uphold the substance of Magna Carta and the principles enunciated therein than to get into a tizz over the mere display of this piece of parchment, written on in a language which it is doubtful’ that even 1% of the electorate could understand.

My opinion is that there is something peculiar, almost sick, in a society which is prepared almost to worship a mere physical thing which is of relatively no importance rather than give true service to the principles and propositions enunciated therein.

I trust that by bringing this motion before the Senate tonight I have created an opportunity for senators on both sides to express a point of view; and, the result having been arrived at according to the proper forms of the House, I believe that you, Mr President, will then be duty bound to take action in accordance with the properly expressed desires of the members of this place. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
.New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

There has been no decision on this matter by our Party. I understand that that is also the situation with the Government Parties and the Australian Democratic Labor Party. Of course our friend, the sole independent, is untrammelled by any party decision. So we can once again decide a matter in a free way, and anything that I put I put on my own behalf and in the hope that I may persuade honourable senators, but certainly no-one is in any way constrained by any bonds of party to speak or vote in the same way as I do.

Senator Greenwood:

– Nor by any signatures to a petition.

Senator MURPHY:

– The persons who signed the petition expressed their view. Since the petition has been mentioned, it might be convenient now to refer to it. Senator Withers said that he thought this matter should be dealt with in some way whereby the minority could express its view. I would not dissent from that. But the position was that an absolute majority of the members of the Senate signed a petition, which was in these terms:

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned Members of the Senate respectfully showeth:

Our concern at the removal of the Magna Carta from the precincts of the Australian Parliament by the National Library;

That when this historical document, which is the basis of political liberty in the English speaking world, was purchased by the

Nation, the political leaders of that time stressed how fitting it was that Magna Carta should be housed within the National Parliament.

The petition went on to say:

Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to restore Magna Carta, the priceless relic of civil liberties and the foundation of the Rule of Law, to its rightful place within the precincts of the Australian Parliament.

The only reason why the petition was not presented to the Senate was that it was thought that it was not necessary to deal wilh it in a formal way, otherwise it certainly would have been presented to the Senate. However that may be, Senator Withers has suggested - and I think quite fairly - that he is not terribly dogmatic about the matter but that he wants it dealt with formally; so let it be. Let honourable senators decide how they want to vote. I would not suggest, for one moment, that any person who has signed a petition is bound to vote in accordance with that. He is a free agent. He may change his mind. For a number of reasons he may do whatever he likes.

I think it is important to consider what Senator Withers said. He said that this kind of document is of no real importance and that we should not be concerned wilh it. I think we should. We live in a world in which the tendency is to destroy heritage. We have gone through successive world wars in which whole cities and the lives of their inhabitants have been destroyed, as well as the art treasures of the world. Here we have a symbol, whatever it may contain. Perhaps the legend is more important than the realities of what was written in the document, but men and women all over the world have accepted this as a foundation of the liberties of mankind. We have very few of these great symbols. We have the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizens in France. Magna Carta is the foundation of the liberties of English speaking people. Here is one of the great copies of that document. I do not think we should regard it lightly. Magna Carta is a very important document to honourable senators and to the people of Australia. The fact that we are not showing concern for it is not something that should be belittled but we should give it the regard that it deserves. We consider it to be important.

Senator Greenwood:

– Where is the original American Declaration of Independence?

Senator MURPHY:

– I am not sure where the original is. Magna Carta was purchased in 1952 from the governors of the Kings School in Britton in Somerset. It was purchased by the Library Committee at a time before the National Library came into existence. I find it difficult to accept that it was purchased by the National Library when the National Library, as I understand it, came into existence by an enactment of this Parliament - the National Library Act of 1960.

Senator Wright:

– What did the corporate body acquire from the Committee?

Senator MURPHY:

– In 1952 the document was purchased by the Library Committee. The circumstances of that purchase, if Senator Wright will permit me, prompted certain statements to be made by the leaders of this nation. I regret that Senator Withers, when he quoted what the then Prime Minister said, did not refer to the most pertinent statement made by the Prime Minister. Senator Withers read what the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, said. In 1952, dealing with Magna Carta, Sir Robert Menzies said: lt will be a source of great pride to us to feel that we have in this place one of the ancient copies of this document.

The then Speaker said:

The Commonwealth National Library, which is governed by a joint committee of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, has recently acquired in England one of the fourteen known copies of Magna Carta.

He went on to say: lt will be given a place within this building, where it will be open to inspection by honourable members and the general public.

There is no doubt that it was purchased on the basis that I have stated. Senator Withers certainly indicated that I would be able to add to what he said, but the most pertinent fact about the purchase is that when it was acquired the leaders of the nation stated that it would be kept in this place - in this Parliament House.

Senator Byrne:

– Where was the National Library housed at that time? Was it housed in Parliament House?

Senator MURPHY:

– The collections were all round the place. It was ultimately to become the National Library. Senator O’sullivan, speaking on behalf of the Government, in 1952, said: . . it is fit and proper that this historic document, which is so closely associated with the development and establishment of the rule of law, should find an honoured and an abiding place in the National Parliament of this young country’.

Senator Greenwood:

– Who said that?

Senator MURPHY:

– That was said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, on behalf of the Government. When one considers what was said about the provision of moneys by this Parliament surely the provision that was made in the Estimates for this money was made on the basis which had been publicly stated in this Parliament by the leaders of the Government in both Houses and that was that Magna Carta was to be here. That was the basis upon which this Parliament appropriated the money for its purchase. I think that should dispose of the question as to where it was intended that it should be.

Senator Withers raised the question of people seeing it. We know that probably hundreds of thousands of people visit this Parliament each year. They come from all States. They come to Canberra to see this Parliament. They should be entitled to see Magna Carta here. We also know that the National Library is here and that already the National Library is running into difficulties because it has been trying to carry out two inconsistent functions. One is to provide for scholars a place of quietness and a place where people may work undisturbed. Then it has to cope with visitors. I think honourable senators know that earlier this year people were turned away from the National Library. The statement was made that it was not designed for the large number of visitors who were coming to Canberra to see it. I suppose it would be difficult to design a library to fulfil the two functions - one a place of research and the other a place where hundreds of thousands of people are tramping through. Inevitably the National Library will become a place of scholarship of research and of quietness. The tendency will be not to encourage people to go there and disrupt those who wish to work.

A library is not a place for visitors to be tramping in and around. The National Library is the place where we want visitors. We want them to come here too. I think it is only proper and fitting that Magna Carta should be here where the people can see it, where it can be an inspiration to all the children who see it and perhaps sometimes an inspiration to members of Parliament. Certainly it should be here where it was intended to be and where it was stated that it would be.

It is unfortunate that after those firm statements had been made by the Leaders of the Government in both places the document was taken away from here without any decision to that effect by the Houses of Parliament. I should think that Senator Withers might well have considered how it came about, after such statements were made so firmly by the Leaders of the Government and accepted in the Parliament, that the document was removed without such a decision being made as Senator Withers now seeks from the Senate.

Senator Wright:

– Are you fully stating the evidence of authority that was given for removal?

Senator MURPHY:

- Senator Wright raises this matter, but I shall not enter into it. I think the President himself at an earlier stage - on the day when the petition was mentioned - indicated that there had been no impropriety in the removal of the document. What I am saying is something else. If Senator Withers were concerned with the formality of approval by Parliament to this course surely, one would have thought, he would be saying that there should have been a motion as to the removal of the document rather than that there should be a motion as to its return. However that may be, I do not want to go into the question - and I would hope that the Senate would not - of any suggestions of impropriety.

Senator Wright:

– Let no disparagement of anybody flow from your remarks.

Senator MURPHY:

– The fact is that the document is now in the National Library, and, if the matter needs to be further clarified let us remove any suggestion of any disparagement of anyone in regard to the removal of the document. Rather let us deal with the matter on the simple basis of good faith and a simple decision as to where the document should be in the light of what was stated and what has happened. I would request that the Senate take the view that it should be in Parliament House. As I understand it, Senator Withers has properly put the considerations that might be had for the other view, but the main purport of his raising this matter was to have a formal decision by this Chamber.

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

– On 24th October last the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) addressed you, Mr President, at question time to indicate that he had a document in which a majority of members of the Senate had indicated their view that the copy of Magna Carta should be in Parliament House and not in the National Library. He also indicated to you that there had been an expression of opinion in another place which reflected that a majority of its members had the same view. You, Sir, indicated quite frankly - and, I thought, with complete fairness and propriety - that you and Mr Speaker had given permission for the document to be put into the hands of the National Library, which you considered was the rightful custodian of it. You then traversed some of the history of the acquisition of the document. Nobody had any doubt, or has any doubt at this time, that you, Mr President, or Mr Speaker, did what you in your judgment believed to be right. You then went on to say that you acknowledged that the majority of parliamentarians in both Houses had expressed an opinion, and therefore you would raise the matter with Mr Speaker with a view to having the copy of Magna Carta brought back to this place under strict security conditions. I want to make it abundantly clear that we are as one in this Senate that the President and the Speaker did what they believed was the right thing to do, and they certainly did it in their complete and absolute authority as the Presiding Officers in the two Houses I am sure that all honourable senators agree with that.

When this question was first raised Senator Withers submitted that the Senate should express a view to you, Mr President, rather than that you should make a judgment on the basis of the information that was sup plied by Senator Murphy. It must be understood that we are only expressing an opinion to you because the responsibility is clearly that of yourself and Mr Speaker. So we are now dealing with this matter tonight, and I would hope that we deal with it expeditiously. I know that you, Mr President, will have regard to an opinion which we express here by way of resolution - if it comes to a resolution by vote or even by the other means. I now come to my own view on this matter. I do not deny the suggestions as to how the document was purchased, but I believe that its rightful place is in Parliament House. I believe that Parliament is the voice of the people. Parliament is the most precious thing in our way of life and it stems initially from the Magna Carta. I can think of no better place for display of the document than in Parliament House. 1 believe that an overwhelming number of people would come here and see it in the context of Parliament.

Senator Young:

– In the right atmosphere.

Senator ANDERSON:

– In the atmosphere of the Parliament. It is one of the most important documents that a nation could have in its possession. We gained our nurture from the Magna Carta. Finally, on a human note, let me say that as a backbench senator for a number of years - certainly since I became a Minister I have not had the time to give hospitality and courtesy to people who come here - one of the things that I always did was to show the document to people who came to see Parliament House. I showed it to them with a sense of pride and admiration, knowing that they would share my feelings, because this was the document from which everything that we value in our way of life stemmed. I suggest that this document should be in Parliament House, and I know that you, Mr President, will have great regard for the expression of opinion that is made here.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– 1 regret that this matter has had to be raised in the Parliament because I feel that it could quite easily have been resolved in another way. We are all very conscious of the history of this document, with all of its sentiment and tradition. In many ways we are proud of the sentiments that are contained in it. This is a document of intent relating to the way in which a society of well-thinking people should conduct its affairs. The fact that we have gained possession of a copy of this document should give us all reason for great satisfaction. Over the years there has been a declaration by the Parliament, by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that this would be a worthy place for this document to reside. The document pertains to government and to parliament. It is an historical document, but its place is not necessarily in the Library.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What does it mean to the workers?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– What it should mean. Like the Bible and the ten commandments, it contains a statement of principle which is never carried out. Nevertheless, the document has been written and it is respected for what it contains. This challenge as to the place in which our copy of Magna Carta should be kept should never have been brought before the Parliament. If the Parliament wants it to be kept in Parliament House, that is what will happen. There is no possible chance of the Executive getting this document if the Parliament wants it. It is up to us tonight to decide whether or not we want it to be kept in Parliament House. There should never have been an argument between the Executive and the Parliament.

Senator Withers:

– There never has been.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Then what are we talking about now? A very responsible and able departmental head is claiming for his Department, the National Library, a document that the majority of senators require, in a petition to the President, to be retained in the precincts of the Parliament. Mr President, with his usual impartiality and diplomacy, has said that this is a matter that can be resolved without any great fuss or unusual procedure. He suggested that it was a matter to be settled out of court. Unfortunately the matter has now come back into court and I am very disappointed that it should have done so. Some very important principles are involved in this issue. We are very fortunate as a nation to have a copy of this document and the general sentiment is that it should be given a worthy place in this Parliament.

More people come to the Parliament and are interested in it than are interested in or visit the National Library. Some may think that it is a pity that such is the case. The Parliament is not a museum, although it contains some prize exhibits, but a document such as this should never be lodged in the museum. It should be a living inspiration to those who are maintaining the continuity of the democratic tradition. For that reason I believe there should be no argument whatever. If the Parliament wants this document, this is where it should be. If the Parliament wishes it to be kept in the precincts of Parliament House, that is where it should be. 1 believe that tonight we will decide that is where it is to be. I support the remarks which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and, I believe, supported by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson). There should be no argument about it. The Parliament wants the document to remain in Parliament House and, at the earliest possible opportunity, arrangements will be made for it to be brought back to its original place.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– My remarks on this motion will be brief. The motion is a very simple one. lt seeks an expression of the opinion of the Senate as to the best place for the safe keeping and display of Australia’s copy of Magna Carta. We aTe not here to decide legal niceties of who is the technical owner of this copy of Magna Carta. 1 may be prepared to concede the points made by Senator Withers, but this is not the matter that we are discussing. Within the terms of the motion we are discussing the best place for the safe keeping and display of Australia’s copy of Magna Carta. I believe firmly that this Parliament House is the best place for its display and safe keeping. Senator Withers questioned whether or not this was a museum. We could raise the same question with regard to the National Library. Is the Library to be treated as a museum? When discussing the site of the new and permanent parliament house we beard a great deal about symbolism. I believe that symbolism enters very strongly into a decision as to which is the best place for Magna Carta. I, as an individual senator, arn strongly of the opinion that this Parliament House is the best place for Magna Carta to be kept and displayed.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I support strongly the view expressed by Senator Murphy. I cannot understand any member of Parliament stating, as Senator Withers has, that Australia’s copy of Magna Carta should be kept in the National Library. Magna Carta is the basis of British democracy. I cannot understand why anybody should say that it should be kept in a place which is only incidental to the Parliament. The National Library is purely a place of research, a place which was established by the Parliament. The document is in no way connected with the principles or the working of the Library, lt seems to me to be reasonable to argue that the document should be kept in Parliament House so that we can be reminded of it. ft is the basis for the sort of work that we presume to do for the nation in (his place. Perhaps it could be argued that there is not a strong connection between Magna Carta and our Australian Parliament, but everybody knows that the principles of British democracy had their origins in this document.

As Senator Murphy has said, there are very few documents in democracies throughout the world which are related directly to the principles of a parliament. If we believe in the Parliament of Australia and if we believe in a democracy, we should ensure that the principles upon which our community is based are displayed in the place in which we meet, lt has been said that if the document is kept in Parliament House visitors will be able to see it, but it should be here not only for the visitors. lt seems lo me that we should be reminded of what the document contains because we are here as members of Parliament and we are acting, we say, in accordance with the principles of democracy. For that reason we have a direct connection with the Magna Carta. 1 can see no logic in the arguments advanced by Senator Withers. He has suggested that because the National Library paid for the document it should be kept in the precincts of the National Library.

Senator Laught:

– That is not a bacl argument.

Senator BISHOP:

– it is a bad argument. The National Library is not a part of our democracy; it is an apparatus which is incidental to the Parliament.

Senator Gair:

– An amenity.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes, an amenity. It is only because of the actions of the Parliament that the National Library has been established. The origins of the National Library are in the Parliamentary Library. I am aware of these things because I am a member of the Library Committee of the Parliament. I know of the attention that the Library Committee gave to collections for the National Library. If it was not for the activity within the Parliament there would be no National Library. That is the fact of the matter. Because the money that was used to purchase the document was appropriated by the Parliament to the National Library, which has its origin in the Parliament of this country, this important document which connects us with democracy should not be relegated to any place whether it is the archives section or the National Library. It belongs in Parliament House.

I repeat what I said at the outset. I cannot understand any member of Parliament who comes into this place pretending to support the principles of British -democracy saying that this important document should be located elsewhere than in Parliament House. One of the things which people who travel around the world notice is the absence of dedication. In a world of ideologies most people believe in something. In our country unless we can induce the people to believe in parliamentary democracy, unless we can point out to them that this system can work, unless we can prove that there is a basis in British history for our system of government, we are wasting our time. That basis exists, lt lies with the barons and the plebeians who fought to have the rights of ordinary people in British communities established in words and deeds. For that reason it seems to me that a document which symbolises those things should be kept within the precincts of the Parliament.

I can see no validity in the proposition which Senator Withers has advanced. He is arguing simply that a department of the Parliament which paid for the document should be allowed to keep it. I trust that the expressions of opinion of Senator Murphy and Senator Anderson, with which I agree entirely, will be noted and supported by a majority of the Senate.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– 1 support Senator Withers. I do not think we should indulge in a lot of emotion in relation to this matter. The motion moved by Senator Withers is in these simple terms:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the best place for the safe keeping and display of Australia’s copy of Magna Carta is the National Library. 1 commence by referring to how this document came to be in Austrafia. It came to Australia by virtue of a purchase made by a government department with money voted to that department by the Parliament for that purpose. Consequently that department prima facie owns our copy of Magna Carta at this moment. At the time of the purchase that organisation did not have a worthy place in which to put Magna Carta so it sought the permission of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to leave it in Parliament House.

Now that the National Library has a worthy place in which to put Magna Carta I think that the Library, having purchased the document and having owned it for 16 years, quite rightly has taken it to be housed in its own premises. Consequently, shred altogether of the emotion that has been engendered in this debate tonight 1 think that the Senate should agree that the National Library owns the document and that the National Library is the best place for it to be housed unless the Library, with its full authority, grants the right for the document to be exhibited in the Parliament. I have not been informed yet that the National Library has done that. Therefore, I think that at this time the correct place for the safe keeping and display of Magna Carta is the National Library.

I agree with a tot of things that honourable senators have said concerning democracy and Parliament but that is not the issue in the debate this evening. The issue is one of law: Who owns this copy of Magna Carta? Who paid for it? Should the organisation or department which paid for it surrender it? From my knowledge of what is before the Senate at this time, that has not happened. Therefore I consider that the National Library is the correct place for the document.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I think that the document should be returned to the

Parliament. I consider Magna Carta to be not an ancient piece of manuscript but a living document which expresses today, as it expressed when it was formulated, the principles which we aspire, in continuity, to reach in the Parliament of this country. It has been said that this document was purchased by the National Library. That is a matter about which one cannot be certain, just as one cannot be certain that when the document was purchased in 1952 the National Library was ever envisaged as being the building and institution that it is today. How can one be sure that when this document was purchased in 1952 with funds provided by the people of Australia it was purchased for a particular department, a particular institution or anything else? Great wisdom was shown by this institution in purchasing the document for the people of Australia and it is to the people of Australia, not a department, that the document belongs. That being the case, where can it be of the greatest value, not as an ancient relic in which interest has long faded, but as a living monument which enunciates principles that we must try to carry out?

Let us compare the two venues under discussion. Whether either is perfect or is the most appropriate may be open to doubt. If one walks iinto the Hall of Parliament House on any day one will see crowds of school children, one will see bus loads of tourists, one will see the people of Australia. I suggest that honourable senators visit the National Library and watch the dignified occasional couple who enter the foyer, which is about the only part of the building the people are permitted to enter. I agree with that, because the National Library is an institution designed to fill a completely different role. How could you have the joyous crowds of school children running in the foyer of the National Library? Yet is not this document more valuable as a symbol to the children, who have not yet had the opportunity to realise the magnitude of the principles that it contains, than it is even to us? In Parliament House they could see Magna Carta. Here they could almost feel the atmosphere that necessarily surrounds a document of this character.

The people of Australia whose money was spent on the purchase of Magna Carta would get much better value for their money if it were located in a venue similar to Parliament House than if it were in the National Library. 1 do not believe that any body of people, such as the committee which runs the National Library, has the right to hold, on behalf of the people of Australia, so precious a document. The management and control of the document should remain wilh the people. We are the people while we have the honour to represent them in the Parliament. I understand that this is the only copy of Magna Carta that has been permitted to go outside England except on one rare occasion when a copy was taken to the United States of America under heavy guard for exhibition on condition that it be returned to Great Britain after the exhibition.

Could a Library committee make a decision of that magnitude on behalf of the people of Australia if at some future date we felt that this document, so precious to the Parliament of Australia - in fact to all British Parliaments - should be taken to New Guinea for exhibition for a period to lend atmosphere to the establishment there of the principles that they have not yet even dreamed of in the circumstances in which they find themselves? We, a Parliament on behalf of the people and speaking directly for the people, could make such a decision. But a library committee could not do so. A library committee must keep it within the halls there and cannot speak for the people who actually own the document.

I think that these are the important reasons why if there is now doubt being established as to whether a department of some section of the people of Australia own or do not own this document this question should be very importantly settled now to establish once and for all that the people of Australia and only the people of Australia own this document. If this document is under the jurisdiction and under the control of this Parliament, it can be of greater use to the Australian people. It can more importantly be kept completely under the control of the people of Australia through the people that they themselves elect to represent them in the national Parliament. For that reason, I feel that this document should be returned to this Parliament and that it should not be bidden away in secret anywhere. It should be displayed publicly, at whatever expense is necessary to display it publicly, and it should be safely guarded for the future generations so that it will in turn be their property and completely under their control as it should be under the control of the generation today.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Mr President, 1 think that the Senate should be indebted to Senator Withers for the information which he has laid before it in support of his motion. 1 think that we also should be appreciative of the sentiments that have moved him to express the views that he has. I am a little surprised at the feeling which has been expressed with regard to this musty old document. I, for my part, recognise that if it was within the precincts of the Parliament for many years it was within the precincts of the Parliament as the property, intended at the time of its purchase, of whatever is constituted by the Commonwealth National Library. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that arrangements were made - and we have been assured on all sides that those arrangements were made with the utmost propriety - that after the National Library building was opened and the National Library was installed in it the document which was the property of the Commonwealth National Library would be moved to the National Library building. Now, it was that fact which has precipitated the chain of events that has led to this debate tonight.

I feel with Senator Withers that the procedure that was adopted to express to the President of the Senate that Magna Carta should be brought back to the National Parliament was a procedure which ought not to be followed in the future. It was precipitated, I understand, by a petition which was signed by a majority - as Senator Murphy assures us - of the senators of this Parliament. Contained within that petition was the request that you, Sir, should use your good offices to have the document brought back to the National Parliament. There was contained in that petition also certain reasons expressive of a general intent that the Parliament was the place where this document should be. I am prepared to assert, without knowledge because I have not spoken to all of the persons who signed this petition, that not every person who signed that petition - indeed, very few, if any - was aware of the facts that Senator Withers by dint of his own research was able to ascertain and to present to the Senate tonight. I would have thought that very few people who signed that petition, if any who signed that petition, were aware that it was purchased out of the vote of the Prime Minister’s Department for the Commonwealth National Library.

Senator Murphy referred to the fact ; and I think he quoted chapter and verse from Hansard - that at the time the purchase was made a statement was made that Magna Carta should remain in this building. I think the statement also was to the effect that it would properly adorn this building. I think that it ought to be borne in mind that at the time when that statement was made no National Library existed. There was in this building a Parliamentary Library and a national Library and in other places throughout Canberra there was to be found property of the Commonwealth National Library. I think that too much emphasis has been placed upon the expression ‘this building’ in justifying the fact that Parliament House is the appropriate place for Magna Carta.

I think that it is relevant to consider whether or not Magna Carta is a document which ought to be placed in the National Library or in the National Parliament. I have turned up the speech which was made at the time when, in 1960, the National Library Bill was presented to the Parliament, ft is a strange fact that nothing appears in the National Library Act nor in the second reading speech - I have glanced through both - as to what was to happen to property which had been purchased in the name of the Commonwealth National Library. One can assume only that that which was purchased in the name of the National Library would go to the National Library is distinct from the Parliamentary Library. That can only be an assumption because it appears to be a matter to which the Parliamentary Draftsman has not adverted. Senator Spooner, in his second reading speech when introducing the National Library Bill 1960 said:

As early as 1923, the Library Committee recognised the distinction between the functions of a parliamentary library and of a national library and the title ‘Commonwealth National Library’ was adopted. In 1953 separate financial provision for each library was made, the National Library henceforth being carried on the vote of the Prime Minister’s Department.

The main difference between the Parliamentary Library and the National Library is the purpose they serve.

The purpose of a parliamentary library is to meet the specialised needs of members of tha legislature and I can promise that under the proposed new arrangements honourable senators need fear no falling off in the services available to them…..

He went on to say:

The functions and scope of the National Library cannot be defined precisely at this stage, but its purposes are clear. The ideal of a national library is clear enough to us all; it is obviously an expression of pride in nationhood, and its goal, as expressed by the first Joint Library Committee of the Commonwealth Parliament, is that it shall be ‘such a library, indeed, as shall be worthy of the Australian nation’.

It is obvious that if we are to have a national library of the Commonwealth there will be housed in that library those documents of which the Australian nation is proud. It is the obvious purpose of the library.

Parliament is the place where people who represent those who have elected them - in this case, the people of Australia - legislate. I fail to see where the purposes of Parliament are served or advanced by the housing within the building in which Parliament meets of Magna Carta. But I can see a lot of purpose and benefit in Magna Carta which, as Senator Little said - I hope I quote him correctly - is the only copy of Magna Carta which has been allowed outside the United Kingdom being housed where it can be shown and displayed to the benefit and to the knowledge of the Australian people. I fail to see - and nothing which has been said today has persuaded me in the least degree - that Parliament is the proper place in preference to the National Library for the housing of Magna Carta.

I referred to Magna Carta earlier as a musty old document. After all, I think it ought to be recognised - and I think historians do recognise - that Magna Carta was simply a bargain which happened to be made in 1215 between the barons and the monarch. Though in terms it was expressed to confer the rights and liberties upon the English people, it was something which was given as the gift of the monarch which equally could be taken away by the monarch. English history discloses that for the best part of 300 years or 400 years thereafter the monarch perpetually sought to take it away. What preserves the liberties of the English people and what are the bastion and foundation of our liberties are not Magna Carta but the combination of the parliament and the rule of law through an independent judiciary. They are the things which we ought to be preserving and seeking to emulate. Magna Carta has nothing to do with parliament. There was no parliament at the time Magna Carta was signed. Parliament emerged later, quite independently of the Magna Carta. Why, therefore, should we regard Magna Carta as so vital to this Parliament, even though we recognise its role, its function and the part which it has played in the development of our history? We all learned something of Magna Carta in our school days but surely, as we grow older - and certainly when we come into this legislature - we ought to recognise that its function in regard to Parliament is minimal.

What we ought to be considering is the question: Which is the best place for the safe keeping and display of the copy of the Magna Carta? Canberra is the national capital. It is growing and as time progresses I suppose places will develop in which the national archives will be housed. 1 recall from my visit to Washington that the Declaration of Independece was not boused in the building of Congress; it was housed in a building set aside for that purpose. Around that document were to be found other historical documents of which the American people were proud; documents which were valuable and which they thought should be preserved and displayed. I suppose that in time a building of such a type will be erected in Canberra. I should have thought that at present the building which best lends itself to that function is not Parliament House but the National’ Library. People come to Canberra wanting to see what this city has to offer. We happily assume that Parliament House and the Parliament are attractions of Canberra but ultimately there ought to be other buildings and other functions which those buildings could serve. One of the functions which the National Library can serve is to provide a place where the copy of Magna Carta may be housed.

In conclusion, Mr President, I think that one point which this debate and the events which preceded it can illustrate is the danger and the problem which arises from the signing of petitions when the full facts may not be known. I should have thought, in the light of what has been said to us tonight by Senator Withers, that many people who signed that petition did so believing that they knew alt there was to know. They might well not have signed it. To some degree this debate is being determined by the fact that some people signed a petition to which they wish to adhere. This debate having been opened I think that on the issue before the Senate, Senator Withers’ motion ought to receive the support of the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The longer 1 sit in this place the more I realise that the heat and length of a debate is always in inverse proportion to its importance, lt seems to me that the two great issues debated in this Parliament this session were, firstly, where we should site a new parliament house and, secondly, where some document, some book, or whatever one might call it, should be housed. One would not think that there was a war raging in Vietnam, that there were starving Biafrans, or that there was a great monetary crisis which could affect Australia in spite of what the leading articles in the Press may say. When we do discuss those important matters no doubt they will receive far less attention than a matter such as this. I did not sign the petition that has been referred to. When the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) drew my attention to it I said that I did not think it was worthwhile. I still do not think such a petition is worthwhile.

I believe there is a prima facie case for leaving the copy of the Magna Carta in Parliament House. I say that because of its history. But after all, throughout our lives, we elect delegates to do something for us. When the authorities concerned - I understand it was you, Mr President and Mr Speaker - decided that the Magna Carta should go to the National Library, the decision was good enough for me. One does not always get exactly what one wants. However, we elect people to do things for us. I was prepared to let the matter go although, prima facie, it could have been left here.

I regret that this debate is taking place. I do not think it has a place in the records of (he national Parliament. We should be giving serious consideration to things of very much greater importance. When I leave here I will remember as the two main subjects of this year’s debating, firstly, where we may put a building in 15 years time - and the wriggling and conniving that went on - and secondly, where we may put a document. I do not think this matter is worthy of debate. I think there is a prima facie case for leaving the copy of the Magna Carta here. The reason I did not sign the petition was that I had no firm views one way or the other. I did not think the petition was worthy of this Parliament.

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

– I did not sign a petition and I did not know one was in existence. I did not know that the copy of the Magna Carta had been removed from the precincts of Parliament House.

Senator Georges:

– What did you know?

Senator McKELLAR:

-I did not know until the matter became evident shortly after the removal. 1 will correct the opinion that Senator Georges may be getting. I feel strongly that the proper place for this document is King’s Hall in this Parliament. Like most of the older senators, 1 heard of Magna Carta when I was a small boy. Magna Carta, rightly or wrongly, to my mind always has been tied up, firstly, with the British Empire, as we knew it, and secondly, with justice. We of British stock always have taken pride in the Magna Carta. Like other honourable senators who have referred to this point earlier in the debate, I realise that many school children come to visit the Parliament. For many of them it will be the one and only visit they will maketo this place. I think it would be very nice indeed if they had the opportunity to see this very historical document.

I have been amazed to hear so many honourable senators refer to it as something of little worth. For the life of me I cannot understand the thinking behind suchstatements. To me the Magna Carta always has been symbolical. It is something that goes hand in hand with democratic government. We in Australia, over the years, have been proud of the foresight of those before us who set up this system of democratic government which we follow and from which all of us have benefited.I am sure all of us hope that this form of government will continue for many years to come. If this is so, then surely there is no argument about where this document should be kept. I have a great respect for our National Library. It is a beautiful building. I believe it is one that will be worthy of Canberra for the next 50 years, knowing that this city will become a very important one. The National Library is worthy of the city we envisage in the future.

Senator Gair:

– It will have to last more than 50 years if we are to get value for our money.

Senator McKELLAR:

– The things that mean most in life cannot always be assessed in terms of money. The honourable senator would agree with me on this point. Surely, as I mentioned earlier, school children who come here and see this historic document must get a sense of pride at seeing it in this place.

One of the unfortunate aspects that we older people are confronted with today is the tendency for people to overlook history; to forget about how our nation was built and the people from whom we originated. I am a great believer in recognising the part that our forebears played and the debt we owe to them. The sacrifices of the pioneers of this country are bound up with this historic document. I am not concerned about who paid for it.

Senator Gair:

– The people paid for it.

Senator McKELLAR:

-I think that is correct. But if the National Library incurred a liability in acquiring the document, surely it can be reimbursed by Parliament. I do not think there is any worry on that score. I will close by repeating and endorsing the words of the poet who many years ago wrote:

Breathes there a man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land?

Senator Anderson:

– Might 1 suggest that we proceed to a vote and gel this matter resolved. I am not moving the gag, but I appeal to honourable senators. We have much to do and I think logically we should proceedto a vote.

SenatorPOYSER (Victoria) [9.32]-I move:

It seems to me that we have spent enough time on this matter in view of the number of Bills awaiting our attention and the fact that we are supposed to deal with them in 2 days.

Senator Anderson:

– I have suggested that the amendment be put. We do not need a motion.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - What is it suggested I should do?

Senator Anderson:

– If any honourable senator wishes to speak, obviously he will rise to do so. Otherwise I suggest Mr President, that you put the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well. Do you wish to speak, Senator Byrne.

Senator Byrne:

– I rose to speak at the same time as Senator Poyser. It seems that I am one of the few-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Poyser has moved that the question be now put.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I hope that after I have finished speaking there will be nothing further to be said. I was saying that I am included among the rather limited number who, judging by the speeches they have delivered, favour the Magna Carta’s resting in the National Library. I agree with honourable senators who have taken the approach that it is not by its nature or history a parliamentary document. It is a document of law. It is not a document of legislative enactment, lt is in the nature of a great covenant. Significantly, the original of the document rests, I understand, in Lincoln Cathedral. That may seem to be a strange respository for it. One would think that if Magna Carta were a document with the character which we are trying to attribute to it here, attempts would have been made in the home of parliamentary democracy in Great Britain to enshrine it within the halls of the institution of Parliament in Great Britain. That has not been done. Because of the history of the document associated with men of the church and the barons responsible for the drafting and presentation of the document to King John for his signature, this great covenant with its ecclesiastical association has not been disturbed, and it rests in Lincoln Cathedral.

The question which should occur to us is where the document should rest, because of its nature or the virtue of its purpose. I do not think that by its nature it should rest in Parliament. By the purpose it is intended to serve, which is to bring to as many people as possible a knowledge of its history and meaning, I think it is much more likely to be used, resorted to and taken advantage of in the National Library. For those reasons I favour that resting place. Finally, it was entrusted to the National Library, it was purchased by that body and was placed by that institute in its own place.

Senator Bishop:

– Is the honourable senator a member of the National Library Committee?

Senator BYRNE:

– No. I think it should continue to rest in the National Library. I trust that the Senate will so resolve and will advise you accordingly, Mr President.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 40

NOES: 7

Majority 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 2461

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-I present the sixth report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 2461

SALARIES BILL 1968

In Committee

Consideration resumed (vide page 2447).

The Bill.

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

– Having now received a copy of the Bill and having had a short time in which to try to follow its provisions through, I have at least some knowledge of it. One point that strikes anyone who reads it is that the people who previously received $15,000 per annum - not a small sum and not one to be sneezed at - are to receive a further $4,500 per annum - again not a sum to be sneezed at - because of the increase in the cost of living in Australia. The people who previously received the rather consequential sum of $17,500, of course, are suffering so severely that their salary is now to be increased, by this Bill, by $5,250.

Senator Prowse:

– How much will the Commissioner of Taxation receive?

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

– He will receive an increase of $5,250 per annum.

Senator Withers:

– How much of that will go in tax?

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

– I do not think that matters. I have yet to see any public servant or any member of parliament refuse an increase in salary because he would have to pay more tax. If that specious argument is to be used, we should not increase any salaries and we would be doing people a favour if we reduced their salaries and put them in a lower tax group. lt is a false and specious argument to say that because a person is in a higher income bracket and therefore has to pay more tax his salary should be further increased. Had the honourable senator said that these people will have to make increased superannuation payments there would have been some point in his interjection.

Senator Prowse:

– They will have to do so.

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

– I know that they will. That is something that could have been said rightly; but it certainly cannot be said rightly that the increases are of this magnitude because these people will have to pay more tax. A new provision in this Bill is that which says that holders of these offices and permanent heads of departments will be given an allowance as well as their salary. This is a complete departure. I fail to see how the Government can rush a Bill of this magnitude through this chamber in the space of time in which it would have been rushed through but for the interruption that has just occurred.

This new principle has been adopted. I am not against it. I believe that if this principle applies in private enterprise it is fair and proper that Permanent Heads and these other officers should receive an allowance. The question is: How much should the allowance be? I believe that the allowance the Government has given them is too much, especially in view of the fact that these public servants want for nothing. They have transport everywhere. Everything is paid for. The only reason for the allowance is to enable them to entertain. I cannot think of any other reason for it. These people receive a travelling allowance, a living away from home allowance, and so on. So this is really an entertainment allowance or an allowance for business expenses - that is the term used in private enterprise. I agree that this is a good idea and one that we should support. But I believe that the amount of allowance given is far too high.

The other feature of this Bill that disturbs me is that the salaries of people are provided for by regulation. The salaries of at least two of these officers, including the Repatriation Commissioner, are determined by regulation. I take umbrage at this because I do not believe that it is really permissible. The parent Act says that officers of the First Division shall be paid such salaries as the Parliament provides. The matter depends on how one reads those last four words - ‘as the Parliament provides’. I maintain that if the Government proposed to bring in this Bill it should have brought in at the same time an appropriation- Bill to grant these increases. I am not saying that these officers do not deserve these increases. I will come to that point shortly. What the Government is doing is using a back door method of granting these increases, namely, using the money that has already been appropriated by the Parliament in the Appropriation Bills that we passed recently. But the Government intends to deplete the sum appropriated by paying these increases. Then in February we will have before us another appropriation Bill to cover the additional money that is needed because of these increases. It can be said that the Parliament has provided this money on a lower scale of salaries. The money wilt be used much more rapidly and therefore we will have to pass a second appropriation Bill. But I do not regard the matter in that light. Of course, this is a matter of legal interpretation.

I maintain that officers of the First Division must be paid such salaries as the Parliament provides and that we have not provided those salaries. We have provided the money for certain salaries, but we have not provided for salaries at the new rates. We have not passed, either in this chamber or in the other place, any legislation appropriating funds for these rates of salary. Therefore, in my opinion, the Parliament has not provided the salaries that we are now being asked to approve. I would like that point to be cleared up. I believe that it is an important one. I do not know whether the correct term to use is ‘ultra vires’; but I believe that the Government is acting outside the Act in providing for these increases without an Act of this Parliament specifying these increased salaries for Permanent Heads.

Senator Little:

– That would apply to parliamentary salaries, too.

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

– It would apply to parliamentary salaries, but the people of Tasmania know my views on that matter. I do not ever stand up and speak on parliamentary salaries. I do not believe that members of parliament who have a private income have the right to say what other members of parliament who do not receive extra income from a profession or business should receive.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator is a two-job man.

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

– Yes, I am, and I am proud of it. I have always said that in my view I am a better politician for being a two-job man because at least I know what goes on in the medical profession and can talk about the medical profession in this chamber. I am quite happy to have two jobs and apparently the electors do not mind my having two jobs. 1 have had two jobs for 20 years and they still have not put me out. I believe that they agree that 1 should have two jobs, whether or not Senator Gair believes that I should.

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Would you say all that again?

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

– Do you want me to repeat it to you? I did not realise I was so good. But I am afraid I will have to ask the honourable senator to read it in Hansard tomorrow. I come now to the amount of the proposed increases. I think they are far too high. The amount that was given to us as parliamentarians was too high. But that is only my personal opinion. I cannot agree with the honourable member for Bradfield in another place (Mr Turner), who says that increased salaries mean an increase in the calibre of the men entering Parliament. That is sheer nonsense, because those who will receive the increases are the present members of the Parliament. Therefore, in the first place, by increasing salaries we do not increase the calibre of the men entering the Parliament. Secondly, even though higher salaries are provided for parliamentarians, the prospective parliamentarian still has to be selected by the Party selection committee, and that often kills the chance of good men getting in.

Senator Sim:

– Does it?

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

– Yes, often, and I do not want to look at anyone. It is true that increasing parliamentary salaries does not increase the calibre of the men who enter Parliament, because they have to be selected. But that has nothing to do with the amounts we are offering here, although there is some connection because if members of Parliament are only worth another $2,500 these men are not worth another $4,500 or the extra $5,200 which the Government is proposing in some cases. I have yet to be convinced that they are. We read in the Minister’s second reading speech, which I crumpled up, the alleged reason for the increases.

Senator Gair:

– You are venomous.

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

– I am not venomous. In his second reading speech, the Minister said:

The existing salaries of these senior officers date from 1st November 1964.

This is where my remarks with relation to parliamentary salaries become relevant. I think our previous increases dated back that far. The Minister’s speech continues:

During this period there have been many changes in other salaries in the Commonwealth service, including the substantial increase of December 1966 in the Second Division.

He also makes reference somewhere in his speech to the cost of living. When you are on $19,000 a year I do not think you are doing too badly, and to give the man on $22,000 a year an increase of $5,200 is to give him far too much, in my book. I agree that the salaries of these officers should be increased, but the proposed increases are completely haywire and out of proportion.

No-one can ignore the fact that once these permanent heads are given an increase there will be a flow on. There is no doubt whatever about that. It was argued that parliamentary salaries should be tied to the salaries of others. I have been saying for years that we should never go through the disgusting and disgraceful procedure every time we want to increase our salaries of appointing a commissioner to tell us what we should earn, when we know before we start that the commissioner is on our side. On the recent occasion we had no commissioner to tell us what we should have and we had to adjudicate for ourselves. So we fixed our own salaries.

When we were discussing the increases in parliamentary salaries it was suggested that parliamentary salaries should be tied to the Second Division of the Public Service. 1 understand that that suggestion was vetoed, but if our salaries are to be tied to those applying to the Second Division of the Public Service, then, now that we have granted ourselves an increase, it is possible that in 2 or 3 months time we will be giving an increase of $2,000 or $3,000 to those officers in the Division of the Public Service to which we think we should be tied. I think we should be tied to something. I have already said that our salaries should be adjusted according to the variations in the cost of living. If there is a percentage increase in the cost of living there should be a percentage increase in parliamentary salaries and the salaries of permanent heads of departments. I do not believe for a moment that we should decide our own salary. If we increase the salaries of permanent heads of departments by about $5,000 a year the next thing we shall be faced with is an increase for the Second Division officers, then for the Third Division officers, then for the Fourth Division officers and so on down the line, and we shall again become antagonistic when we find that we are not on the same level as Second Division officers. I think the whole thing is completely haywire.

Senator Ormonde:

– They call that progress.

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

– It is not progress; it is pure inflation. There is no other word for it. One argument advanced for increasing the salaries of permanent heads of departments is that they are worth the increase.

Senator Ormonde:

– That is true.

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

– Some are worth it, but some are not even worth half what they are getting now.

Senator Byrne:

– I do not think that is correct.

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

– If they went into private industry some of them would not earn even half of the salaries they are getting now. Nor would some of the politicians.

Senator Gair:

– That applies to politicians, too.

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

– That is what I said. The point is that the proposed amounts are far too great. I cannot understand this generosity on the part of the Government when it refuses to increase age pensions by more than $1. The proposed increase of about $5,000 is far more than the man on the basic wage earns, lt is argued that the increase is necessary because of an increase in the cost of living. These people already have salaries they can live on. I am more than surprised that the Opposition does not query this. The members of the Opposition are the ones who are supposed to look after the interests of the poor people, yet they have not said one word in opposition to the proposed increases. The only thing they were worried about was that their Deputy Leader was not getting a special increase.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Order! I ask the honourable senator to link his remarks with the Bill.

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

– They are relevant to the Bill.

Senator Anderson:

– We are in Committee.

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

– Do not tell me about the Bill in Committee. I did not see the Bill before we went into Committee. If there is inefficiency there, you should be sacking someone today. But if the person responsible is in the Public Service I suppose he will not be sacked. I do not know who or what he is, but I presume that I can make a second reading speech on a Bill that I did not see until we went into Committee. But the Minister has sidetracked me. Let me come back to the point I was making. The proposed amounts are far too great and should not be granted. I am surprised that the Opposition is allowing these proposals to go through unopposed.

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

– I should like to reply to some of the things that have been said by Senator Turnbull. Firstly, he seems to be under some misunderstanding as to how the machinery for granting increases operates. I point out to him that salaries of First Division officers are not fixed by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator. That being so, the only way in which they can be determined is by the Parliament. This brings me to his point that the proposed increases are too great. The salaries of Second Division officers are determined by the Public Service Board. If Second Division officers are granted increments which distort the relationship between the salaries of First Division officers and those of the Second Division officers then, quite clearly, the salaries of First Division officers must be increased to maintain the margin that has always existed between the salaries pertaining to the two divisions and all the other divisions right down the scale throughout the Public Service.

Senator Cant:

– In other words, so as to retain class distinction.

Senator ANDERSON:

– No. Frankly, that is a stupid statement. The honourable senator knows that there must always be somebody at the top getting a higher salary than the person below him. That applies even in a two man or three man business. The fact is that all public servants below the First Division officers have received increments since 1964 which have destroyed the margin between the salaries of First Division officers and those applying to other divisions. Obviously the time has now arrived when we must increase the salaries of First Division officers to restore the margin to what it was before. I should have thought that was elementary.

The honourable senator also referred to an appropriation by the Parliament for salaries. I inform him that a supplementary Appropriation Bill will be introduced in the autumn session. Until then, the proposed increases will be paid out of the moneys appropriated during the Budget session. Obviously, during the autumn session it will be necessary to introduce an Appropriation Bill to supplement the moneys appropriated by Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in order to carry on the services of government for the balance of the financial year.

Let me reiterate the point, which I submit is fundamental to the whole issue. If you have various grades in your work force and a certain scale of payment for each grade from the top right to the bottom then, if the people in the lower grades receive increments which wipe out the margin between them and the people in the top grades, and no increases are given to those in the top grades, eventually you must arrive at the position where Second Division officers are receiving more than the First Division officers. Quite obviously something has to be done and the time to do it is now, when we are considering parliamentary allowances. For this reason I ask the Committee to give passage to this proposal.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– 1 want to refer to the schedule to the Bill and to the references to the payments to the Auditor-General, the Acting AuditorGeneral, etc. In doing so I note the large increases that have been granted. 1 make a plea on behalf of public servants who are employed within the precincts of this House. I ask for a thorough investigation and review of the salaries, conditions of employment and amenities of the staff, particularly those employed in the refreshment rooms. It is quite amazing to see a Bill of this nature before the House. By this Bill public servants on the top level will receive an increase of $5,000-odd a year. Yet we find almost sweated conditions in the building in which we are deciding the issue at this point of time. I do not want to speak at great length on this, but at some other time I intend to do so. Something should be done fairly quickly for these people. Their conditions of employment would not be tolerated outside this House. Any manual labourer receives overtime after 12 hours employment, but no overtime is paid to the employees in this building until they have worked 43± hours in a week. They work under all kinds of conditions that no trade union would tolerate.

The unfortunate part about this, so far as the House is concerned, is that the persons in the refreshment rooms, in particular, have nobody to put their case for them; they are not members of a union. I understand that trade unions are not permitted within the building to organise people into a group in order to be able to speak for them. Instead of granting large handouts to the top level public servants the Treasury or the other appropriate department should think of a complete review of the wages, amenities and conditions of employees in this building.

Only this week I learnt from a person that if there is a cash shortage in the cash register in the bar, despite the fact that several casuals are employed in the bar the three permanent employees have to make up that shortage out of their salaries. Any number of persons could have had access to that till.

Senator Little:

– Is anything ever distributed amongst the permanent employees?

Senator POYSER:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Senator Poyser, I can well understand your concern in this matter, but you are straying from the subject matter of the Bill.

Senator POYSER:

– I shall confine my remarks to asking for justice, when a handout of largesse is being given, for those who have been forgotten for many years.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– In all my life I have never been opposed to increases being granted to workers. At this point of time I do not propose to oppose the increases that are envisaged in the Schedule in the Bill. Page 3 of the Schedule refers to officers of the First Division of the Commonwealth Public Service. Section 30 (1.) of the Public Service Act states that officers of the First Division shall be paid such salaries as the Parliament provides. The Parliament has provided the salaries that are to be paid to First Division public servants. I want to look at one salary only. I do not do this with any ulterior motive. The Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department is to receive a salary of $17,500. This seems to be the standard salary for First Division public servants. This is the salary that the Parliament has provided in accordance with the Public Service Act.

The Minister for Supply said that later an Appropriation Bill will be introduced. I wonder what this means. I am completely befuddled by the open ended contract that the Government has made in respect of the Fi ll aircraft. If this Bill is passed the Government has an open ended contract to introduce whatever appropriation it wishes in respect of these people. I would have thought that, along with legislation providing for salaries as determined by the Parliament, an Appropriation Bill would have been introduced. The Minister has said that, if we pass this open ended contract that is provided for is the Schedule, some time in the future a second Appropriation Bill will be introduced. Can the Minister advise the Parliament whether the provisions of such an Appropriation Bill would be retrospective? Can he advise what the Bill will contain and what salaries will be available to First Division public servants?

I do not think the Government has acted fairly. This has happened all the time. The

Government is continually introducing legislation and asking the Senate to agree to measures without giving it adequate information on which to base an opinion. I complained about such tactics in relation to the Air Navigation (Charges) Bill and also another Bill that was debated last night. I think it is quite wrong to expect the Parliament to give open ended contracts to the Government without being provided with any explanation of what they mean. I look at the Minister’s second reading speech and I derive no benefit from it. The Minister said:

This Bill arises from the Government’s decision to increase the salaries of $15,000 and $17,500 for permanent heads of departments of State and certain statutory offices and to provide for the payment of annual allowances additional to these salaries.

The Bill provides the new salaries and allowances for the holders of the statutory offices included in the First Schedule to the Bill and, by an amendment to section 30(1.) of the Public Service Act 1922-1967, for the payment of allowances lo permanent heads.

The Parliament is given no indication of the salaries for First Division public servants. I know that historically their salaries have followed those of holders of statutory offices, but that does not necessarily mean that this trend will continue forever - that there will be no difference between the salaries of officers in the two categories. I think that the Minister, when he introduces legislation such as this, should provide more information for the Parliament. I do not want to develop the argument of parliamentary salaries, but I do recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), when introducing the Parliamentary Allowances Bill, stated that since 1964 the general wage levels had increased by 22%. Nevertheless, with the exception of the basic salary of parliamentarians, which increased by 35.7%, the other genera] increases in parliamentary salaries were of the order of 25%. Under this Bill an increase of 30% in the salaries of permanent heads of departments and the holders of certain statutory offices is proposed. That is 5% more than the general increase in the salaries of parliamentarians, other than the basic salary, but 71% greater than the amount by which the general wage structure has increased since 1964. I can quite imagine that some allowance is made in the fixing of this salary for the fact that it may not be fixed for another lengthy period and then the general wage structure will probably have increased by more than the 71%.

But if one adopts this principle as to one section of the community it has to be adopted for other sections. This is not oneway traffic. No allowance for future events is ever made in the fixation of the salaries of working people or of other salaries which are outside the jurisdiction of this Parliament. The rates are fixed in accordance with the work that is performed and its responsibility, and we now have work value cases, whatever that might mean. There is never any amount provided for something that might happen in the future. One should remember always that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission determines a dispute for a period of up to 5 years. No allowance is made for anything that may happen in those 5 years. It is quite wrong for the Government to say that the general wage structure has increased by 221% and then come in here with a proposition that First Division public servants should have their salaries increased by 30% .

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– For my purposes I refer to the Schedule attached to the Bill relating to the Chairman and members of the Public Service Board, because these people are in in fact responsible for the effective and proper administration of the whole of the Commonwealth Public Service which, of course, is one of the largest employers of labour throughout the length and breadth of Australia. It is with the Chairman and members of the Public Service Board or their officers that a trade union conducts negotiations on behalf of its members. If in the course of negotiations agreement cannot be reached between the Board and the union on the log of claims or on the declaration that has been filed, the matter is heard by the Public Service Arbitrator who is also the subject of the Bill now before the Committee. After the log of claims is filed, the matter is listed for hearing before the Public Service Arbitrator. Generally speaking, some considerable time elapses between the filing of the log of claims and the hearing of the matter and its ultimate determination.

But there is one matter outside the realm of the Public Service Arbitrator which is within the realm of the Public Service

Board and can be attended to by the Board to correct an anomaly so far as officers of the Public Service are concerned. Now that this Bill is before the Committee - I assume it will be passed - I suggest to the Minister that something should be done expeditiously to assist those officers who are not so fortunate as officers of the First Division. I refer to the rate of travelling allowance awarded to Third Division officers who, in the performance of their duties on behalf of the Commonwealth Public Service, have to do quite an amount of interstate travelling. 1 placed a question on the notice paper on 21st November - some 8 or 9 days ago - in which I asked what was the capital city travelling allowance awarded to Third Division officers, from what date it had applied and what action was being taken to increase it. I am given to understand that the amount actually awarded to officers of the Third Division who are engaged on interstate duties and staying in capital cities is the meagre amount of $10 a day. I suggest to honourable senators that one would really have to be flat out on today’s living standards to obtain a reasonable bed at a reasonable hotel, and three meals a day, on a meagre $10.

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

– You just could not do it.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I agree that it just cannot be done. This, I understand, is the rate which has been in existence for some 4 years. I trust that when this Bill is passed and substantial economic justice has been awarded to these very senior officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, their attention will be drawn to the plight of the very hard working Third Division officers, some of whom are connected with the staffs of Ministers and some of whom are connected with the staff of this Parliament. Throughout the whole ambit of the Third Division of the Public Service these people are expected to travel interstate and to live on a daily travelling allowance of $10. I suggest it is most unfair to them and to their wives and families. Because it is within the realm of correction by officers who are the subject of this Bill1, 1 would suggest that it be immediately drawn to the attention of the Chairman and members of the Public Service Board so that immediate remedial action will be taken.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I do not want to delay the Committee as we have a lot of business to get through. I should like to refer to one comment that the Minister made. He said that the salaries of Second Division officers were last adjusted in December 1966 whereas those of First Division officers were adjusted in 1964 and that this has caused the salary scale of Second Division officers to be within $272 of that of First Division officers. It seems to me that further consideration should be given to the fixation of salaries throughout the Public Service, particularly in the fringe areas which are outside the sphere of negotiation with the Board and consideration by the Public Service Arbitrator. For instance, a couple of years ago we had ad hoc committees looking at university sal’aries. I often wonder whether there is not some way in which the Public Service Arbitrator or some other authority could keep all of these salaries in line. It seems to me that we jump about tremendously. I have two questions which the Minister may be able to answer. I know that they are a little outside the ambit of the Bill. Are any negotiations going on at the moment as regards the salaries of Second Division officers? Senator McClelland raised the question of travelling allowance. Is travelling allowance paid to the First Division officers with whom we are dealing tonight? If so, how much is it?

Senator McClelland:

– Daily travelling allowance.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, in addition to what the Bill provides. The annual allowance provided for by the Bill is an innovation. Until now we have paid these senior officials no annual allowance, but now they are to be paid $1,000 and $1,500 a year. I should like the Minister to tell me what he envisages these allowances are to cover. He has said that there are expenses which, by their nature, cannot be met by direct reimbursement. But these expenses are not something new that has grown up in only the last week. That is obvious. How were these officers previously reimbursed for these expenses? Obviously these were not expenses to be met from the travelling allowance. The allowance must be related to entertainment or something of that nature. What type of expense is envisaged and how were these amounts reimbursed to these officers previously?

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

– Senator McClelland asked a question about travelling allowances. That is a matter which is at present under review. The points made by the honourable senator are of some significance and, therefore, will no doubt add to the consideration by the Public Service Board of travelling allowances. In reply to the point raised by Senator Willesee, I understand that an application in relation to salaries for Second Division officers is currently before the Public Service Board. He raised the question of travelling allowances for First Division officers. 1 understand that that allowance is of the order of $21 a day. Senator Cant raised some points about the method being adopted to implement these increases. This is not a unique procedure; this method has been used before.

The situation is that Appropriation Bill (No. 1) shows an amount for salaries and the increased salaries for First Division officers proposed by the Bill now before us will come from the amount appropriated by Appropriation Bill (No. 1). When we come to the autumn session of Parliament we will be dealing not only with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) but also with other appropriation Bills. We do this every year. During the autumn sessional period an additional appropriation will be made to meet the increases proposed by this Bill. First Division officers are treated differently from other officers in that their salaries and allowances are fixed by Act of Parliament. I am not acquainted with the historical background to know how this situation came about but my appetite has been whetted to the extent that I propose now to find out why this is so. It is the situation and the only way that we can deal with the First Division officers at present is by a Bill of this nature. Senator Cant suggested that we should deal with the appropriation of the amount simultaneously. This is his view.

Senator Cant:

– This Bill provides an open ended contract.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Not really. The first paragraph of the second reading speech makes it abundantly clear that the salaries of permanent heads of departments, which at present are $15,000 and $17,500, are to be increased to $19,500 and $22,750 respectively. In other words, a permanent head of a department who now receives $15,000 will receive $19,500 and the permanent head who now receives $17,500 will receive 522,750. The increase is not open ended as the honourable senator suggests.

Senator Cant:

– Is there to be retrospectivity? Can we expect that the appropriation Bill to be brought down in the autumn session will provide for the retrospective payment of the increases?

Senator ANDERSON:

– No. As I understand the situation, the appropriation Bill will merely fix an additional amount to be appropriated. There will be no retrospectivity. The increase will apply when the Bill becomes law and will be paid from a date to be fixed.

Senator Cant:

– Will the new salaries operate from the date of the appropriation Bill?

Senator ANDERSON:

– They will operate from 1st December.

Senator Willesee:

– Would the Minister tell mc how expenses have been reimbursed previously? Does the Minister imagine that there would have been no expenses of this kind until now?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The travelling allowance for First Division officers is $21 a day. In the past there has been no allowance other than the travelling allowance.

Senator Willesee:

– What about the new annual allowance that is being introduced?

Senator ANDERSON:

– This is a new allowance which was not provided before.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Senator Willesee’s question related to that part of the second reading speech that states that the annual allowances are for the expenses of office in which these senior officials are necessarily involved but which, by their nature, cannot be met by direct reimbursement. The honourable senator wanted to know how these expenses have been met in the past. These expenses have not grown up over the past week or fortnight. Senior officers have incurred expenses for a considerable time. In what way were these expenses met in the past?

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

– These expenses were met previously from their salaries. 1 can understand the honourable senator raising this question because of the form of words used, but the words are meant to convey that these senior officials, by virtue of their office, are required to meet certain commitments. These would be much the same as commitments with which parliamentarians are faced. Unless one really holds such a position one does not realise what commitments there are. In the past these officers have received a salary and have had to bear these expenses from their salary. It became recognised that because of their position as First Division officers, because of the responsibilities they have, the things they have to do and the places that they have to attend, there is a case for them to be given an allowance. That allowance is to be provided by this measure. They have not received an allowance for this purpose in the past.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The explanation given by the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) is rather disturbing because it suggests that in the past these officers were being paid a salary which took into account that they had expenses which, by their nature, could not be met by direct reimbursement. From that one can assume that their previous salaries were fixed on the basis that these senior officials had to meet expenses of something nearly comparable to $1,500 and, in other instances, $1,000. There is now to be an increase in their salaries by the very large amounts that were mentioned in detail by Senator Turnbull, but in addition to those increases they are to be paid allowances. The point validly being made is that the necessity for this expenditure by these officers is not something that will arise only in future. It is not a new matter. It is something which has existed for some time. Consequently, their salaries must have been fixed on the basis that they would have to pay these amounts out of their salaries.

The only reasonable view to take is that their increase in salary will be the amounts stated plus the $1,500 or $1,000. On any reasonable assumption, this is what is actually happening. To suggest that there is to be a 30% increase is hardly to measure the real increase, I should like to know whether the reality of the position is that the permanent heads of what might be called the junior departments will be receiv ing $19,500 while the Ministers in charge of those departments will be receiving a salary of $17,000 only. Is it also the situation that the permanent heads of the senior departments will be receiving $22,750 while the senior Ministers - the Cabinet Ministers - will be receiving $20,000 only.

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

– There is a bigger allowance.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, but we are speaking of salaries. Leaving aside the Prime Minister and Treasurer, Cabinet Ministers will be receiving $2,750 less than the permanent heads under the control of those Ministers. Now that we have time to reflect upon it, that seems to me to be an extraordinary result to achieve by the legislation.

Senator Anderson:

– It has always been so.

Senator MURPHY:

– Irrespective of whether it has always been so, we are considering a situation in which prior to this date one could have said at least, as the Minister has indicated, that the permanent heads had to meet certain expenses for which they were not reimbursed. That has been attended to now and they have been dealt with fairly. The plain position is that members of the Public Service are being paid more than Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers. With due respect to those who framed the legislation, it is rather difficult to understand how this result can be perpetuated.

I should like to make one other observation. Senator Turnbull referred to copies of the Bill not having been circulated to honourable senators. I understand that the position may be that copies of the Bill were not circulated to members of the House of Representatives. Indeed the suggestion seems to be that they were not even printed at the time the legislation went through the House of Representatives today. I was not aware of that when it was introduced here and I am concerned about it. Whatever happens to this Bill - of course it will be passed - certainly a great deal more attention will be paid in future to questions of relativity and to the way in which these matters are presented to and passed through the Parliament. Some attempt should be made to take these very important matters out of an atmosphere in which they are surrounded by a number of other Bills, soma of them perhaps important., some of them perhaps quite unimportant. The fact that other Bills are being passed through both Houses rapidly could perhaps give the impression to everyone that that is the accepted practice. 1 do not blame anyone here, or for that matter anyone else. I am simply saying that in future - I think my feeling is shared by a number of honourable senators - the passage of Bills of this nature and of this magnitude will not be as quick as it has been on this occasion. Indeed a great deal more attention will be paid to them and we will see to it that every member of this chamber, at any rate, has an opportunity to inform himself of the legislation, to study it and to understand it thoroughly before it reaches the stage that was reached on this occasion.

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

– Senator Murphy referred to the distribution of the Bill in another place. I have just been informed that the Bill was distributed in another place when the matter was being considered. He compared the salaries of Ministers and heads of departments. The figures that he cited are right as far as they go. The present situation is a continuation of a situation which has existed for a long time, but if we take into account the allowance that a Minister of State receives we see that a Minister receives considerably in excess of the amount received by the head of his department. I refer particularly to my own case and the allowances that I receive as a senator and as a Minister.

Senator Gair:

– Why do you get the allowance?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Because one spends it. I suppose that would be applicable to all senators. The allowance a senator receives is spent in the execution of his duties. There is no profit in it. In fact in many cases he has to pay an additional amount. That is not in dispute. I am merely making the point because Senator Murphy said: ‘After all, a junior Minister receives so much but the head of his department receives more’. That is true in relation to basic salary but when you add allowances for the Minister and the allowance now being provided for the head of the department the balance leans the other way.

Senator Gair:

– The head of the department has security until he is 65.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I am merely stating the fact so that it will be on record should anyone wish to give consideration in the future to this debate. The circumstances in which the Bill was brought here tonight were regrettable. We all concede that. I lake on board the point that was made about the vigilance of the Senate and accept that responsibility just as every other honourable senator does.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2470

JOINT COMM11TEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman’ - 1 have received the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day in which it desires the concurrence of the Senate:

That the Joint Committee on the ACT, or any subcoinmittee thereof, when considering whether the breathalyser should be introduced into the ACT as an instrument to assist the ACT police in the detection and prevention of the offence of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, which was referred to the Committee on 26th November 1968, have power lo move from place to place.

Motion (by Senator Scott) - by leave - proposed:

That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 153 from the House of Representatives: That the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory or any sub-committee thereof, when considering whether the breathalyser should be introduced into the Australian Capital Territory as an instrument to assist the ACT Police in the detection and prevention of the offence of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor which was referred to the Committee on 26 November 1968, have power to move from place to place.

That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2471

AERODROMES (PASSENGER CHARGES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Mr Deputy President, I move:

This is a Bill for an Act to introduce charges payable by air service passengers for the use of facilities provided by the Commonwealth at certain Commonwealth aerodromes. On a number of occasions, reference has been made to the widening gap between the amount that it costs the Commonwealth annually to provide facilities for the civil aviation industry, and the amount of revenue received from the industry for the use of these facilities, and last year the Government announced its intention to introduce a passenger service charge to help towards reducing progressively this gap between costs and revenues, thereby lowering the burden on the general taxpayers, who would otherwise have to meet the unrecovered costs. The Government deferred introduction of the charges in 1 967-68, but it now proposes that this additional source of revenue from the users of aviation facilities should be availed of as soon as possible. In 1967-68, the total cost of maintaining, operating and administering aerodromes and air navigation facilities was almost S60m. including interest, depreciation and superannuation charges. Revenue derived by the Department of Civil Aviation from the users of these facilities amounted to approximately $ 12.5m while another $8. 5m was paid by the domestic operators in aviation fuel excise. It will be seen that, although the proportion of costs being recovered is increasing each year, the deficit in monetary terms is still substantial.

The Bill imposes charges on certain air passengers who use or enjoy the benefit of facilities provided by the Commonwealth at a number of Commonwealth aerodromes, such as runways and taxiways used by the aircraft which carry the passengers, and the terminal buildings, roadways and other improvements established to enable them to embark on and disembark from these aircraft. The proposed charges are estimated to bring in revenue of about $4im annually, a small sum compared with the unrecovered costs mentioned earlier and the total cost of §34m incurred in 1967-68 in operating and maintaining the particular aerodromes where charges will apply. In drawing up the scheme of charges, the Government gave a lot of thought to whether they should be applicable at all Commonwealth aerodromes, and concluded it would be appropriate to restrict them to the busier airports. It has been decided, therefore, that no charges will be levied for embarkation or disembarkation at any Commonwealth aerodrome where, in the most recent completed year, passenger movements were less than 35,000. For the present, this means that, in addition to Canberra and the six State capital cities, passenger charges will be payable only at Cairns, Coolangatta, Mackay, Rockhampton and Townsville in Queensland; Dubbo, Tamworth and Wagga in New South Wales; Devonport, Launceston and Wynyard in Tasmania; Alice Springs and Darwin in the Northern Territory; Kingscote and Port Lincoln in South Australia; and at Lae, Port Moresby and Rabaul in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

At first sight, some provisions of the Bill may appear to be complicated, but this is largely due to the involved nature of the domestic airline network and the journeys which some passengers make, and the Government’s belief that travellers should not be penalised financially under the proposed scheme of charges simply because the airline system is organised in a particular way. In itself, the proposed scheme of charges has been kept as simple and as free from anomalies as possible. In simple terms, a domestic passenger will pay a charge of 50c, if he or she embarks on a journey which commences at one of the specified Commonwealth aerodromes. Similarly, a charge of 50c will be payable for disembarkation at one of these aerodromes at the end of a journey. No charge will be payable for embarkation or disembarkation at a non-Commonwealth aerodrome, and additional charges will not be incurred if the aircraft on which the passenger is travelling lands at one or more intermediate Commonwealth aerodromes while proceeding to his destination, or if the passenger transfers between flights at a Commonwealth aerodrome in the course of a single journey. The charge for the return part of a journey will, in general, be the same as that for the forward part of the journey.

Some examples of charges applicable to particular journeys may make these arrangements clear: From Canberra to Sydney, the charge will be $1. From Canberra to Brisbane via Sydney, the charge will be $1. The charge for a journey CanberraSydneyCanberra will be $2. From Canberra to Cooma, which is not a Commonwealth airport, the charge will be 50c. From Canberra to Gladstone, a non-Commonwealth airport, via Sydney and Brisbane, the charge will be 50c. It will be noted that the charge payable is not dependent on the distance flown, as it is related solely to embarkation or disembarkation at a Commonwealth aerodrome. Although no additional charge is payable when a passenger disembarks and re-embarks at a Commonwealth aerodrome while transferring from one flight to another, this concession applies only if the passenger makes a booking for the complete journey before commencing the journey. It is considered that serious practical difficulties would arise if the scheme were made any more liberal in this respect.

The charges for children under 15 years of age and full time students of primary and secondary schools under 19 years of age are to be 50% of the adult rates. Passengers on commuter services and on charter services operated by the airlines will be charged on a similar basis to airline passengers. For the time being, passengers on other charter flights will be exempt.

International passengers will be charged $2 on departure from Australia but will be exempt from a charge on arrival in this country. No charge will be applicable to embarkation or disembarkation on a domestic flight on which the international passenger travels to or from the point of departure or arrival in Australia, provided the bookings for all travel are made at the one time. The charge for children under 12 years of age travelling on international services will be 50% of the adult rate.

The charges for the use of aerodromes on domestic journeys will, in normal circumstances, be payable by the passengers when they make their reservations with the operators. As this procedure will not always be convenient where international journeys are concerned, arrangements will be made so that passengers can pay at the airport before departing for overseas. It is intended that the operators will be responsible for all collections, whatever method is used. Detailed instructions will, of course, be issued to the operators explaining the practical application of the charging scheme and these should help in avoiding delays to passengers when they are making their reservations or checking in at airport traffic counters.

The Government realises that the standard charges will be more significant in relation to journeys for which the airline fare is low, and, as a result, some passengers will feel they are being required to bear a disproportionate burden. This is not so, of course, because the charges are imposed for the use of the aerodrome facilities at the commencement and end of a journey, and the benefits so enjoyed are similar whether the journey is a short one or a long one. It would not be reasonable, therefore, to have different charges in such cases, but the decision to apply charges only at the busiest airports will minimise, if not eliminate completely, the instances where they might seem high in comparison with the air fare.

This leads me to the general question of concessions and exemptions, about which the Government has received numerous representations. As indicated above, the charges have been halved for children and students who normally pay half fare. Similarly, no charges will be imposed for infants who are carried by the airlines free of charge, or for employees of the carriers travelling on duty. Military personnel travelling on aircraft operated or chartered by defence authorities will also be exempt from the charges. The Government has concluded that exemptions should not be extended to any other general class of passengers.

Consideration also has been given to the claims of particular areas where requests for special treatment have been made. In addition to the general exemption for aerodromes having fewer passenger movements than the annual level mentioned earlier, it has been decided not to apply the charges in respect of embarkation or disembarkation on flights within the Territories of Papua and New Guinea, between those Territories and West Irian or the British

Solomon Islands Protectorate, between Australia and Cocos Islands or Norfolk Island, and between the latter island and New Zealand. While recognising the extent to which some other places and areas depend on the speed and convenience of air transport, the Government does not feel it would be appropriate to exempt them from the proposed charges.

In reaching these decisions, the Government has had to be mindful of the effect of too generous an approach on concessions and exemptions. Clearly, any shortfall in revenue brought about by reduced charges for some travellers would have to be met by the general taxpayer or by increasing the charges payable by other passengers, and, in the light of the costly facilities provided at Commonwealth expense, the proposed charges are quite modest.

The Bill contains appropriate provisions regarding the procedures for payment of the charges, credit arrangements, the adjustment of charges already paid when the passenger changes his journey after embarkation, and the making of regulations, and there is no need to discuss these at this time. With the co-operation of all concerned, the charging scheme should create a minimum of inconvenience to passengers and the operators. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2473

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL 1968

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– It seems a far cry from the elevated matters we have been discussing this evening to descend to mere matters of university administration and the Government’s administration of its policy on universities. However, that . should not deter us from addressing ourselves shortly to the Australian Universities Commission Bill 1968 which, although very short in its compass, accomplishes an important objective, that is, to make provision for the staff of the Australian Universities Commission. In effect, the present Act contains no provision for the staff of the Commission. As I understand the position, the Commission has been operating with staff taken from the various departments, some originally from the Prime Minister’s Department, who now come within the Department of Education and Science. We were told by the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), in his second reading speech, that the Government believes it would be more appropriate for the statute governing the operation of the Commission to provide for the employment of its staff. The Opposition supports this attitude.

This is a short Bill. It provides for the staff necessary to assist the Commission to be employed under the Public Service Act and for the Chairman of the Commission to be given powers under that Act, in relation to the Commission’s staff, similar to those exercised by a permanent head in relation to the staff of a department. We have been hearing a little about permanent heads in another connection during the course of the evening. One is, perhaps, a little hesitant in giving to any individual powers as substantial as those exercised by heads of departments. Nevertheless, this seems to be a sensible pattern to follow, lt has been adopted in the case of a number of statutory authorities, such as the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the National Library. We have also heard something this evening about the National Library.

This Bill seems to be in line with provisions embodied in legislation setting up those authorities. There is a power of delegation, which is normal, although whenever one sees provision for a substantial power to be delegated, it is proper to pause and make sure that one is assenting to something which is within the realms of reason. However, Mr President, I do not think that this is an occasion on which one would find it necessary to open up a broad debate as to the kind of administrative controls exercised by bodies such as the Australian Universities Commission. This Bill provides for staff. It is filling a gap. Therefore the Opposition is prepared to support the measure and give it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2474

ADJOURNMENT

European Launcher Development Organisation

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to refer briefly to a question I asked of the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) on 12th November. It referred to our representation at the European space conference held in Bonn and to our European Launcher Development Organisation representation. I complained at that time that we were not represented at the conference at ministerial level. The Minister in his reply said, among other things:

I can assure honourable senators that Australia is very well and faithfully represented at the Bonn talks currently proceeding and will be similarly represented at the European space conference over the subsequent 3 days.

I took time to get a list of the delegations at the European space conference, which is referred to as a ‘Ministerial Conference’. The list shows that nineteen countries were represented. The representation of Australia consisted of the Deputy High Commissioner for the Commonwealth, London; Deputy Secretary, Department of Supply, First Secretary, Australian Embassy, Bonn; Counsellor on Technical Affairs, Australian Embassy, Paris; First Assistant Controller (Joint Projects and Space), Department of Supply, Canberra; Assistant, Weapons Research Establishment Representative, London; and Senior Executive Officer (Projects Policy), Department of Supply, Canberra.

I have compared our delegation with the other delegations. It does not match up at all. I intend to make a detailed comparison with only the German delegation. The French and Italian delegations were composed of the same strength as the German delegation. Great Britain was represented at ministerial level. The German delegation was composed as follows: Federal Minister for Scientific Research; Head of Space Research Department; Head of Division for Policy Matters, Legal and Administrative Affairs and Space

Science in the Space Research Department; Head of Division for Space Flight Research and Technology and Aeronautical Research in the Space Research Department; Head of Division for International Co-operation; Head of Section for ESRO and CETS matters; Head of Section for Extraterrestrial Research, Space Research and Scientific ESRO matters; Head of Section for European Launcher Development Organisation and European Space Conference matters; Head of Section for Policy Matters and Co-ordination of International Cooperation; Head of Section for Research Satellites and Application Satellites; Head of Section for Space Research Planning, Development and Investments; Personal Assistant to the Minister; Press Officer; Head of Section in the German Federal Foreign Office for Foreign Policy matters of Scientific and Technological Development; Head of Section in the Federal Ministry of Finance for the Research Budget of FMSR; Head of Section for Space Service in the Federal Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications; and Head of the Institute of Space Physics.

Senator Anderson:

– Is the honourable senator referring to the German delegation?

Senator GEORGES:

– -Yes. I do not intend to read the composition of the French delegation, but I repeat that it and the Italian delegation were of equal calibre to the German delegation. It may be of comfort to the Minister to learn that of the nineteen delegations at the conference ours was superior to three, namely, the delegations of the Principality of Monaco, the Vatican City, and Austria. Decisions were made at this very important conference. The Government must have been aware that a decision would be made as to the future of the Woomera establishment. 1 wish now to refer to one of the decisions which is reported in the ‘International Herald Tribune’ of 13th November 1968. It reads:

Britain today formally asked permission to withdraw from the costly European Rocket Launcher Organisation, but softened the blow by proposing an exclusive European programme in space and offering funds to set it going. The withdrawal request was submitted at the opening of the Third European Space Conference in Bonn by Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Britain’s Minister of Science and Technology. If Britain’s ELDO partners agree to the request, the nation will save the £15m ($37ra) it is committed to spend on rocket launcher development over the next 3 years. British withdrawal could mean the end of the ELDO project, since the British bear 27% of the cost. This is equalled by Bonn, while France contributes 25%, Italy 12%, the Netherlands 4.5% and Belgium 4.5%, with Australia providing the launching equipment and ground stations.

The only opposition to the proposition came from the German delegation. The Woomera establishment can be in difficulties. If Britain withdraws, France may ask for the development of an alternative launching base in equatorial Africa. The point I wanted to make at the time 1 asked my question was that we should have been represented at the European space conference at ministerial level, with scientific support equal to that of the other delegations. It seems to me that the Government treated this important matter far too lightly. I wish to obtain an assurance that at future conferences of similar importance we will be represented at ministerial level, with adequate expert support.

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

– With great respect to Senator Georges - and I acknowledge that it is his function to bring matters to the attention of the Parliament - he is in some degree inaccurate in his assumptions. The European Launcher Development Organisation conference preceded the European space conference. The ELDO conference was attended by the member countries of that organisation. The European space conference came afterwards. It is true that it was interlocked with the ELDO conference. It is important to understand that a long time ago when Mr Stonehouse, assistant to Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn, visited Australia, he indicated to us when we were then renegotiating the joint project that Britain would not make any additional contribution for an increase in the cost of the ELDO programme. Britain was prepared to honour its original commitment but was not prepared to make an additional contribution. That was made known at the time and Britain has not departed from that stand.

It is also important to remember that whilst it was not possible for me to go to the first conference, which was held in Paris, the head of our delegation was Mr Knott, who was head of the Department of Supply before he became Deputy High Commissioner in the United Kingdom. Mr Knott has been associated with the ELDO programme almost since its inception. He is familiar with the Ministers and heads of the various departments of State who have been associated with the programme. He is probably the best informed man in Australia on ELDO matters that we could possibly have sent to the conference. He was briefed by the Government and by me. At the October conference in Paris he had the advantage of the support of Mr Cooley, the present head of the Department of Supply. He also attended the briefings for preliminary discussions with the British Government. Mr Cooley attended the conference in Bonn, as did Mr Bott, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Supply, who also attended the briefings. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion below the line in these matters.

Senator Georges read out the composition of the German delegation. That conference was held in Bonn and, of course, it was possible for the Germans to have all their experts available at the conference. It is a fact of life that it was not possible for me to go to the Paris conference or to the Bonn conference. But I believe that the result will be identical to that which would have been achieved had I been there. We have every reason to expect that the firings in the ELDO programme - incidentally, we hope to have a firing tomorrow morning - will continue through to 1969. It was always understood that when we completed our firings towards the end of 1969, apart from one additional firing which was decided on about 18 months ago or at aboutthis time last year - before I became Minister for Supply - ELDO would go to French Guiana in South America for its equatorial firings.

So our first appreciation at this point of time is that we have not lost anything as a result of the conference. It has gone generally as we expected it to go. I had hoped to make a further fairly lengthy statement in the Senate before we rose. But now it does not look as though I will be able to do so. Therefore, I propose to issue a comprehensive Press statement which will cover all the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter and of which every honourable senator will receive a copy in his mail after we rise tomorrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 November 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19681127_senate_26_s39/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant