Senate
18 March 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 375

EDUCATION

Petition

Senator WRIEDT presented a petition from 1.330 citizens of Tasmania showing that (here is a crisis in education in Australia; that a transformation of the classroom situation is necessary, where children will have reasonable freedom to develop as self-reliant, independent individuals and where they can learn to function as members of a democratic community; that proper preparation for school and thorough guidance there, by qualified teachers, are crucial to a proper education for Australia’s children: that present rate of teaching training is far below the requirement determined by the Martin report which shows that 75% additional teachers in government schools will be required by 1975 compared wilh those in service in 1963; that to obtain maximum benefit from the education system, pre-school facilities should be available to all children; that insufficient Stale or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements; that adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government; that there is an urgent need for a national inquiry into all aspects of Austraiian education. The petitioners pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration, during Human Rights Year, to this most vital matter.

Petition received and read.

page 375

QUESTION

SENATOR KEEFFE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of an important and happy event which occurred earlier today, namely, the birth of a son in the Canberra Community Hospital to the President of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Keeffe, and Mrs Keeffe?

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

– I was informed of this event a short time ago and on behalf of the Senate 1 hasten to extend congratulations to Senator Keeffe, Mrs Keeffe

!I543/<H>- S- 115

and the new born babe. The young fellow enters into a wonderful world. There is no country better than Australia.

page 375

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that the home of Miss D. Mayo of Brisbane was raided by Customs officers, accompanied by police, on Wednesday, 5th March? If so, on what grounds was this raid made?

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

– The investigation to which the honourable senator refers was carried out as a result of information received concerning prohibited imports. The investigation at the premises concerned showed that the information was without foundation and the officers apologised for any inconvenience caused by their visit. The investigation occupied less than 20 minutes. Subsequently, the Collector of Customs Brisbane, personally contacted Miss Mayo and explained the circumstances. He later wrote to Miss Mayo expressing his regret for any inconvenience caused by the visit. Customs officers in general do not possess authority to enter and search private premises. Warrants giving this authority are issued to only a number of selected investigation officers. Honourable senators will be aware that all law enforcement officers must follow up information given to them. In this case, subsequent inquiries have established that the wrong address had been advised. Despite this unfortunate incident, officers must take all steps to suppress the importation of prohibited imports. I should mention that, contrary to newspaper reports, the officers present did not threaten to smash in doors or use any words about forcibly entering the premises. 1 regret the inconvenience that was inadvertently caused to the householder in this incident.

page 375

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 wish to ask a question of the Minister for Customs and Excise. In what form and by whom was an authority issued to raid the home of Miss Daphne Mayo in Brisbane? Does the Minister approve of a raid at the hour of 10 p.m. on a respected elderly lady? Does he agree that the words ‘I will smash the door in’, which were alleged to have been used by one of his officers - and this has been confirmed by Miss Mayo subsequently - were in fact used? In the light of the many irregularities in the Department of Customs and Excise, will the Minister conduct a thorough inquiry into his Department and take steps to regularise the conduct of his officers?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Firstly, I must mention that no words to the effect that the door would be broken in were used.

Senator McClelland:

– Is the Minister saying that Miss Mayo was untruthful?

Senator SCOTT:

– These allegations appeared in a newspaper report, but my Department and my departmental officers refute it. I wish to point out that the prevention and detection staff of the Department of Customs and Excise has a duty to perform. One of its duties is to stop the inflow of drugs and prohibited articles and goods to Australia. The officers were carrying out their duty in this capacity when they searched this house. But the information they had received was completely incorrect. The officers apologised for the inconvenience that they caused to Miss Mayo. Further, the Collector of Customs called on Miss Mayo and explained the situation, and following that he wrote expressing his regret.

page 376

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS GRANT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I ask: Is it a fact that the Minister for Shipping and Transport is to receive the executive of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow to hear its views with respect to Commonwealth Aid Roads moneys? If so, does this mean that the allocation of Commonwealth Aid Roads moneys, which was discussed with the State Premiers last week, is still open for re-examination? Does it mean that further consideration will be given to Western Australia’s claim for a more equitable share of the total allocation so that it can meet the challenge of developing 1 million square miles of Australia? Does it also mean that consideration will be given to South Australia’s claim for moneys to seal that State’s section of the Eyre Highway?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Yes, my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, will be seeing the executive of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations tomorrow. This does not mean, however, that the question of allocations of Commonwealth aid roads money is open for reexamination. The Prime Minister, at the Premier’s Conference last week, made quite clear the Commonwealth’s attitude towards the proposed allocations and, except for the two minor matters which were referred for discussion at the official level, so far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned the allocations have been decided.

page 376

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. It relates to the Miss Daphne Mayo case. To what extent do Customs officers check that houses that they are about to raid might possibly contain illegally imported items? What precautions do they take to ensure they are not victims of practical jokes? Is it correct that, having obtained entry to Miss Mayo’s house, the customs officers found absolutely no evidence of pornographic material? Is the Miss Mayo who was the subject, of this raid the same Miss Mayo who is an M.B.E.; who is a trustee of the Queensland Art Gallery; who made one of the big pairs of bronze entrance doors to the Mitchell Library in Sydney; and who was a joint founder of the Queensland Art Fund?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I understand that the suggestion contained in the latter part of the honourable senator’s question is correct, but I am not quite sure. As to that part of his question which relates to the precautions customs officers take before they search a house, I point out that in Queensland they obtain a search warrant from the Collector of Customs in Brisbane. There are only a limited number of officers allowed to have search warrants. Generally, before searching a house for prohibited imports, inquiries are made by the officers concerned as to the authenticity of the advice that they have been given. As to this particular case, I ask the honourable senator to put that part of his question on notice so that I can find out just what precautions were taken on this occasion.

page 377

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Minister noticed a newspaper report that the Canadian Minister for Trade has stated that some wheat exporting countries are selling wheat at below the International Grains Agreement price and that Canada must be ready to meet the competition? Has the Minister any information that would confirm that some exporting countries are dumping wheat at prices below the Agreement price?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I saw the newspaper report referred to and made a note to get some information on it. That information is not yet available to me. This is probably because I have not processed it through the system. I am not informed of the position outlined in the question but 1 shall get the information for the honourable senator and I hope to be able to give him a reply within the next couple of days. I shall’ probably be able to supply the information tomorrow.

page 377

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the current United States investigations into the effects that television crime, brutality and violence might have on children, and to the undertakings given by three of the largest United States networks to reduce violence in their 1969-70 schedules of programmes? Will the Minister have this matter studied with a view to negotiating similar improvements in Australian television standards?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 have seen some comment in the Press concerning this matter - it is probably the comment to which the honourable senator refers - about the concern expressed by certain people as to the effects of television programmes of crime and violence on children. 1 shall put the honourable senator’s question before my colleague, the Postmaster-General, and get a reply from him for the honourable senator.

page 377

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question also is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it not a fact that in spite of the greatly increased number of telephone channels available between Tasmania and mainland States the subscriber trunk dialling system is often heavily overloaded, causing long and frustrating delays to telephone users? Is the Minister aware that because of the absence of road and rail links and because postal services appear to be more time consuming and more irregular than hitherto, people doing business between Tasmania and the mainland have turned to the STD system for economy and speed of communication, and therefore are at present being seriously disadvantaged? Will the Minister ask the PostmasterGeneral to tell the Senate what action, if any, is being taken to provide more channels for telephone communication to and from Tasmania?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have noted the points raised by the honourable senator. There is no doubt that since the introduction of STD the use of this service given by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has been greatly appreciated by the people of Australia. That is borne out by the very point that the honourable senator makes, namely, that the service is being used to a very great degree to save time in business, family contacts and various other requirements for telephonic conversations. He asks whether, because of the crowding, action can be taken to provide more channels between Tasmania and the mainland. I will place that point of the question before the PostmasterGeneral and obtain a considered reply for the honourable senator.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been drawn to a statement by Senator Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska, United States of America, in which he urged the scrapping of the Fill programme and said that he could understand why we Australians are concerned about what we have let ourselves in for? Is it a fact that the Fill cannot match the B52 that it was supposed to replace when it comes to carrying conventional iron bombs in limited wars, such as in Vietnam? Is it also a fact that the Fill are restricted in combat operation and have built into them basic flaws that may never be corrected, and that Australia’s defence is in danger of being partially compromised because of their nonperformance? Are the technical advisers to the Government aware of these problems? If so, will the Government still take delivery of these aircraft against the advice of Senator Curtis, who was a member of the committee that investigated the Fill programme?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– First of all, 1 have not seen the statement by Senator Curtis, an American senator. Secondly, I presume that the subsequent questions the honourable senator asked were based on the article written by the American senator. The third point I make is that quite obviously a government would never in any circumstances frame a defence policy on an opinion given by a senator who was expressing a political point of view, as he is perfectly entitled to do. The Australian decision in relation to the Fill is one taken on the advice of its military advisers. I merely say to the honourable senator that quite obviously any comment that may be made by an American senator would not be an influencing factor in relation to that decision.

page 378

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICES

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware of the importance to rural cities of a twice daily postal service? Does the Minister not recognise the disadvantage of country business and administration compared with the relatively easy access and cheap telephone costs of metropolitan based industry? Will the Government give immediate consideration to a request to re-establish the two mail deliveries system as it applied previously in certain country areas? If not, will the Government give immediate consideration to making communication costs an even charge throughout the community?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am certain that before a decision was reached by the Postmaster-General concerning the delivery system to which the honourable senator referred the matter was studied very carefully by the Minister and his Department. But I will have placed before him the points the honourable senator has raised, and I will obtain a considered reply for the honourable senator.

page 378

QUESTION

GRAIN EXPORTS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that flour millers and processors of coarse grains operating in country areas, and exporting their products in containers, are being placed at a considerable economic disadvantage through the requirement of delivery to container depots for inspection before stowing in containers? As it is recognised that it would be impracticable to send inspectors into the country every time a container is to be loaded, will a workable alternative be sought? Is it possible for inspections to be made by Government officers who are stationed in the vicinity of country factories or mills? Could local health inspectors or district agronomists be so employed?

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

– The Minister for Primary Industry has informed me that he is aware that in the circumstances mentioned by Senator Laucke, in many cases it is not possible for an inspection to be made. One reason is, of course, that no inspectors are available within a reasonable distance of quite a number of the country centres. I understand that for that reason an inspection could not be made of bulk containers at those centres. With regard to fruit, meat and other products, inspectors are located in various areas. Wherever inspectors are located, of course, an inspection is made. In other cases it is not possible to inspect the products before they reach the port from which they are to be exported. In those circumstances an inspection is made at the port. I will bring to the Minister’s attention the suggestion about other officers made by Senator Laucke.

page 378

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Minister representing the Minister for Health: Is there any truth in statements that no Hong Kong influenza vaccine is available because of an error in delivery of supplies to Washington H. Soul Pattinson Pty Ltd, and also because of the sale of 1,600,000 doses of the vaccine to Great Britain? Can the Minister give the facts relating to the supply of vaccine that will be available to children and aged people including pensioners? In view of arrangements made to vaccinate members of Parliament with the vaccine, will the Minister request the Department of Health to delay such special immunisation of parliamentarians and people in high places until sufficient supplies are available to vaccinate children and aged people including pensioners throughout the Commonwealth?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think the best way I can answer the honourable senator’s question is to give him the information contained in a statement on radio and television programmes relating to this matter. The Director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories said today that the Laboratories had always stated that the inoculations should be given in the autumn. This would still give people more than 2 months of immunisation before the Hong Kong influenza is expected to take hold. No limits have been placed on supplies, and no limits would be placed on the number of doses for any State. Supplies to the public had been delayed by the Government’s decision to give the vaccine free to pensioners. Because of this the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were stockpiling I mill’ion doses of the vaccine in one-dose containers for release on 1st April when the vaccine would become available as a pensioner benefit. The stockpiling had prevented a normal supply to chemists but doctors would probably be able to get as much of the vaccine as they needed by the middle of next month.

page 379

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that further moneys have been made available by the Federal Government for devaluation compensation to the apple and pear industry for the 1969 season? Is this compensation to be paid through the Australian Apple and Pear Board, as was done last year? In view of the fact that Western Australia’s export arrangements are somewhat unusual in comparison with those of other States, has any consideration been given to an alternative method of paying out compensation moneys to growers in that State? If not, how long have Western Australian growers to remain in the invidious position of having to rely for devaluation payments on the goodness of heart or otherwise of exporters?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

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

No moneys have at this stage been paid as devaluation compensation to the apple and pear industry for the 1969 season. The Government, however, announced shortly before Christmas that it had decided to pay compensation to rural industries, including the apple and pear industry, for a further 12 months. The rates of compensation for 1969 exports of apples and pears to affected markets will be determined in the light of marketing experience after some 1969 exports have taken place.

The administrative arrangements for payments of compensation will be the same for 1969 exports as applied for compensation payments in respect of 1968 exports, that is, through the Australian Apple and Pear Board. As in 1968, the compensation will be paid to the owner of the fruit exported, whether such owner is a grower or an exporter. This will apply not only in Western Australia, but in all exporting States, lt is understood that the industry’s various organisations in Western Australia intend to form an industry pool for 1969 devaluation compensation paid on exports of fruit sold forward. This should ensure an equitable distribution of these moneys as between exporters and growers.

page 379

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the fact that Hong (Cong influenza has been taking the lives of its victims in some countries, is there any possibility that the vaccine will be declared a lifesaving drug and therefore put on the free list in Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– When replying to an earlier question I informed the Senate of the arrangements which had been made in relation to pensioner benefits. I shall put before the Minister for Health the point that the honourable senator has raised.

page 379

QUESTION

PASSPORTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Can the Minister indicate whether the relaxed procedures followed in recent years in regard to taxation clearances needed before leaving Australia contributed to the situation which befell Kathy Lloyd when her former husband absconded from Australia with his 4-year-ol’d son, who had been placed in her custody? Was her son Perry in possession of a passport? If so, who completed his passport form? In the light of these events, does the Department contemplate a tightening up of the procedures in order to avoid a repetition of such happenings?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 am aware of the matter which the honourable senator has raised. As to the first point in his question, which relates to taxation clearances, this would not come within the portfolio of the Minister for Immigration. The question would be more properly directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As for the problem of which the honourable senator speaks, I have some information about it which I think will answer the general question he has raised. In November 1967 the Department of Immigration received a letter from a firm of solicitors stating that the Supreme Court of New South Wales had granted to Mrs Kathleen Mary Lipton an injunction restraining Mr Lipton from removing their elder son, Lloyd Langford Lipton, from Australia. The Department noted this and if any application for passport had been made for the boy the existence of the injunction would have resulted in the refusal of the application unless and until the Court varied its decision. The Department has no record of any further approach or application. No application for passport was received for either Lloyd Lipton or his younger brother Perry who, according to Press reports, has been taken to the United States of America by his father. It appears that the father and the son Perry are both American citizens and could have left Australia using the father’s American passport.

Section 63 of the Migration Act 1958 includes a provision whereby a parent having custody of a child by court order may warn carrier companies of the existence of the order and the carriers are then under obligation not to permit the child to leave in one of their ships or aircraft. The penalty for doing so is a fine of $1,000. Warnings to carrier companies are the responsibility of the parents concerned and the Depart ment is not aware whether this provision was used in efforts to prevent the departure of Perry Lipton.

The existing provisions of sections 62 and 63 of the Migration Act represented the conclusions of a special committee of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council which was asked to consider, in 1958, what could be done to afford parents reasonable protection against unauthorised removal of their children from Australia. Sections 62 and 63 have been carefully examined and amendment is not seen as required in the light of the events which I have described.

page 380

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate refers to the reported offer of assistance by the Commonwealth Government to the State of Queensland for drought relief in the form of $7m on a $1 for $1 basis. Will any of this money be in the form of a direct grant for drought unemployment relief without the matching condition?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Commonwealth has responded to the request from the Queensland Government for assistance on a $1 for $1 basis for drought relief measures. These relief measures will include rail and road subsidies on the transportation of fodder and the movement of livestock to agistment, carry-on finance for drought affected farmers who are unable to obtain credit from normal commercial sources and funds for local authorities in rural areas in order to relieve unemployment caused by drought. The honourable senator asked me specifically whether any consideration had been given to a form of direct grant for drought relief without the matching condition. I understand that the Commonwealth would be prepared to consider giving assistance to the Queensland Government in the form of direct grants if the present seasonal conditions in that State continue after the end of this financial year. All of us have been watching the weather charts with some concern in the last few days and we have had in our hearts the hope that the rain which has come in Queensland has helped the situation in which that State finds itself at the present time.

page 381

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has his attention been drawn to reports that 50,000 United States troops are to be withdrawn from Vietnam? If United States troops are in fact withdrawn from Vietnam will Australia also withdraw troops from the conflict in that country, particularly those who have been conscripted?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not seen reports which suggest that American troops will be withdrawn from Vietnam. My understanding is that what might have been interpreted as showing an intention to withdraw might be merely a redeployment of troops in certain areas. I will accept the question and have inquiries made so that I can obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 381

QUESTION

NAVIGATION SYSTEM STATION

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Supply indicate the latest stage which has been reached in the negotiations for the building by the United States of America of a navigation system station in Australia? Can the Minister confirm whether this will be situated in Tasmania and, if so. where in Tasmania will it be situated and when will the building commence?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not informed as to the substance of the honourable senator’s question. I shall seek information from the. Department of Supply and answer the question tomorrow.

page 381

QUESTION

KING ISLAND

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport noted a report on the last meeting of the King Island Council which stated that such is the build-up of stock awaiting shipment from the island that stock owners might have to wait for up to 50 or 60 trips by the boat now operating before their cattle can be taken on board the vessel? Has he noted the advocacy that the Government should subsidies air freight costs to bring them into line with the cost of shipping livestock by sea in an attempt to obviate the difficulty experienced at present in freighting stock? Can the Minister indicate what progress has been made with a feasibility study of another port on King Island with a view to providing a larger ship to cope with the demand for shipment of stock and other products from that locality? Would not this latter alternative be the preferable one?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– No. Neither the Minister for Shipping and Transport nor his Department has received advice from the King Island Council about the matter to which the honourable senator has referred. The Minister is not aware of any such advocacy in regard to air transport, but he is having an investigation made of the present position in relation to delays in freighting stock. Arrangements between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments have been finalised for the commissioning of Macdonald, Wagner and Priddle, engineering consultants, Sydney and Melbourne, to undertake a feasibility study. I understand the study will be completed within a few months. The Minister is not prepared to prejudge the results of the feasibility study. The report of the consultants will be examined in due course by the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate see a report in the Press last week which stated that the Pentagon is negotiating to obtain sixty more Fill aircraft? Does this not vindicate the judgment of the Australian defence authorities in their decision to purchase this aircraft?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answer is yes, I did see the report in the Press.

page 381

QUESTION

NEW PORT AT BUNBURY

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister inform the Senate whether an application has been made to the Prime Minister by the State of Western Australia for a special grant towards the establishment of a new port at Bunbury? If the Minister does not have this information at the moment, will he endeavour to obtain an early reply?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– My brief does not contain a reference to this matter. I shall certainly get the information for the honourable senator as expeditiously as I can.

page 382

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator DITTMER:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I understand that the Minister has received the report of the Health Insurance Committee of Inquiry, which is known as the Nimmo Committee. When will copies of the report be made available to honourable senators, or does the Government propose to follow its not unusual practice of not making the report available?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I. shall refer the matters raised by the honourable senator to my colleague the Minister for Health and get a reply for him.

page 382

QUESTION

TURTLE SKINS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. From which country were the 5,000 pairs of turtle skins which have been the subject of questions over the last fortnight imported?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The country of origin was Mexico.

page 382

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA HOUSE, LONDON

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government. ls the well known master spy of Petroviar fame, Dr Bialoguski, now employed in the Department of Immigration at Australia House, London? What are his duties and by whom is he employed?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not know.

page 382

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government fully recognise that there is a burden of everincreasing costs of production on those sectors of primary industry which rely in the main for their income on sales to export markets? Does the Government feel that it is unable to assist adequately and promptly those producers who may be dependent for their livelihood on low returns from export markets while Australian internal development and growth force costs of production to rise? Does the Minister feel that consideration might well be given to allowing those Australian producers whose incomes are tied to world export prices the freedom to import without duty the items they require from world markets to assist in the economic production of their goods?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has revamped a question that I fancy he asked when the Senate last sat. On that occasion I pointed out to him that questions on policy are not answered at question time. Nevertheless 1 feel bound to remind him that the whole history of this Government has been one of assistance to the primary producer. This assistance has been more noticeable in recent times following the devaluation of sterling. It has been given to primary industry also in the form of special marketing schemes. I should have thought that the honourable senator would have been very well informed of the assistance that has been given. It is true that the primary producer does have special problems, but 1 repeat that the whole history of this Government during the life of this and previous parliaments has been on the lines of assisting the primary industry sector of the economy. Questions on whether there should be special consideration in terms of customs duty or the like are clearly matters of policy which do not rate an answer at question time.

page 382

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service indicate whether the Department intends to demand money from branches of the Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees Association to meet fines which allegedly have not been paid by the Victorian branch of that union?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The only information 1 can give the honourable senator is that this matter is. under the ordinary consideration of the Department of Labour and National Service and it would not be appropriate at question time to indicate the particular steps that are being taken.

page 382

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd has acquired a Fokker F28 Fellowship aircraft for use in the north west of Western Australia? Is Trans-Australia Airlines or Ansett-Airlines negotiating the purchase of any Fokker F28 Fellowship aircraft? Will these planes, which can carry about 65 passengers at 450 miles an hour and can use any landing ground that a Friendship can use, become part of the Australian air transport pattern in the near future?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I know very well that MacRobertson Miller Airlines has shown a very keen interest in the type of aircraft mentioned by the honourable senator. I know also that the parent company, AnsettAirlines is looking at them. I am not sure of the result of its investigations but T will obtain the information and advise the honourable senator.

page 383

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. 1 refer to question No. 856 on the notice paper, which I placed on notice on 25th February 1969. It reads:

Has a request by the Fremantle Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation for its members to be vaccinated against the Hong Kong influenza virus been refused, as was a similar request by the national officers of the Federation?

In view of the fact that there is growing concern about the effects of the Hong Kong influenza virus in Australia; that there has already been industrial trouble on the waterfront in Australia as a result of the Government’s refusal to provide this vaccine to essential workers in the maritime industry, and that the question has been on the notice paper for 3 weeks, could the Minister give an indication of when I may expect an answer?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– In view of the matters mentioned by the honourable senator, I shall discuss his request with the Minister for Health as soon as possible.

page 383

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Senator DRURY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Will she consult with the Postmaster-General as to the possibility of issuing stamps which can be purchased over a period and used as payment by person’s who have difficulty finding the full amount required for renewal of broadcasting listeners’ and television viewers’ licences?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I note with interest the point raised by the honourable senator. I shall be pleased to place it before the Postmaster-General for his consideration.

page 383

QUESTION

BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. In view of the value to people engaged in primary industries, of the excellent rainfall and drought incidence reports and maps which are issued periodically by the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, will he ask the Minister to ensure that these reports and maps receive much wider publicity and circulation than they now enjoy?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I know of the great importance to the farming community of Australia of the maps and information supplied by the Bureau of Meteorology. I do not know what steps are taken to ensure that a wide coverage of Australia is obtained. I shall1 take this matter up with the Minister for the Interior to determine whether the action requested by the honourable senator should be taken.

page 383

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator DITTMER:

– I wish to point out respectfully to the Minister for Customs and Excise-

Senator Anderson:

– Mr Deputy President, is this a question or a statement?

Senator DITTMER:

– If the Leader of the Government will wait for a moment 1 will clarify the position for him.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! The honourable senator should ask his question.

Senator DITTMER:

– In relation to the question I asked concerning the terrible thing perpetrated against Miss Daphne Mayo at an unusual hour, to which the Minister gave a garrulous reply although he did not answer my question, I wish to inform him that I propose to put my question on notice.

page 384

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister aware of a proposal by the container consortia to impose differential freight rates on goods shipped in containers between overseas and north Queensland ports? Is this proposal a denial of an assurance given to Parliament by the Minister for Trade and Industry on 23rd February 1967 that the cost of feeder services would be absorbed to achieve a single Australian freight rate? What action does the Minister propose to take to force the consortia to honour their undertaking to the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes that uniform rates will apply to all Austraiian ports?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question might better be directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I know he relates it to a reference made by the Minister for Trade and Industry, but the administration of this matter may well come under the portfolio of Shipping and Transport. I shall determine to whom the question is best directed and will1 so direct it.

page 384

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator MURPHY:

– I address a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise, and I will make it a simple one. Was the Minister correctly reported as having said that Mrs Mary Hoffmann’s statement was a complete vindication of the Department of Customs and Excise? If the Minister cannot answer that, can he tell us whether that is what he now claims?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I do not know whether those were the exact words used but, following the last newspaper report on Mrs Hoffmann, I did say that the words that she used were a complete vindication of the officers of my Department.

page 384

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS FUNDS

Senator LAUCKE:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In view of the expressed dissatisfaction of the Premier of South Australia with the amount of money allocated to South Australia over the next 5 years for roads and ancillary works, and in view of the need for the early completion of the sealing of the Eyre Highway within the South Australian borders, and the need for a decent highway to Alice Springs, will the Minister seek that a special1 grant be made to South Australia to enable these nationally important highways to be properly attended to?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I have seen reports in newspapers in South Australia relating to the matters referred to by the honourable senator, lt would appear from those newspaper articles that, despite the fact that in the next 5 years South Australia will’ receive 50% more money under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement than it did in the previous 5 years, the Premier is not satisfied with his allocation. As to whether the Commonwealth will make additional finance available for the sealing of the Eyre Highway, I shall take that matter up with the Minister and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 384

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise, fs the Minister able to verify or deny a report in the publication ‘Incentive’ of 10th March 1969 that the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr McEwen, for personal vindictive reasons, set in motion the Commonwealth Police investigation that resulted in the unearthing of several irregularities in the Department of Customs and Excise?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I have read the report that the honourable senator mentions but I cannot confirm or deny what happens in another department. I have little faith in the authenticity of the journal that the honourable senator mentions.

page 384

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. As reported in the publication ‘Things I Hear’, published by Frank Browne on 14th March 1969, did the Minister for Trade and Industry call upon the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in 1961 to place a spy in the Japanese Embassy, and did the Minister request that the then Prime Minister not be informed of this request?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I have said many times in the last few weeks, I do not answer questions in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. That is quite clear. As to what appeared in a journal about ASIO, the rule that I have already applied would also apply here. The rule is well known and I do not need to spell it out again and again to the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Mr Deputy President, [ raise a point of order. I did not ask a question about ASIO; I asked a question about the action of a Minister.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - There is no substance in the point of order.

page 385

QUESTION

OIL SEARCH

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I refer again to the $22,906 Commonwealth oil search subsidy paid to the Artesian Basin oil company in Queensland. Will the Minister ascertain the total value of exploration work which was carried out and for which subsidy was paid? Will he then relate that amount to the $60,000 paid by Exoil NL to the Artesian Basin company as compensation for exploration work done on which subsidy was paid? Will he assure the Senate after investigation that there was nothing unethical in this transaction?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I wish to say right at the start that before any company, including the company the honourable senator mentioned - the Artesian Basin oil company - was paid the amount of money it was paid by way of subsidy for drilling, stratographic drilling or seismographic work, it would have to complete the work. The work would be assessed by officers of the Minister’s Department and the Bureau of Mineral Resources, and the proportion would be worked out to determine what moneys would be paid. I ask the honourable senator to place the latter part of his question on the notice paper; then I will obtain an answer for him.

page 385

QUESTION

SOUTH EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC GAMES

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. Is it proposed that .the Australian Government or Parliament will be represented at the South East Asian and Pacific Games to be held in Port Moresby later this year? Does the Government consider this event of significance in demonstrating the rapid development of the Territory? Will the Government consider inviting members of this Parliament to represent it at the games?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not aware that any specific representation from this Parliament at the Papuan games is intended. As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, my own opinion is that this event represents a considerable advance in the formation of a national unity and national spirit on the part of the people of the Territory. The third part of the question - whether 1 would advance the view that members of this Parliament might appropriately be present - certainly seems to me to be an appropriate suggestion. 1 will ask the Minister to give it consideration.

page 385

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General seen an article written by Mrs Hoffmann, published exclusively by a Sydney newspaper chain on Monday, 10th March, and stating that in a letter to the Minister for Customs and Excise her husband had said amongst other things that during his first interrogation by the Commonwealth police he wrote a statement of the facts; that this statement was rejected by the police as being unsatisfactory to them; that he wrote a second statement under pain, stress and confusion in the presence of a senior departmental officer; that this statement was acceptable because it was along the lines the police wanted; that the following day -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I think the honourable senator is giving too much information.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I ask the Minister: Were they Commonwealth police who interrogated Mr Hoffmann? Will the Minister inquire into all the circumstances of the interrogations by the Commonwealth police to ensure that they were carried out in a proper manner? Because both written statements of Hoffmann were tendered in evidence at his appeal, will the Minister examine them to see whether they should be laid on the table of the Senate?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 do not recall the excerpt that the honourable senator partially read appearing in any public statement by Mrs Hoffmann that I have read; but I have no doubt that the honourable senator has quoted correctly an excerpt from the statement. I do recall a statement to that effect appearing somewhere in recent publications emanating from the lady concerned. As to whether or not the police referred to were Commonwealth police, I have never doubted that they were. Thirdly, as to the propriety of those statements, as the honourable senator has raised the question I shall ask the Attorney-General to inquire into the propriety of conduct that is impugned within the police force. As to any suggestion that those statements should be laid on the table of the Senate, it has already been indicated that they, along with other cognate documents, are of the type that it is thought not appropriate to table.

page 386

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

Senator WHEELDON:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs seen reports that the United Nations representative in West Irian has urged that in the determination to decide the future status of West Irian a ballot on the principle of one man one vote be held among the relatively educated West Irianese living in (he coastal districts? In view of the importance of the opinions of the United Nations representative and in view of the necessity to have democratic procedures followed as closely as possible in this determination, does the Australian Government intend to communicate any views on this question to the Government of Indonesia or to the United Nations?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have some information on this reported Press statement. As far as I am aware, no official statement on this matter has been made by either the Indonesian Government or the United Nations representative in West Irian. Mr Ortiz Sanz. The most recent official statement concerning consultations between these two parties was a Press release issued on 13th January by the office of the United Nations representative in West Irian. This mentioned that Mr Ortiz Sanz had presented to the Indonesian Government certain preliminary suggestions relating to the act of free choice and described the reactions of the Indonesian Government as prompt and positive’. The release also referred to the fact that Mr Ortiz Sanz had commenced discussions with the Indonesian Government about the procedures to be followed in the act of selfdetermination. It is clear from this statement that the matter is properly in the hands of the Indonesian Government and the Secretary-General and his representative in accordance with the provisions of the 1962 agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands. So, quite clearly the matter is currently with them for consideration. As I recall the matter, some suggestion was made that there should be a more defined vote in certain concentrated areas than in scattered areas. But, quite clearly, the matter is in the hands of the Indonesian Government. Therefore, at this time, 1 have no further information to offer.

page 386

QUESTION

BANKING

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government, ls it true thai the Government has approved a merger of two of Australia’s major trading banks? Does the Minister feel that this is a move in the interests of the Commonweatlh of Australia? Does not this fact present itself to the Government: The reduction in the number of individual banking organisations may reduce competition and may lay such institutions open to socialisation should the Australian Labor Party ever come to office before the end of this century?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– First of all I can say that we are fairly free of that risk for this century, but what the next century holds we cannot say. However, 1 do not suppose that many of us here now will still be concerned. There is no doubt that the decision for a merger of certain banks has been taken because it is considered that banks so merged will have a better capability, in terms of banking practice, to serve Australia. 1 do not think I would concede that because there is a merger - and it is not unique, as it happens in other fields of business besides banking - the facilities available to the public will not remain in the structure and strength of the banks concerned. The banks will be better able to perform their function and to give assistance to the community, because they will have brought together two groups in the banking sphere. I do not fear for Australia in relation to a free enterprise banking system. The fact of the merger will1 no doubt - and 1 think this is the Government’s view - add to the strength and capability of the banking system as a whole.

page 387

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise: Did the investigation carried out by Commonwealth Police of Mr J. F. O’Brien’s desk in the Department of Trade and Industry, and his subsequent resignation and the resignation and/or dismissal of Mr Hoffmann, reveal that those persons were engaged in a racket over a considerable period of time to defraud the Department of Customs and Excise?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question should be directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry, in connection with Mr O’Brien.

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Was Mr Hoffmann one of the persons associated with J. F. O’Brien in piling up huge bills for wine, women and song at the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney? Were the bills being paid by commercial firms which were doing business with the Department of Customs and Excise?

Senator SCOTT:

– 1 have no knowledge that Mr Hoffmann had any association with Mr O’Brien in this regard.

page 387

QUESTION

ALGERIA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether the Department of External Affairs has any information to indicate that Ahmed Ben Bella, former leader of Algeria, is to be released from imprisonment providing he leaves that country?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not have the information at the moment, but I will get it for the honourable senator.

page 387

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: In what embassies, if any, does the Government now have agents supplying information?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not regard that as a valid question and I am not prepared to give an answer to it.

page 387

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator GEORGES:

– I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his impassioned plea on behalf of Mrs Hoffmann, asking the Opposition not to crucify her. Is he now aware that at the time of his appeal Mrs Hoffmann had already sold her story to the Press for $15,000 or $50,000? Does he still feel that Mrs Hoffmann is worthy of his support?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– What I said on another occasion came from the heart, because my feeling was not so much for Mr Hoffmann or Mrs Hoffmann as it was for their children. I do not retract anything I said.

page 387

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator WHEELDON:

– I direct to the Minister for Customs and Excise a supplementary question to the question asked by Senator Hendrickson. Is the Minister in fact saying to the Senate that he has no knowledge whatsoever of any association whatsoever between Mr O’Brien and Mr Hoffmann?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– That is what I am inferring. I have heard that there has been an association but it has not been proved that there was anything between them. We have no knowledge that there was any doubtful association between Mr O’Brien and Mr Hoffmann.

page 387

QUESTION

NATIONAL TIME SERVICE

(Question No. 644)

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Will the Minister endeavour to arrange further consultation between representatives of the eastern States and South Australia to ascertain whether any area of agreement can be reached regarding Central Standard Time and Eastern Standard Time with particular emphasis on a plan of compromise of IS minutes each way rather than the complete adoption of Eastern Standard Time?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

Commonwealth jurisdiction in this matter is limited to the control of the National Time Service. This is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science. The choice of a particular standard time is the prerogative of the individual Slates. You may recall that on 4th October 1967 the then Minister for Supply, in reply to a question from Senator Laught, stated that the Prime Minister had confirmed that this matter conies within the constitutional competence of the States concerned.

In South Australia the matter has been raised both in the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council and representations have been received from interested persons. Under the circumstances, [ consider there are no grounds for Commonwealth intervention.

page 388

QUESTION

WARRUMBUNGLE STATE PARK

(Question No. 755)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What assistance did the Commonwealth Government render in fighting the last bush fire that devastated the Warrumbungle State Park in New South Wales?
  2. Did such assistance include helicopter transport of firefighters to the scene of the fire? If not, was it because the various armed Services refused to provide helicopters?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions: 1 and 2. I assume the honourable senator refers to the Warrumbungle National Park. I am informed that the last fire in that park occurred in November 1967. The Departments of Navy, Army and Air have advised that they received no requests for assistance on that occasion.

page 388

QUESTION

PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS

(Question No. 798)

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

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many public relations officers and/or press officers are employed by each Department and each of the armed Services?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The relevant Ministers have advised that the numbers of officers employed in the capacity of public relations and/or press officers are as follows:

page 388

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

(Question No. 840) Senator MULVIHILL asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What were the amounts and value of exports of kangaroo meat for the quarter ended 31st December 1968?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

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

Kangaroo meat weighing 1,268,662 lb and valued at $209,398 was exported during the quarter ended 31st December 1968.

page 388

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 867) Senator MCCLELLAND (through Senator O’Byrne) asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. How many manual telephone exchanges are still in operation throughout Australia?
  2. How many of these are located in New South Wales?
  3. How many years is it estimated it will take before manual exchanges are eliminated and replaced by automatic facilities?

3,646 at 30th June 1968.

1,107 at 30th June 1968.

Because the relatively large number of small manual telephone exchanges in Australia include many in remote areas, it is not possible to estimate when all of them will be converted to automatic working. However, on the basis of present plans, the proportion of automatic services overall could increase from the present level of 88% to approximately 98% by 1976.

page 389

QUESTION

PRINTING

(Question No. 872)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Is the recently published ‘way out’ women’s magazine ‘Pol’ now being sold in Australia for 60c a copy, almost wholly produced in Hong Kong?
  2. Will the Minister inquire whether or not the copy for ‘Pol’ is written locally, then sent on with instructions to Hong Kong printing houses for type-setting, proof-reading and art-work, and then returned to Australia for completion and sale?
  3. Is this form of trade in conflict with Australian Customs Regulations and does this constitute a threat to the printing industry in Australia?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I understand that the women’s magazine ‘Pol’ is published in Australia and forwarded, with instructions, to Hong Kong for printing. The completed publication is returned to Australia and distributed by Pol Publishing Pty Ltd, Sydney. This arrangement does not contravene any Australian Customs legislation. The effect of this trade on the local printing industry is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 389

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 910)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

  1. What purpose is served by negotiations with North Vietnam in Paris, allegedly to secure peace, when, during the negotiations, continual rocket and mortar attacks are launched by North Vietnamese troops on the civilian population in South Vietnamese cities?
  2. Should not a cessation of these attacks be demanded at a condition of continuing negotiations?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following replies to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. and 2. The Allied purpose in Vietnam, adhered to firmly over the years, is to secure a just and durable peace. The military resistance of the Allied force to aggression, the moves made to bring about talks in Paris, and the persistent efforts in those talks to secure genuine and useful discussion leading towards peace aH testify to the resolution that has been displayed in pursuing this purpose. It is deplorable that the Communist side has so far not entered into productive discussions in Paris and that it should recently have resumed attacks by shelling and by rocket and mortar fire against centres of population in South Vietnam. Such attacks clearly impede progress towards peace and they deserve the strongest condemnation. Their implications are being kept under close and continuing study; any decisions that may seem desirable about an appropriate response to them will be taken in the light of this.

page 389

QUESTION

PINE GAP

(Question No. 911)

Senator DITTMER:

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

  1. Will the Minister give permission for a group of senators and members of the House of Representatives to visit the Pine Gap establishment near Alice Springs?
  2. If he cannot grant permission, will the Minister seek permission from the United States OfficerinCharge?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to answers given in another place to the honourable member for East Sydney (Hansard, p. 151, 20th February 1969) and the honourable member for Bass (Hansard, p. 461, 6th March 1969).

page 389

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Que lion No. 942) Senator MCCLELLAND (through Senator O’Byrne) asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister say on 4th March 1969 (Hansard, page 208) that in the last 12 months the payment of a large amount of money as customs duty has been evaded by people bringing goods into this country and that the officers concerned have been charged?
  2. Did the Minister say on 5th March 1969, in reply to Senator Davidson, thai the officers concerned have been reprimanded and that the offences related to cigarettes and tobacco?
  3. How many officers were reprimanded and what are their designations?
  4. Why were the officers reprimanded and not charged?
  5. What was the amount of evasion of customs duty involved, so far as the cigarettes are concerned?
  6. What legal proceedings are in fact being taken, and against whom?
  7. Has any investigation been made to ascertain how deep these malpractices are operating within the Department of Customs and Excise?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

-I now provide the following answerto the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes- butin reply to a later question on the same day from Senator McClelland I made it clear that the officers concerned had been both charged and disciplined,
  3. Twenty-four officers were charged with offences relatingto cigars and cigarettes. The designations of the officers concerned ranged from Locker Grade 2to Examining Officer.
  4. See answer 2. above.
  5. Duty short paid was assessed at $808, $244 in respect of cigars and$ 1,1 65,425 in respect of cigarettes.
  6. High Court actions have been commenced against:

Campbell Beaumont Trading Pty Limited,

William Patrick Bond,

Godfrey Phillips InternationalPty Ltd,

Cedric Malcolm Paynter.

Derek Landon Smith. and

Gallaher International (Australia) Ltd.

The Attorney-General’s Department is examining evidence in relation to possible offences which could reveal further short payments of $1,165,425 and. if warranted, appropriate proceedings will be taken in the near future.

  1. Yes. A major reorganisation was made in 1968, strengthening the investigation function of the Department with the object of detecting malpractice and ensuring that customs officers maintain a high standard of efficiency.

page 390

QUESTION

CANBERRA ABATTOIR

(Question No. 947)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the grave concern expressed by the President of the New South Wales branch of the Meat Employees’ Union on the effect on the employment opportunities in the meat industry of the proposed closure of slaughtering facilities at the Canberra Abattoir, will the Minister indicate whether a statement will be made to the Parliament, before the Senate rises this week, on the future of the Abattoir?

Senator Dame ANNA BELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

The future of the Canberra Abattoir is currently under consideration by the Government. An announcement of the outcome will be made as soon as possible.

page 390

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 952)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is Travelodge Australia Limited a subsidiary of the Travelodge Corporation of San Diego, California, United States of America?
  2. What is the amount of dividends returned overseas to the home company in America during the past two years?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answers:

  1. No. I am advised that Travelodge Australia Limited is a public company whose shares are listed on several Australian stock exchanges and is predominantly Australian-owned. The company’s interest in Travelodge Corporation. California, United States of America, has been outlined in public statements by the company.
  2. See answer to 1.

Mr G. C. HOFFMANN (Question No. 957)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister for

Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Did the Minister speak to or have any other communication with Mr Hoffmann before 26th November 1968?

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I now provide the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I did not speak to Mr Hoffmann before 26th November, nor, subject to the following paragraph, did I have any other kind of communication with him.

A Mr Cullen who was at the time Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. telephoned my former Private Secretary on or about 7th November 1968 and sought to arrange an interview with me by Mr Hoffmann. My former Private Secretary advised Mr Cullen that Mr Hoffmann should put in writing the subject about which he wished to speak. Mr Hoffmann subsequently wrote to me by letter dated11th November andI forwarded the letter to the Department without comment.

page 391

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 960)

Senator McCLELLAND:
through Senator O’Byrne

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister say on 5th March 1969 (Hansard, page 271) that officers of his Department have not been charged but they have been reprimanded, in connection with the evasion of customs duty involving cigarettes and tobacco?
  2. During 1968, were more than twenty officers of his Department charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act with ‘disgraceful or improper conduct’ in their handling of bonded cigars under the Customs Act and the Excise Act?
  3. Were all of these officers fined and several reduced in status to positions on lower salaries?
  4. Of more than twenty officers so punished, did three of them appeal on the grounds of innocence and another against the severity of the penalty imposed?
  5. Were three of the appellants acquitted by the Appeals Board?
  6. Did the Department then charge the three officers with negligence and carelessness?
  7. Were they found guilty by the Department and fined or reduced in status?
  8. Did the three officers lodge a further appeal beforethe Appeals Board, and did this tribunal considerably reduce the penalties imposed upon the three officers?
  9. Had any of the officers referred to previously been chargedby the Department with any alleged misdemeanour
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I now provide the following answertothe honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes - but in replyto a later question on the same day from Senator McClelland I made it clear that the officers concerned had been both charged and disciplined
  2. No. However, in December 1967, twenty officers were chained under section 55 of the Public Service Act with improper conduct in relation to cigars.
  3. Yes.
  4. Of the twenty officers so charged. three appealed on the grounds of innocence and excessive severity and one appealed on the grounds of excessive severity.
  5. The Appeal Board annulled the decisions in relation to three appellants.
  6. These three officers then were charged with negligence.
  7. Yes.
  8. Two officer were each fined a total of $60. These lines were reduced by the Appeal Board to $25 each. The other officer was to be reduced in classification and fined$5, and these penalties were reduced by the Appeal Board to fines totalling$45.
  9. Of the twenty officers referred to above. four of them had at an earlier date been charged and found guilty of offences.

page 391

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 965)

Senator HENDRICKSON:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Will the Minister make available to the Senate the names of other officers dismissed from his Department who have been given assistance by the Minister and other Customs officers to obtain employment outside the Public Service on lines similar to that given to Mr Hoffmann.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

-I now provide the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have not assisted any dismissed officer of my Department to find employment. I am advised that, if any assistance was given by a Customs officer to any officer dismissed from the Department, such assistance would have been given on a personal basis and would not be on record in my Department.

page 391

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 27th February 1969, Senator Webster asked the following question:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has it come to the notice of the Treasury that considerable savings in time to both the private sector and the public sector of the community could be achieved by the issue by the Treasury of a $50 currency note? Will the Minister convey a request for the printing of such a note to the Treasurer?

The Treasurer has now provided the following reply:

I have been informed by the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is responsible for the Australian note issue, that it is at present considering the desirability of issuing a note of a denomination greater than$20.

page 391

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 4th March Senator Davidson asked me a question without notice about Aboriginal Study Grants. Senator Lawrie followed this up with a further question on 5th March in which he asked me to inform the Senate from which States the 9 students for university scholarships came and from which States the 30 students for secretarial and business college courses came. 1 have obtained the additional details sought by Senator Lawrie about the award of Aboriginal Study Grants. They are set out as follows:

page 392

QUARANTINE BILL 1969

Assent reported.

page 392

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The

President has received a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) appointing Mr Fox a member of the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House in place of Mr Nixon.

page 392

SORBITOL AND MANNITOL

Report of Special Advisory Authority

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Pursuant to statute I present a report by the Special Advisory Authority on the following subject:

Sorbitol and mannitol.

page 392

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Ministerial Statement

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

The present policy was developed on a unit of construction’ basis. Each telephone applicant is allotted ninety-six units of construction, irrespective of the area concerned or the actual cost of the construction. Where no departmental line plant exists from the exchange in the direction of the applicant’s property and only one service is involved, the applicant’s allocation of ninety-six units enables new line plant - cable and/or poles and wires - to be provided for a distance of 60 chains along the public roadway. In cases where more than one service is required on the same route, each applicant’s entitlement of ninety-six units is aggregated in assessing the amount of line plant to be provided by the Post Office. When an existing departmental route is being extended to provide services for new applicants, the private portions of any services along the route are replaced by departmental construction to the same point to which the route is being extended for the new applicants. This is done without cost to the subscribers.

In the belief that country subscribers want the better service offered by automatic exchanges, the Post Office is proceeding as quickly as possible with the replacement of manual exchanges. Present day economics favour fewer exchanges of larger average size and recent improvements in transmission characteristics and equipment design make it possible to achieve this. Because it would be quite uneconomic to replace every small manual exchange by an individual automatic unit, country automatic exchanges are often established to replace one or more manual exchanges.

The unsatisfactory condition of the majority of the private sections of lines constructed by subscribers makes it necessary for the subscribers to construct or upgrade their lines to departmental standards to obtain service to automatic exchanges. In these cases, all subscribers to be connected to a country automatic exchange are allotted ninety-six units of departmental construction irrespective of whether they are new applicants, existing local subscribers or existing subscribers being transferred from another exchange. This allotment is made to existing subscribers irrespective of any units expended by the Post Office in the provision of their original services.

The Government has decided that basically, the existing policy shall be maintained - including the provisions relating to 60 chains of departmental line construction - notwithstanding general rises in material and labour costs and the fact that, overall, country telephone services are uneconomic, particularly in the smaller rural settlements. However, in order to ensure satisfactory telephone calls throughout a network being developed towards fully automatic operation, it is essential that lowgrade line construction already in the network be eliminated progressively and that all new lines be of high quality construction. It is becoming increasingly important, therefore, that the construction of new lines and the upgrading of existing privately constructed lines for connection to automatic exchanges be to Post Office standards.

To assist country subscribers, the Government has decided to provide funds for the construction of lines beyond the distance the Post Office can go under present policy - on the basis that subscribers repay the amount involved. The lines may be constructed either by the Post Office, the subscriber or a contractor engaged by the subscriber. Interest will be payable by the subscriber at the long term bond rate current at the time the funds are approved for the work. Repayments of the principal may be made in instalments when the amount is over $100. Minimum instalments will be $100 a year in addition to interest on the balance outstanding and the maximum period over which repayments may be spread will be 10 years. Where the cost is, say, $1,500, repayments would be $150 per annum plus interest for a 10-year period.

In addition, subscribers will be relieved of the responsibility of carrying out maintenance on lines provided to departmental specifications under the new conditions, as maintenance will be undertaken by the Post Office at its own cost. If the Post Office constructs the subscriber’s line, the subscriber will be required to pay back with interest the total amount incurred by the Post Office for the provision of the line. The value of any materials and labour supplied by the subscriber will be offset against the costs involved. If the subscriber constructs the line himself or engages a contractor other than the Post Office to do so, the Post Office will supply the funds if the cost quoted to the Post Office appears to be a reasonable estimate for the work involved.

Funds provided by the Post Office will not cover material readily supplied by the subscriber from within his own resources, for example, poles, cross-arms and the like and, so far as funds for labour are concerned, these will be restricted to labour engaged specifically for the purpose. This means that the subscriber’s own labour and that of any workers normally employed by him will be excluded.

It is expected that these arrangements will be in operation by 1st January 1969. At that time, applicants who had accepted terms and conditions under the arrangements now current but had not commenced or contracted for private construction, would be requoted by the Post Office for service. In addition, the arrangement for the repayment by instalments and for maintenance will be available to any subscriber who, since 1st October 1968. had paid or contracted to pay, for the construction of the private sections of his line to Post Office specifications.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 394

ORDER OF BUSINESS

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

– I move:

The Senate may recall that with the collaboration of the leaders of the other parties we set out to tidy up our business paper. 1 should indicate that I propose to have a conference with the leaders in relation to general business and orders of the day. In the process, we may be able to look at some of those items and, if they are not current, the leaders may wish, with the concurrence of the Senate, to remove them. We will be dealing with general business after 8 p.m. tonight and I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) may move a motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 394

GENERAL BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Murphy moving a motion relating to the order of General Business after 8 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - I move:

The effect of this would be that instead of dealing with the motion to set up a senate select committee on housing and a senate select committee on overseas investment, we would deal with the proposal to set up a senate select committee to investigate preschool, primary, secondary and technical education in Australia. This latter matter has been on the notice paper for some time.

I indicated to the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) earlier today that I think this would be generally acceptable rather than for us to deal with the other two items. I might indicate to the Senate at this stage, although it is not quite germane to the matter before us, that there is included in the orders of the day, under General Business, a large number of items. These are mostly motions for the Senate to take notice of ministerial statements.

Recently the Leader of the Government went through the procedure of calling on the various items listed under Government Business which had been on the notice paper for some time. Tomorrow or on Thursday, if it is convenient to honourable senators, 1 intend to take the same course. I shall endeavour to have these matters called through. Honourable senators will have an opportunity of considering them beforehand and perhaps they will indicate whether they are agreeable to having the matters disposed of. For instance, the notice relating to the trade agreement with Hungary has been on the paper since 15th May 1968. Unless an honourable senator particularly wants the Senate to deal with the matter, it might be discharged or taken note of. The matter can be revived at any time by an honourable senator by placing on the notice paper a motion to the effect that the matter has some particular importance. In this way honourable senators will have the opportunity of knowing what is being done. They will have the opportunity to express their views. When the matters are called through it will be simple enough for any honourable senator to say that he or she wants to speak on the subject. The matter could then be adjourned or left on the paper unless the Senate took the view that it should be removed.

The intention is to clear out those matters which . no-one thinks ought to be on the notice paper at this stage. I do not think this procedure will prejudice anybody. All of us would get the opportunity to have a matter dealt with openly in the Senate. The present proposal is that we proceed this evening with the motion calling for the setting up of a Senate select committee on education. Senator Cohen will actually be moving that motion although it is in my name.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 395

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Scott) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a first lime.

Senator TURNBULL (Tasmania) [4.37J - I wish to raise a matter that I consider is of national importance. I am referring to the influenza vaccine. I think we have been let down by the Department of Health, by the Australian Medical Association and by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. This matter seems to be worrying the vast majority of one’s patients. 1 do not blame the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) in this place: nor do I blame the Minister for Health because he has to speak the words that are put into his mouth, he being a non-technical man.

The position with regard to the demand for influenza vaccine has become ludicrous. The vaccine is not going to help as many people as was originally believed. The blame for this has to be laid at the door of the Press. The Press certainly started off with a scare announcement that this is a serious type of influenza and that it will cause many deaths. What the Press forgot to add was that the only dangerous thing about it was its exotic name - Hong Kong flu. 1 presume that the Hong Kong people call it Australian flu, or some such name. The danger of influenza in the old days was that there were no antibiotics. The Press has referred to this influenza as being as dangerous as the 1918 epidemic. However we should remember that there were no antibiotics then and deaths occurred as a result of secondary complications such as broncho-pneumonia and pneumonia.

I speak as a general medical practitioner with some 33 years experience in general practice. 1 am not an expert on the influenza virus but at least we medical practitioners know what happens to our patients. Perhaps the people in the ivory towers who know al) about viruses are not so well informed about what happens when a particular virus enters somebody’s body. I believe that the AMA should have made a public announcement about this, but it has not done so. For years, within the Association. 1 have suggested that it set up publicity committees in regard to epidemics and the like. The Association never seems to agree. The CSL, which is selling a product, does not want to stop the sales of that product. Honourable senators should remember that if a person has 2 to 3 days in bed he will get over any ‘flu. If a person has these injections several things may happen. Firstly, he may get a mild form of ‘flu. Secondly, he may not get the Hong Kong ‘flu but he may get some other type of ‘flu or he may get a severe cold, which is very hard to differentiate from influenza anyhow. Now we hear the rather pathetic question: What will happen to waterside workers if they do not get their flu vaccine? For heaven’s sake, why should they get it? And while I am on that point, why should members of Parliament, earning $12,000 a year, be given free vaccine?

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

– That information may have reached your Party room, but it has not reached my room. The latest information sent to me is that the vaccine would be free. There is nothing on my table contradicting that.

Senator Prowse:

– The honourable senator docs not read his mail.

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

– All right, I may not have read my mail. Originally the vaccine was to be supplied free. If nil 180 members of this Parliament contracted influenza, I do not think the wheels of the country would grind to a serious halt.

Senator Young:

– There would be a lot of coughing, though.

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

– Yes. Groups of people have demanded that the vaccine should bc given to them free when the simple treatment is to have 2 or 3 clays in bed. Every year we have epidemics of some type of ‘flu. This will not be any worse than previous ones.

Senator Gair:

– It is hoped not.

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

– At least we have the drugs to treat the epidemic if it becomes a major one. I raise the matter because of the pensioners. I detest the arrogance of Ministers who think that any suggestion made from outside their departments is valueless.

Senator Gair:

– it is treated with disdain.

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

– Yes. The Minister is supposed to think of new ideas, and if he is not a technical man he has a departmental head on $19,000 a year who should have the brains to think up something or other. I wish to mention two matters in regard to the Department of Health. I could raise matters in regard to other departments. I think we can all remember, for instance, a debate in this House when I attacked the method then in operation of using a customs declaration form when entering Australia. I was told that I was stupid. Within 9 months the method had been altered. Recently the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) said what a wonderful thing the Government was doing with regard to people entering Australia by air. He referred to the bright idea from the Department of Customs and Excise.

I suggest to the Minister for Health a simple way of dealing with the vaccine problem. All doctors have their own supplies of influenza vaccine, and when a pensioner visits the surgery for vaccination he or she could sign an extra voucher. The doctor would get $1.80 more. The voucher could be endorsed ‘flu’. This is not acceptable to the Department because it was not thought of in the Department. The result is that the pensioner has to go to the chemist and instead of a vaccination costing the Government $1.80 it will now cost the Government, from the figure given to me by the Department, $2.57 for two ampoules. A saving of 77c per pensioner could have been effected. The Minister and the Department will not accept suggestions coming from outside the Department. The departmental suggestion, no matter how much extra it will cost, is the answer.

The Department does not consider the human factor. Has it ever thought of what will happen on 1st April? The CSL has had warnings of the need for this vaccine for at least 6 to 8 months. We are now awaiting supplies of the vaccine, Apparently the influenza does not start attacking pensioners until 1st April, although it has already started attacking others. On 1st April a pensioner will go to his doctor and say that he wants the ‘flu vaccine. The doctor will write out a prescription for two ampoules. The pensioner has to go down the street to a chemist and find one who has stocks of the flu vaccine. He may have to go to several shops if there is an acute shortage of it. He has to make another trip back to the doctor to have the first shot. Legitimately the doctor, if he wished, could charge the Commonwealth Government for two operations; once for the first visit when the prescription was written out and again for the second visit when the injection was given. The Department is not thinking of the human factor, but it could save quite a lot of money if it did. I do not want to have it thrown up at me that doctors will not do what I am suggesting and, therefore, there is no problem. The main complaint 1 have is at the disregard for the pensioner who quite often is an elderly person who cannot get about much and who now, because of the stupidity of the Department, has to visit the doctor and go to the chemist to get the vaccine which the doctor would have anyhow. That is an example of the kind of arrogance that the Department displays.

With your permission, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will ask one of the attendants to put on each honourable senator’s desk a small phial.

Senator Webster:

– Is there anything in them?

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

– No. I ask leave (o do that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Poyser:

– Can 1 keep it?

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

– Yes. It is free. I raised the matter several months ago. I pointed out that this container for pills was difficult to open and might save lives or prevent accidents. 1 made reference to the renowned fact that children finish up in hospital after finding containers which open easily, and swallowing the pills in them. I asked the Minister to ensure that this new type of container be compulsory for all tablets. The idea did not come from the Department so it was washed away immediately. I received a lengthy letter stating that the Department was giving consideration to this. The Department was thinking about it but was not sure that this idea was the right answer. What is the right answer? While the Minister is considering what is the right answer - and it is 4 or 5 months since L raised the matter and nothing has been done - at least 1 or 2 children a week are swallowing tablets. Not all die, but some do. This phial is a simple solution.

Senator McClelland:

– How does one open it?

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

– Put it in the palm of the hand, press down on the lid with the palm of the other hand and turn it. If one does not press down it will not open. That is proof that it is a safety measure. Even if it costs more than the ordinary container it still should have been accepted by the Department as one method of finding a solution to the problem of children swallowing tablets. The Department cannot accept that. It is thinking about finding out the right answer. It is still thinking about that. It comes back to the propriety of one Turnbull trying to suggest something whereas, if he had asked the Minister to suggest it, the idea would have been accepted. The phial is called a Palm-n’-turn phial.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator is not a member of the firm of manufacturers, is he?

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

– Not actually. I am trying to be.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does it have to come through customs?

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

-I do not think so. I am not sure. I understand that recently the price has come down below the cost of the ordinary container.

Senator O’Byrne:

– How has that come about?

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

-I do not know. I have been advised of that. The Government has no excuse on the ground that this container costs more than others. It has no excuse on the ground of that it cannot compel chemists to use it. The Government can compel them to use this phial if it wants to. The Government does not have to compel them in any case; it need merely suggest that they use it. When bought in hundreds of thousands they cost slightly less than others.I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health to ask the Minister to get off his high horse and consider, firstly, the pensioner, irrespective of what the Department wants to do and bearing in mind that the country will be saving money, and also to ask the Minister to change the system of supplying vaccines for the pensioner. Secondly, for the sake of the infants of this country, does the Minister think that he can get off his high horse again and use this Palm-n’-turn container while his highly expensive departmental officers are working out a safer method than this form of container? This is not too much to ask. I hope that this time we will get some reaction before waiting for a few more babies to die or a few more babies to become ill while the Minister thinks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Bill now before the Senate provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1968 based on proposals introduced between 10th September to 27th November last year and on 27th February this year. When the proposals were introduced in another place copies of the Minister’s speech and the details of the changes were furnished to honourable senators. For this reason I do not think I should burden the Senate with unnecessary reiteration. However, if any honourable senator would like a copy of the earlier documents 1 will be glad to let him have them. Nevertheless, for the recordI should tell the Senate that the Bill comprises five schedules and deals with the following subjects.

The first schedule to the Bill implements ten reports by the Tariff Board and two reports by the Special Advisory Authority. The reports by the Tariff Board relate to wrapping machines; earthmoving, excavating and materials handling machinery and equipment; citric and tartaric acids, etc.; cutlery, forks, spoons, etc.; mushrooms; chrome chemicals; penicillins and streptomycin; medical or surgical dressings; static transformers; and rubberised textile fabrics. The Special Advisory Authority reports concern polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE) tapes and woven shirts and parts therefor of cotton and man-made fibre mixtures. Minor amendments of departmental origin are also included in this schedule.

The second schedule deals with amendments arising from the Tariff Board report on vegetable fats and oils. The third schedule covers a further list of commodities which, as from 1st January, were added to schedule A of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement. The fourth schedule implements the reports by the Tariff Board on hot water bags, X-ray apparatus and accessories and string musical instruments and a report by the Special Advisory Authority on bisphenol A. The last schedule relates to further extensions of the Australian system of tariff preferences for certain goods from developing countries. A summary in some detail covering all the amendments in the Bill is now being circulated for the information of honourable senators. T commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 398

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that the House had agreed to the Senate’s modifications of the resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House relating to the addition of certain Party Leaders in the Senate to the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House.

page 398

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 1969

First Reading

Debate resumed from 4 March (vide page 226), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– As this is a finance Bill honourable senators are enabled to discuss matters that are considered to be of importance. Those matters can be relevant or irrelevant to the Bill. When this debate was adjourned on 4th March 1969 I had undertaken to draw to the attention of the Senate matters which had been circulating for some months relating to the Department of Customs and Excise. On the previous night Senator Wheeldon had asked for leave to have incorporated in

Hansard some articles relating to this matter, but leave was not granted because of an objection by Senator Wright. I took the opportunity on the next day to read verbatim from the publication ‘Incentive’ the matter that Senator Wheeldon wished to have incorporated. I began my contribution at 5.35 p.m. and the sitting was suspended 20 minutes later. As I was interrupted at that time it is now my intention to ask for the leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard the articles to which I have referred. The alternative is for me to start reading them again and to read them right through. With the concurrence of honourable senators I now incorporate in Hansard certain articles which appeared in the publication ‘Incentive’.

Incentive No. 1

POLITICAL NOTES

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT NOT ONLY ONE AFFECTED BY HOFFMAN PROBLEM

During the last week, most of the public discussion about the A.S.I.O., the Customs Department and Mr Hoffman has related to the problems in the Customs Department itself.

However, it is a fact that much of the problem relating to the administration of the by-law matters originated in the Department of Trade and Industry. In that Department, the Commonwealth Police had one officer under surveillance for several months. Visits to the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney by one officer of the Department of Trade and Industry were monitored by the Commonwealth Police. Several months ago, about the same time as Mr Hoffman was given his walking papers by a panicky Alan Carmody, in the Customs Department, another officer in the Department of Trade and Industry, was, on his own admission, interrogated for virtually the whole of one day by representatives of the Commonwealth Police.

According to the statements made by this officer, the Commonwealth Police at one stage tried to ring in a tape recorder, which was hidden behind a desk and was discovered by the officer in question during the course of the investigation. Mr Malcolm Summers was acting head of the Department of Trade at the time.

As it turned out, no prosecution was launched by the Commonwealth Police against the officer concerned in the Department of Trade. He resigned from the Department on honourable terms and was subsequently to establish himself in business in Canberra.

In this, it would seem that the Department of Trade acted with more adroitness to protect the departmental name from any suspicion than was the case in the Customs Department (see ‘Business Notes’). lt does appear, however, that the allegation made by Mrs Hoffman, that she was passing on documents from the Japanese Embassy to the A.S.I.O., came as a surprise to the Japanese, who were no doubt horrified to believe that the A.S.I.O. had placed what was in effect an agent within the Japanese Embassy.

The Japanese are therefore quite well prepared for the present situation, in that they have known for a long while that Mrs Hoffman had said the A.S.I.O. had had her on the payroll.

JAPANESE HAVE KNOWN ABOUT HOFFMAN SITUATION FOR MONTHS

The news of the Hoffman problem has not come as a surprise to the Japanese Embassy. The Japanese Government was informed about the allegations made by Mrs Hoffman at the time her letter to the Prime Minister began to circulate in Canberra. It was quickly ascertained that Mrs Hoffman had indeed been working for the Japanese Embassy. This established at least the prima facie veracity of her allegations, made in her letter to Mr Gorton.

Incentive No. 185

LOOKING FORWARD

WHERE IS MRS HOFFMAN’S LETTER?

Mrs Hoffman’s letter to the Prime Minister was available for inspection, in photostat form, back in November, when the first reports of the allegations that A.S.I.O. had an agent working in a foreign embassy in Canberra, were made in Incentive’. That was back in early November.

In her letter, Mrs Hoffman makes an impassioned plea to Mr Gorton for the reinstatement of her husband, who at that stage was under notice of dismissal from the Customs Department. She speaks, in her letter, about the unfair treatment which she said had been accorded to her husband. She says that he had served his country well in war and peace and she pleaded that he be given his job back.

She then goes on to say that her husband had been approached by someone from the Japanese Embassy asking for certain information - of a pretty routine kind. Her husband then approached the A.S.I.O. to tell them what had happened.

Mrs Hoffman goes on to say in her letter that she had been asked by the A.S.I.O. (and she mentioned the name of the A.S.I.O. officer concerned) to make reports from the files of the Japanese Embassy where she had been employed.

Mr Gorton has surely had sufficient warning that trouble was coming over this matter. The issue was raised in ‘Incentive’ over three months ago and there has been constant talk inside the Commonwealth Public Service over the matter. The Japanese have known about Mrs Hoffman’s allegations since early November last year. The Department of Trade and Industry, at the very highest level has known that one of its officers (since resigned - see ‘Political Notes’) has been involved with Mr Hoffman and with the Commonwealth Police and has resigned, after the Commonwealth Police in their usual style made an unholy mess with the investigations. The Customs Department have known about the whole of these matters. So have other officers of the Commonwealth Public Service.

The one man who has tried to suggest that all these matters have been trumped up has been the Prime Minister himself, who has studiously ignored all . . .

Incentive No. 185

BUSINESS NOTES

THE HOFFMAN AFFAIR

Judging from some of the answers he gave to questions asked in the Senate last week and the number of questions he found necessary to be put on notice, Senator Scott seems to be in some doubt as to the events surrounding the resignation of Mr G. C. Hoffman from the Department of Customs and Excise. It may be pertinent therefore, if ‘Incentive’ refreshed his memory on the facts as reported to us.

Shortly before ‘Incentive’ first broke this story (in our issue of November 11 last year) Mrs Hoffman went to Parliament House with the intention of seeing the Prime Minister and pleading her husband’s case with him. She was armed with a letter she had written to Mr Gorton which she intended to deliver personally. Among other things, the letter contained allegations of her activities in working for ASIO whilst employed at the Japanese Embassy.

However, Mrs Hoffman did not gel to sec Mr Gorton. Instead, the distraught woman was intercepted in the corridors of Parliament House by another gentleman, not a member of parliament, who took her intothe member’s room in order that she could regain her composure. Mrs Hoffman subsequently told him her story and showed him the letter she had written. With Mrs Hoffman’s knowledge, the letter was photocopied and returned to her.

In due course, the photocopy was handed to Mr Eric Walsh of the Murdoch group, who used it as the basis for his story which appeared in three capital cities in January.

So Senator Scott did not see Mrs Hoffman and it was not because of a direct threat from her that her husband was permitted to resign.

Shortly after ‘Incentive’ broke the story however, Mr Hoffman made an appointment to see Senator Scott. Knowing the distribution of Incentive’, there is a fair probability that Senator Scott was aware that some of the story was known when Mr Hoffman made his approach to him. We are not aware of the date of Mr Hoffman’s interview with Senator Scott but the Senator advised the Senate that it was on 25th November, 1968, ten days after Mr Hoffman’s dismissal became effective.

At the interview, it is reported that Mr Hoffman asked why he was not allowed to resign as had the other figure in the affair (see ‘Political Notes’), Senator Scott is then reported to have told Mr Hoffman that his dismissal had not yet come before the Executive Council and that he could still resign. It may be pertinent to point out here that Executive Council approval is not essential to effect the dismissal of a public servant. The mechanics of dismissal are completed with the publication of the notice in the Commonwealth Gazette.

From the interview with Senator Scott, Mr Hoffman proceeded to the Department of Customs and Excise, where he submitted his resignation. He was told by the Department that he could not submit a resignation as he had already been dismissed.

Mr Hoffman then told his Department that the Minister had told him that he could resign. His Department hurriedly checked this with the Public Service Board who confirmed that Mr Hoffman had been permitted to resign. Within ten minutes of the completion of the phone conversation between Customs and Excise and the Public Service Board, Mr Hoffman was handed a typed and signed acceptance of his resignation. Four days later, he was repaid his own contributions to the Superannuation Fund and the payment due for his long service leave.

Almost immediately, Mr Hoffman found employment at a higher rate of pay than he was previously receiving. The firm which employed him as a buyer incidentally, has wider and longer established trading links with Communist China than any other in Australia.

Probably the most disturbing feature of the whole affair is that the Public Service Board has once again fallen down in its task of being a public watch-dog over the operation of the public service. Far from fulfilling this function, it would appear that in this case, the Public Service Board has actually been a party to a conspiracy to prevent the public being made aware of a misdemeanour committed by a member of the public service.

Coupled with criticism made of the Board in Incentive’ last week, relating to a re-organisation of the Department of Trade, it would appear that the time has arrived for the operations of the Board itself to bc investigated.

Hoffman Affair Mishandled Inside Customs Department

A similar criticism could well be offered against the circumstances of the resignation of a member of the Department of Trade and Industry, in the matter which also involved the resignation of Mr Hoffman. This matter in the Department of Trade and Industry was hushed up and some aspects of the matter arc discussed in ‘Political Notes’ in this issue.

It is possible to argue, indeed that had it not been for the evidence of the unfair treatment of Mr Hoffman in the by-law matter, the whole of the revelations of Mrs Hoffman about her duties for the ASIO would have remained secret. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Customs Department, each dealing in its own way with an officer alleged to be concerned in actions involving expediting of by-law applications, took different courses. The Department of Trade and Industry, following the failure of the Commonwealth Police materially to shake the story of the officer concerned, allowed a resignation to take place. The Customs Department took a different approach and Mr Hoffman was originally under notice of dismissal.

Inevitably, as the matter was discussed within the Commonwealth Public Service, the view was taken that Mr Hoffman had been treated unfairly by comparison with his colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry. The resulting sense of resentment increased the pressure for the revelation of Mrs Hoffman’s allegations and for reprisals to be taken against the Customs Department, including against the Minister, Senator Scott. Thus, Senator Scott may pay a high price - indeed the ultimate price of his resignation - because ot the manner in which his departmental officers, including the Comptroller-General Mr Carmody, handled the Hoffman matter in its early stages.

INCENTIVE

No. 173- November 11, 19«8

A BRIEF NOTE OF SOME OF THE MAIN POINTS INSIDE

The Prime Minister has been informed of certain allegations involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the embassy of a foreign government in Canberra. These allegations are directly connected with the recent dismissal of an officer from the Department of Customs. The matter has been the subject of worried private discussion in the higher reaches of the Commonwealth Public Service.

The Government is not being given any advice at this time which would encourage Cabinet to intensify measures of economic restraint, in view of what is happening in the balance of payments. Although imports are higher than expected, exports have remained high and there are favourable trends at work. The international reserves remain strong.

There is little point in the bleeding hearts complaining about what has happened to Bob Sanders - or to anyone else who gets knocked around by the ruling bureaucrats in our communications media. The only thing to do is to white ant the media while the bureaucrats are not alert. Then the thing to do is to create new media. There is no alternative for those who are really prepared to be fair dinkum about unorthodoxy in Australia today.

Bank customers will already know that the banks are beginning to tighten their lending rates, following the warning signal given by the Reserve Bank last month.

Further developments underline the need to dismantle the Department of Trade, allocating its functions, between the Departments of Primary Industry, Customs and External Affairs. The Department is being run by a triumvirate of relatively inexperienced officers, in the mental - and often physical - absence of the titular permanent head and the Minister.

LOOKING FORWARD

MR GORTON, THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT AND THE A.S.I.O.

In recent weeks, there has been much discussion in the Public Service about the terms of the dismissal of an officer from the Department of Customs and about certain associated problems in the Department of Trade, involving the Commonwealth Police. It had been thought until the last few days that these troublesome issues might be kept under wraps. However, certain recent developments have involved the Prune Minister in what could be an extremely embarrassing series of revelations.

The Prime Minister has been informed of certain allegations involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation andthe embassy of a foreign Government in Canberra. These allegations are directly connected with the dismissal of the officer from the Department of Customs. As yet, there is no indication whether the Prime Minister has made inquiries into the truth of the allegations made, against the A.S.I.O., of in effect spying on a foreign government in Canberra.

However, independent inquiries have ascertained that in one important respect the allegations made and in the hands of the Prime Minister are true.

Mr Gorton must know that the matters raised in the allegations that have been made to him, involving the A.S.I.O., are also known to his political opponents. He must also know that the subject matter of the allegations involving the Department of Customs and the A.S.I.O. are the subject of comment and speculation within a restricted group of senior officials in the Commonwealth Public Service and that one effect of this high level discussion has been to confirm in the minds of many responsible officers the impression that the A.S.I.O. people are gumshoe men in the true comic book tradition.

This is not the only matter on which the A.S.I.O. is currently a figure of fun in Canberra. In their new apartments on the seventh floor of the Anzac West offices in Canberra, the A.S.I.O. installed alarm bells to signal the opening of the lift doors. Conscientious servants pressed 7 so frequently (making sure to get out at another floor) that the A.S.I.O. have had to circularise officers asking for mercy. A more general point raised by these matters is whether the tradition of secrecy and non-accountability of the A.S.I.O. is a sound one, when the service can be - and is - the subject of such ribald reports. Any other department would have to answer such allegations.

TOPIC OF THE WEEK

A DANGEROUS TREND

The Federal President of the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association Mr Norm Campbell, has made a very strong attack on the tendency towards personal patronage which has crept into the Commonwealth Public Service. Commenting on the rather extraordinary promotions to senior positions in the Prime Minister’s Department since Mr Gorton became Prime Minister, Mr Campbell criticises the tendency towards ‘Americanisation’ of the public service. His views are worth recording.

However, there is one facet of American life which we can well afford to resist to the utmost - and that’s the intrusion of political “spoils to the victor” into the Public Service. The Public Service has always been above party politics. Governments have come and gone and the Public Service has rendered its traditional loyal and faithful service to each in turn. In return, Governments have not sought to load the Service with officers of their choosing immediately they lake office.

This is a tradition which has stood the test of time, but recent happenings in the Prime Minister’s Department have had an unsavoury suggestion that we may be taking the final step to Americanisation.

Its a “wind of change” that Australia can well do without, and any suggestion that these practices will become the norm Will need to be resisted by a tempest of the Public Service’s own making.’

We have written in ‘Incentive’ before about the promotions of Mr Neil Townsend to the Deputy Secretary’s position in the P.M.’s Department and of Mr G. Tredinnick to a First Assistant Secretary’s position. It will be interesting to see if the Commonwealth Public Service Board has the courage to halt this trend when it decides on the merits of the appeal lodged against Mr Tredinnick’s promotion by Mr J. McCusker. an Assistant Secretary with the Department of Education and Science. While Mr McCusker himself might not be completely suitable for the P.M.’s Department position, the Board docs have the option of refusing to confirm Mr Tredinnick’s promotion and calling for fresh applications. However, given the Board’s recent decision in overruling the recommendation of the Promotions Appeal Committee that the promotion of Mr J. Wolters to an Assistant Secretary’s position in the Department of Trade and Industry be not confirmed, too much hope should not be placed on the Board’s courage. The Board appears to be independent on such matters in name only.

It could be that the Board has realised the merits of the American system where senior appointments are political ones and where the appointees are removed when governments change. But it looks more like an unholy marriage of the American system of appointments and the British tradition of security and absence of responsibility for public servants.

LOOKING FORWARD

AND NOW THE COMPTROLLER-GENERAL?

For the time being, the man who has taken the worst beating over the Hoffman Affair has been the Minister for Customs, Senator Scott. He has deserved everything he has got as he has been evasive throughout.

But there will also gradually come to occur a rising interest in the activities of the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs, Mr Alan Carmody, in this matter.

In ‘Business Notes’ this week, we recall some of the background to the Hoffman Affair and the role played in that affair by Mr McEwen’s desire to stop the leak of information (still occurring, we are happy to report) from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Maxwell Newton organisation and to ‘The Australian Financial Review’. In that affair, which involved Mr James F. O’Brien, now established in his own business in Canberra, the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr Alan Carmody, played a direct personal role, including the dealings with Mr O’Brien, Mr Hoffman and the Commonwealth

Police. It has been alleged that Mr Carmody gave a form of undertaking that Mr Hoffman would not be penalised as long as Mr O’Brien resigned quietly from the Department of Trade and Industry. The role of Mr M. M. Summers, formerly Acting Secretary of the Department of Trade at the lime of the O’Brien and Hoffman inquiries and now Secretary of Shipping and Transport, has also to be clarified.

This is not the first time that Mr Carmody has been involved in dealings with the Commonwealth Police over security matters. Some time ago, there was a report in Maxwell Newton publications of the substance of the Chemicals Industry Tariff Report. The Commonwealth Police, in an attempt to trace the source of the information published in Maxwell Newton publications giving the substance of the Tariff Board Chemicals ‘Report, went through the Department of Customs following the report in the June 8 1966 issue of Incentive’. Commonwealth Police were buzzing around for some time (hereafter trying to find out where the Maxwell Newton publications were obtaining early reports on forthcoming Tariff Board reports.

At that time, Mr Carmody, as he has since admitted, sooled the Commonwealth Police on to the Department of the Treasury, attempting to indicate that leaks on these matters were coming from the Treasury. As the Commonwealth Police discovered (after the use of some typically and bumbling and bullying tactics on their part), there was nothing in the Treasury to source the reports in the Maxwell Newton publications. The reports were in fact originating in Customs, although the Commonwealth Police never were able to discover this for themselves.

page 402

TOPIC OF THE WEEK

page 402

SIR FRANK PACKER GRIEVOUSLY HARMS MR GORTON

It is inconceivable that Sir Frank Packer did not realise the likely consequences of his decision to get Mrs Hoffman to publish her memoirs of her limes as a spy for the A.S.I.O. in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and the ‘Sunday Telegraph’. By this remarkable piece of enterprise - one of the most commendable exercises in journalistic enterprise in recent years in this country - Sir Frank Packer and Consolidated Press have obviously delivered a terrible blow at Mr Gorton. They have given direct backing to the whole of the substance of the allegations made about Mrs Hoffman’s activities. These allegations, first made in ‘Incentive’ four months ago and followed and elaborated by Mr Eric Walsh, have now been given personal confirmation by Mrs Hoffman in her articles written for the mass audience.

Thus, Sir Frank has been the instrument for a cruel blow to Mr Gorton.

The first thing to say is that Consolidated Press have to be heartily congratulated for the boldness and the success of their move. They have taken over the Hoffman story at a time when it was beginning to droop a little for lack of further factual nourishment.

Secondly, both Mr Gorton and Senator Scott are now in a dreadful position. They have to accept responsibility for the failures of the A.S.I.O. as well as for their own evasiveness over the last week or two. Indeed, there have been reports that at one stage Mr Gorton was about to issue a statement denying the whole of the Hoffman allegations but was stopped at the last minute, when it became evident from the study of the work of one or two journalists that there was a good deal of substance in what was being alleged.

Thirdly, Mr Whitlam can hardly be pleased about the way things have gone. It is now evident that he has been dragging the chain on the Hoffman Affair, whilehis so-called Left Wing colleagues in the Senate- men like Senators Cavanagh, Murphy and Wheeldon- have been on the right trace. Mr Whitlam now looks like a man who has neglected big opportunities while Senators Murphy, Wheeldon and Cavanagh and O’Byrne have been left to do the honourable job of getting after Mr Gorton and the Government in the Hoffman affair.

Fourthly, the poor old A.S.I.O. is once again revealed to be pretty much of a joke. One dangerous aspect of the affair is that so much discretion has been left in the hands of A.S.I.Ooperatives and directors who are evidently half-wits.

In her newspaper articles, Mrs Hoffman has been careful not to reveal the name of the A.S.I.O. operative who was her contact in her prolonged period of thieving documents from the Japanese Embassy.

It is strange that she did not reveal the name of this man, for she did reveal his name in her original letter to the Prime Minister and the name is known to those who have seen this letter as well asto the man in whose possession the photostat of the letter presently exists.

page 402

POLITICAL NOTES

page 402

CRUCIFYING’ THE HOFFMAN’S?

During the debates and questions on the Hoffman Affair in Parliament last week, the Government people, including the Prime Minister, kept falling back on the argument that the Opposition should ‘stop crucifying’ the Hoffmans for their part in the affair. It now seems, from the evidence of her newspaper articles, that Mrs Hoffman is not feeling at all crucified. In fact, she sounds very pleased about the way things are working out. Her articles are written in a’ lively and chatty style, showing no evidence of tragic sadness. All the photographs taken of her and her husband since the affair really got going have shown them to be apparently very well at ease.

No doubt they are both also feeling considerably better off financially following the sale of publication rights presumably to Consolidated Press, presumably for a good price.

The people who are feeling crucified in all this are the Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the officials, who have been trying to hide from the people what has been really going on in the workings of the A.S.I.O.

page 402

QUESTION

THE SENATE WINS AGAIN

As is becoming increasingly the case, the Senate dominated the parliamentary discussion of the Hoffman Affair. It was also in the Senate that the main burden of the Government’s troubles over the F111 and the VIP planes originated.

One reason for this is that the Labor leaders in the Senate are far more energetic than their opposite numbers in the House of Representatives. They are far more willing and able to hop into the Government on issues as they arise. In this, admittedly, they have received sterling support from time to time from the DLP and from mavericks on the Government side. But the Labor Senate team is a fairly united group, including as it does Senators Murphy, Cohen, O’Byrne along with other energetic stirrers and men with little fear of reprisals, such as Senators Wheeldon, Cavanagh and even Senator Cant.

The Senate team is smaller than the team in the House of Representatives; the Senators know that they are going to be longer in Parliament; they have a far deeper commitment to the idea of parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Executive; they are for the most part a pretty united little group with similar views on many subjects; they are often meeting in Senator Murphy’s rooms.

By contrast, the Labor team in the House of Representatives is split within itself to a far greater degree; and in Mr Whitlam they have a leader who thinks of himself as often as not as a part of the Establishment, as a Prime Minister in the making. This does not encourage tough leadership and uncompromising attacks on the Government in the House of Representatives.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I propose to use this opportunity to deal with some matters which 1 think should be cleared up in relation to attitudes taken to the Hoffmann affair. Now that more is known of the facts I take advantage of my right during the debate on the first reading of a money Bill to refer briefly to some matters that we have ascertained. I do so because I believe that we were perhaps guessing too much on the earlier occasions when dealing with the stories that had been related to us.

Senator Greenwood:

– It proves that the honourable senator was guessing when he started.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My purpose in entering this debate is to make the admission that to some extent I was guessing. I ask the honourable senators to realise that I have a duty in the Parliament. Because I did what I thought was my duty, I have been accused of guessing, of stating things that had no foundation, of making scurrilous statements and narrating scurrilous newspaper reports, and this has been said to be the action of a left wing member of the Australian Labor Party, as if that were a derogatory term in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). But let us consider the responsibility of honourable senators, especially those on this side of the chamber. We have a duty to probe and to check any report that we have received relating to a Government department. All Government departments, with the exception of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, must be open to public scrutiny in relation to any of their activities. One honourable senator who has now been elevated to the Ministry always maintained that it was his job to probe the administration of departments for the purpose of strengthening any weaknesses that could be found. While we are walking along the corridors of this place, or anywhere else, if we hear rumours of malpractice, misappropriation or any malfunctioning of a department we, as senators, have a responsibility to the people who elected us to probe that rumour - even if it is only a rumour - for the purpose of getting to the foundation of the rumour and to ascertain whether it has any truth. That is my duty as an Opposition senator in this place. That is the reason for my actions on this occasion.

I read an article in the Adelaide ‘News’ which indicated to me that if the article were correct here was a department - ASIO - which to my mind was acting outside the charter Parliament had given it. For the purpose of ascertaining the true position I could do two things. I could come to the Senate and make a direct accusation at some stage or I could do the proper thing - which I did - and advise the Prime Minister of the accusation that had been published, give him a fortnight to prepare a reply and, as I believed would be the case, if there was no foundation for the accusation in the article he would say so. 1 asked questions in the Senate which related only to the activities of ASIO outside its charter. It was not only a matter of plants in embassies; it was a matter of plants within the Labor Party and a matter of shadowing trade representatives who came to conferences in Canberra. That was the reason I wanted to know whether ASIO was acting outside its charter.

The Prime Minister said: ‘lt is not usual to take notice of telegrams asking me to look at newspaper reports’. I think he lakes that attitude at his peril. Because of what he said the matter had to be raised in discussion. When J asked the Minister for

Supply (Senator Anderson), who represents the Prime Minister, whether he had received a telegram and had answers to the questions that 1 wanted particularly, he said that he had never heard of the telegram. In my view that necessitated raising the matter in the adjournment debate that night, with further reference to the newspaper article. 1 wanted to know whether there was any truth in it.

During that discussion Senator Scott came into the chamber. I was challenged in these words: “Why do you think it is correct?’ I replied: ‘Senator Scott is the man. The Hoffmann case is a means of proving the truth of the allegation that ASIO was working outside its charter in relation to embassies’. Hoffmann was the second consideration. He was not the purpose of my questions on this matter. He was only the machinery whereby we could prove, or at least investigate, the allegations that were being made. When Senator Scott entered the chamber during the adjournment debate on the night of 26th February I believed that it was for the purpose of denying the newspaper article and telling us that such a thing never happened. After a conference with Senator Wright and Senator Anderson he picked up his papers and walked out of the chamber. When he failed to accept the challenge to give information to scotch this newspaper article the majority of members in this chamber knew that the allegation in the newspaper report contained more than a suspicion or a rumour.

As we had a responsibility to find out the foundation for this report we had to start asking questions. We had to ask question after question, and because of the Minister’s inability or refusal to answer them we had to wait until the next day to get an answer and then we had to ask further questions to get the information that we wanted. As you know, when a lawyer has a witness in the box he goes from one question to another until he eventually gets the truth or the facts from the witness. In this case, for the purpose of establishing something based on replies from the Minister, we had to drag on for 2 weeks. We were being accused of persecuting the Hoffmann family but this matter could have been cleared up in a day. The Hoffmanns were immaterial to the case but they had to be brought in to prove the allegations in the newspaper article. If there had been an admission or denial of plants in the embassy the Hoffmanns never would have entered this dispute. To establish the method of Hoffmann’s dismissal we had to go through the long tortuous procedure of asking one question one day, waiting until the next day for an answer and then asking another question. It was drawn out for a fortnight and the Hoffmanns were in the limelight for the whole period.

Senator Webster:

– This could hardly be construed as an apology on your behalf, could it?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If you will wait until 1 am finished you will know that there is no question of an apology. It is a question of the Opposition being forced to do undesirable things because of the Government’s attitude. We see tears in the eyes of Ministers over the persecution of the Hoffmann family but they send 20-year- olds to be shot in Vietnam. They are crying over the Hoffmann affair which has been brought about by nothing but their own actions. Whenever these cases come before the Senate we must probe them to clear away any suspicion that may surround a department or an individual. We must find out whether the reports are true or false. If there is a clear frank statement from the Minister, that is the end of the matter. 1 want to raise another matter. Among other things I have been accused of accusing Hansard of misreporting statements that are made. No-one in the Senate has more respect for Hansard than I have. I think the Hansard staff does a magnificent job. Hansard distributes typescripts which may he corrected or on which senators may write in things that Hansard, because of its activities, may have omitted. When I first made the suggestion that the typescript perhaps had been corrected and something Senator Scott had said in reply had been left out, Senator Anderson answered by tabling the pink copy that he had received which showed that there was no correction. Obviously Senator Scott’s statement about which 1 had complained on that occasion was never taken down by Hansard. It may be said to me: ‘You accuse Hansard but we have the Hansard record to prove what we say’. I will admit that the Hansard record is strong evidence but it is not conclusive evidence in the light of other evidence that may be before us.

On the particular day - 26th February - Senator Kennelly asked Senator Scott about Mr Hoffmann’s resignation. As I have said, Senator Scott said that Mr Hoffman was not dismissed, that he resigned. That is not recorded in Hansard. Senator McClelland asked why, if he was not dismissed, notice to that effect was published in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’. He was asked to put that question on the notice paper and the question was not recorded in the section of Hansard that covers questions but it is recorded in Senator McClelland’s remarks during the adjournment debate that night. They appear on page 148 of Hansard.

Senator Kennelly then asked a question of the President. It appears on page 75 of Hansard in this way:

I ask, with respect: What redress has a senator got against a Minister who deliberately gives false information to the Senate? I refer to an answer given by Senator Scott to a question which I asked earlier today. The Minister for Customs and Excise said that one by the name of Hoffmann was not dismissed. 1 refer to the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Gazette’.

Senator Kennelly then read the entry in the Gazette’. Of course the President took no objection to that. He complained about the tone of Senator Kennelly’s question but Senator Kennelly was under the impression that the question had not been disallowed. Later I directed the following question to Senator Anderson:

I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he will look into the answer given to Senator Kennelly by the Minister for Customs and Excise and the further question of Senator Kennelly to the President as to the truthfulness of that answer, and make a report to the Senate to assure the Senate that his responsible Ministers are giving truthful answers to questions.

Senator Anderson did not object. He said:

The honourable senator loves to dish it out but he dare not take it. I will be persistent and say this: I have always assumed during my long parliamentary life that every honourable member or senator in any parliament of the British Commonwealth, the Australian Commonwealth or any other democratic parliament accepted that when a Minister gave an answer he gave it in good faith.

I do not place much importance on that because I do not think that there was any intention by Senator Scott to mislead the

Parliament. But I have been charged with making accusations against Hansard and 1 say that I did not make an accusation. I stated what had happened in the chamber, but not everything that happens is recorded. I doubt very much whether Senator Scott knew the true position at that stage. Honourable senators may recall that when Senator Scott was asked a question by Senator Murphy he said: 1 can assure the honourable senator thai as soon as question time is over and I get an opportunity to leave the chamber I will obtain the full information in relation to all of the questions that were asked here today and f will report that information direct to my leader.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is what is claimed to be an evading answer. 1 fail to see how the honourable senator can sustain that argument.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– What was said to be an evading answer?

Senator Greenwood:

– That the Minister was going to get full information and give it to the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 have not said that it was an evading answer.

Senator Kennelly:

– Senator Greenwood is a knowledgable person; let him tell us all about it.

Senator Greenwood:

– The honourable senator can do some apologising in the light of what he said.

Senator Kennelly:

– I will apologise for nothing.

Senator Greenwood:

– The honourable senator ought to.

Senator Kennelly:

– What for?

Senator Gair:

– For a lot of things.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am sorry to interrupt other honourable senators, Mr Deputy President, but again I say that 1 regarded the whole attitude of the Minister for Customs and Excise and of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry as one of evasion of the accusations made. Despite what Senator Sim said, we have come to the stage where as a result of Mrs Hoffman’s statements being published, there is no doubt that there was an agent in the Japanese Embassy. Whilst the Prime Minister has said that he does noi believe that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was working outside of its charter, Mrs Hoffmann has stated thai she was sent to the Embassy for the purpose of getting anything which appeared important to her. She was not asked to get security documents; she was asked to gel anything which appeared important to her. She was asked to spy upon the Australians attending the Embassy. She was asked to report on the sexual behaviour and the drinking habits of members of the Embassy. Yet it is alleged by the Prime Minister that ASIO is not working outside of its charter. Of course, an attempt is now being made to say that it was on a quid pro quo basis - they were spying on us and we were spying on them. But the fact that somebody else is doing wrong is no justification for us doing likewise.

Whilst 1 have the opportunity I wish to clear up one point. I said today that Senator Scott had told me during question time the week before last that Mr Hoffmann had referred to Mr O’Brien in the course of his appeal. Having looked up Hansard, I wish to correct my statemnet. It was said by Senator Anderson in reply to a question by Senator Keeffe. I asked a question of Senator Scott and he replied:

As regards an officer of any other department, see the answer to question No. 925.

Obviously Senator Scott knew what question No. 925 was about. In reply to question No. 925, which was asked by Senator Keeffe, Senator Anderson said:

The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Mr Hoffmann has stated that Mr O’Brien telephoned him to ask him to expedite a decision on the by-law application for turtle skins, but has not slated that Mr O’Brien gave him any instructions, or that he, Mr Hoffmann, acted on any Instruction. The Department has no evidence to indicate that Mr O’Brien and Mr Hoffmann were acting in liaison in the activities for which Mr Hoffmann was charged.

I wish to put two points which arise out of the Hoffmann affair. It is obvious that ASIO is being used for activities outside of its charter.

Senator Sim:

– Obvious to whom?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– lt is obvious to anyone - except Senator Sim - who has read the Hoffmann articles. The question is: What do we do? Surely we can rely upon a responsible government to rectify the position? I have asked for assurances that in the future ASIO will not be used for activities outside its charter. The Caucus of the Australian Labor Party will have to consider how it can put before the public its opinion of how ASIO should, with all secrecy, operate within its charter for the security of Australia. I come now to the second point that arises. Although this fact was not brought out in answers to questions, it appears from Mrs Hoffman’s statements that Mr Hoffmann was interrogated by the Commonwealth Police at the same time as Mr O’Brien and another employee of the Department of Trade and Industry were interrogated.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is this from Mr Walsh’s article? Where did the honourable senator get this information?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I doubt that it is as reliable as Mr Walsh’s article. Honourable senators opposite can determine for themselves what reliance they put on this information. It is a reply from Mr McEwen, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. If honourable senators opposite want to put less reliance on it than they would on Mr Walsh’s article, by all means let them do so. But even if it is a false report we have the responsibility of inquiring into the matter to determine what is behind it.

Senator Greenwood:

– What did Mr McEwen say?

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Mr McEwen said:

Before Mr O’Brien resigned, investigations had been in course as to whether or not he and a fellow officer of my Department had accepted payment by business firms of their hotel and other expenses in return for advice and assistance given to those firms. There was no evidence suggesting that any officer of the Department had issued false import advice or documents.

What I am saying is that at the same time as Mr Hoffmann was being interrogated by the Commonwealth police there was an interrogation of Mr O’Brien and another officer from the Department of Trade and Industry arising from an allegation that their hotel expenses were being paid because of their services to organisations. Following this investigation, Mr O’Brien resigned immediately and the other member of the Department of Trade and Industry was charged and fined $4. I do not know whether it was in connection with the same affairs, bin Mr Hoffmann was charged and permitted to resign, without the loss of his superannuation contributions, which he would have lost had he been dismissed from the Department. We are told by Senator Anderson that Mr O’Brien had been in contact with Mr Hoffmann to expedite this decision. Obviously there were some companies which were seeking to get some concessions from officers of the Department and were paying their hotel accommodation. One suspects that one of the concessions they expected to get was a by-law regulation that would permit of the importation into Australia of turtle skins at a saving of some $1,100. Mr Hoffmann had recommended such a by-law, according to the article by Mrs Hoffmann because it did not mean anything prejudicial to Australia. The turtle skins arrived before the by-law was passed, and Mr Hoffmann then gave notice to the Department of Customs and Excise in Sydney, and the importing firm, that the by-law had been passed. Must we again drag through the mud and filth the whole of the activities of Mr O’Brien and the other officer who has not been named, and the whole of the activities of this Department because of the failure of the Minister to give a clear and full statement of the activities of the Department.

We have a responsibility to explore these things. Everything that is coming out of the Department of Customs and Excise shows conclusively that rackets in customs are operating in Australia today. We have a responsibility to explore every avenue to see whether we can prevent them and whether we can assist the Department to slop these practices. But we cannot get a clear answer about anything that has happened. Let the Government come clean on the case of O’Brien and the other officer so that we wil’l not have to drag through a period of weeks asking one question after another until finally we get some confession or a true statement after a period of crossexamination.

I claim that the whole of my activity in connection with this Hoffmann affair has 11543/69- S-im been commendable. My sole purpose in directing questions to the Prime Minister was to obtain information. As I have said we did not know whether what we had heard was a rumour or not. We did not know whether it was true or false. We only wanted either verification or denial, lt rook a fortnight of questioning in this place before we finally got proof that the newspaper report was something more than just a scurrilous report, that in fact we have established in Australia a gestapo which is possibly more powerful than the Government. As yet we are doing nothing to stop its activities.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I shall not delay the Senate for very long on this issue. I merely want to say that Parliament met three weeks ago and for a good part of the time since then we have been compelled to sit here listening to Senator Cavanagh and his supporters singing their arias from the Tales of Hoffmann. Judging from the number of times members of the Labour Party have brought this matter up, it is very appropriate that the opera ‘The Tales of Hoffmann’ should have been written. I understand, by a gentleman called Offenbach. I am disgusted to think that the business of the country should be held up for almost three weeks over a tuppeny-ha’penny thing like this. We have had a statement from the Japanese authorities, firstly to the effect that this incident happened years ago and secondly that they always would see to it that the staff, particularly foreign staff, would never have any access to any confidential information.

I would have thought that that would have settled the issue but, day after day, we have had this thing brought up until it is torn threadbare. Now we are threatened not only with a debate on it tonight but with the fact that tomorrow the Australian Labor Party caucus may decide to bring on another debate on the subject.

What are we here for? Are we here to discuss the defence of Australia? Are we here to discuss primary products? Bills on these subjects are being held up. Or are we here to discuss the question of Mr and Mrs Hoffmann? Senator Cavanagh is very indignant. He says there is evidence of a conspiracy in the Department of Customs and

Excise to do all sorts of crooked things. I do not know. He has not produced the evidence.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But there are rumours.

Senator McMANUS:

– He says there are rumours. For 3 weeks we have been Here discussing rumours while everybody is waiting for the Senate to discuss defence and all kinds of other questions. Surely it is about time a little ordinary common sense was shown. What has the Australian Labor Party done Cor Mr and Mrs Hoffmann? It has put them on velvet, lt has accused them and said they were let off too easily by the Government - that something serious should have been clone in regard to the matter. But today they are becoming wealthy people, thanks to the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are not ashamed of that.

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Cavanagh says he is not ashamed of that. What is he arguing over? One minute he says there is a conspiracy - that people ought to be dealt with with the utmost rigor of the law. Then he says he is not ashamed of the fact that he is making them wealthy people by virtue of the immense sums they are getting from the capitalist Press for their memoirs. All I can say is that if honourable senators want to read something about how Security can act they should read the story of the Australia First movement and how it was treated during World War IT by a Labour government. Let them read Mr Arthur Calwell’s critique of the book in the Catholic Worker’ last week in which he expresses his opinion of the way a Labour Government handles security issues. Let them read what Mr Calwell said about the Curtin Government and they will have their eyes opened as to the sort of things a Government ought not to do. Let them go and ask some of the Lutheran ministers in South Australia how they were treated by Security people in World War II and World War I when reputable people were approached as though they were traitors to this country. That was done under a Labour Government, too.

Senator Little:

– And it is no credit to them.

Senator McMANUS:

– It is no credit to any Government to do that kind of thing. But when I hear people get up here and go on as we have listened to people going on for nearly 3 weeks’ now on this particular issue, I remind myself of the biblical statement: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’ This whole thing has been torn to shreds. The way in which the Australian Labor Party has treated it is an example of how not to plan tactics. The whole thing has been a shambles. The members of the Labor Party ought to be ashamed of themselves, and I hope that quickly they will allow us to get on with the real business of the country.

Senator Kennelly:

– I have just listened to a remarkable speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am told that the honourable senator has already spoken.

Senator Kennelly:

– I do not know whether this is the Bill on which I spoke previously. Is it the same Bill?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Clerk tells me that you have already spoken on the Wine Grapes Charges Bill.

Senator Kennelly:

– Then 1 regret my error.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– Senator McManus. in a very childish manner used the phrase: ‘A tuppeny-ha’penny thing like this’, and said that there is no evidence, of any racket continuing within the Department of Customs and Excise. We allege not only that there are rackets but also that there is evidence of rackets having been going on within the Department of Customs and Excise for some time, as a result of one of which, Hoffmann was at one time dismissed and subsequently allowed to resign.

If Senator McManus does not think there is any evidence of rackets available to the Labor Movement, he might be prepared to listen to this: This afternoon, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) said in reply to a question I asked him that the amount of duty short paid on cigars was $808,244 and that with respect to cigarettes the amount of $1,165,425 was involved. Altogether, something of the order of $1,900,000 was involved. It is more than a tuppeny-ha’penny thing. The Minister went on to say:

The Attorney-General’s Department is examining evidence in relation io possible offences which could reveal further short payments of J 1, 165,42 J and, if warranted, appropriate proceedings will bc taken in the near future.

So, duty amounting to about $3m has been evaded. Yet Senator McManus rises in this chamber and says that we are wasting the time of the Parliament on a tuppennyha’penny thing like this. Of course, this is quite separate from the matter in respect of which Hoffmann was at one time dealt with by the Department, and evasion of duty was involved too in that transaction, lt is the duty and responsibility of the Opposition to raise these matters in the Federal Parliament in order to see that the administrations of these departments are kept on a proper and balanced basis, and it is for that reason that we. have opened up these matters.

Despite the Minister’s assurance given in his answer to me this afternoon, that everything in the garden now appears to be rosy because a major reorganisation was made in 1968 and thai allegedly strengthened the investigational function of the Department with the object of detecting malpractice and ensuring that customs officers maintain a high standard of efficiency, I allege that the Department, especially in Sydney, is in a shocking shambles and that at least tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, is being lost to revenue.

From federation until early last year the Department of Customs and Excise had always had examining officers on the Sydney wharves, of which there are about forty. Of course, the busier the wharf the greater the number of assistants the examining officer would have. Then some time ago the Canberra office decided to introduce a new changeover system. It established a central point around the waterfront, with an officer called a programmer in charge of that point and with two or three other officers for his assistants, lt used this point as a central office for customs clearance purposes. It took the examining officers and their assistants off the other wharves throughout Sydney. Then, in order to handle the paper work, the officers taken off the wharves were put in the central manifesting accounting section in the Customs House. This took place early in 1968. My information is that chaos reigns supreme in the central manifesting accounting section.

One importer has told me that it is costing him $12,000 a year because he just cannot get his goods cleared. I understand that another one - if the Minister would like me to name him I will name him to the Minister privately - has taken advantage of the situation and already the Department has uncovered eighty-odd movements of goods without approval. Apparently the Department has a rubber stamp which has on it ‘May be delivered’. This fellow, apparently being fed up with having to wait for delivery of his goods, decided to get himself a rubber stamp with the words ‘May be delivered’ on it. Then he went around stamping his goods. As I said, to date he has been caught in respect of eighty-odd movements and he is still being investigated by the Department.

Now I come to the question of manifesting. I understand that each line on the manifest has to be accounted for in some way. It is generally by the payment of duty on entry. Each entry is given a cash entry number and a warrant number. This is associated with a particular line of cargo that is being brought into Australia. The information reported to me is that about 25% of the queries coming from the internal check that has been set up within the Department in this way relate to missing quarantine entries. This means that the goods can get in - in fact have gol in - without quarantine certificates being cleared. 1 understand that no-one can say for certain whether the quarantine certificates have been issued or lost. As I said, there are about forty officers in this central manifesting accounting section. Three of them are senior examining officers. To say the least, il is a real schemozzle. These forty people are trying to cover the whole of the Sydney waterfront. There are about forty wharves in Sydney, as well as the Mascot aerodrome. So one can imagine the higgledy-piggledy state of affairs.

Since the Hoffmann affair was raised in this Parliament senior officers of the Department have literally panicked. They are forcing officers in this section to work overtime in an effort to account for the 1968 backlog and to make up for the failure to account properly for import duties. According to the information provided to me, they have told the examining officers to forget about quarantine permits and not to worry about verification of commerce marks if they are required, but merely to get on with the job of clearing the great backlog that has accumulated. They have changed their methods or system on three or four occasions in an effort to get the system to work. The last changeover was on 2nd January 1968. The position is still as chaotic as ever, if not more so than ever.

I suggest that it is just impossible for three senior examining officers to handle all the paper work involved in the discharge of cargo in the port of Sydney. About 2,600 ships enter the port in any year. There is a complete neglect of the collection of public money. No-one in the Department can say with precision whether duty has been paid on goods that come off the wharves. For instance, under section 149 of the Customs Act the Department is obliged to claim from shipping companies for duty lost on pillaged and short landed goods. Because the ships’ papers that have been handed over to the Department are in such a hopeless mess, tens of thousands of dollars, so 1 am assured, has not been collected. Duties under this section of the Act relate to the loss or pillage of cargo appearing on the manifest.

Now let me. deal with section 214 of the Act, which enables a customs officer to walk into any place and take away records and documents that the Department feels are likely to be of some assistance to it in its investigation of a firm. As 1 understand the position, within the Department there are two investigation sections - one the investigation branch itself, which consists of Third Division officers, and the other the prevention and detection section, which in the main consists of Fourth Division officers.

I am told that it is most unusual for the two sections to be used in the one operation. But on 21st March 1968 a raid was carried out on a company which carries on business at Campsie and St Leonards and which had a ministerial determination to allow it to import seismographic squipment duty free. The Customs officers found nothing when they raided the place. But, despite that, a senior officer of the Department then gave an instruction that the firm be further investigated. As a result of this, documents and records were taken away from the business premises to the Department. Again, the officers found nothing. If the Minister wants verification of the matter, I can give him details for a quick reference. He might have a look at his departmental files NPD68/ 65677, and the general customs file N68/ 10841. So much for those matters.

This afternoon we have had replies to questions concerning the evasion of duty on cigars and cigarettes; $808,244 to date in respect of cigars, and $1,165,425 to date in respect, of cigarettes. Possibly other offences will be detected to reveal evasion of a further amount of that size. I turn now to deal with the evasion of duty on spirits. 1 refer to a company which operates at offices in Martin Place, Sydney, and Dowling Street, Kensington, for the importation of whisky. I am told that for duty purposes a cask of whisky contains 40 gallons - although there may be within a cask 42 gallons - to allow a gallon or two for soakage, wastage and things of that nature. Apparently this company was drawing off its ‘overs’ and bottling them. About 18 months ago seventy cartons of whisky came into Queen’s Bond from this company which had just been raided. The company could not explain the circumstances surrounding the seventy cartons and they were returned to Queen’s Bond. After the company paid duty on the seventy cartons, they were returned to the company. No-one was prosecuted. It happened only that the duty was paid and the cartons were returned.

Obviously such things are going on, verified by the Minister’s answer to me this afternoon and according to the allegations that I now make. It is very wrong indeed, to say the least of it, for Senator McManus to say here today that the Opposition is dealing with a tuppenny-ha’penny matter, when we are referring to the evasion of customs duty through nefarious transactions, resulting in the loss of revenue to Australia.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– It is quite apparent that what started out this afternoon as an attempt at justification by the Opposition of what it initially raised and what became known as the ‘Hoffmann affair’ has become a belated running for cover.It is quite apparent that the Opposition, since certain articles by Mrs Hoffmann were published in newspapers, has realised that it started a story on the basis of completely false information. Honourable senators opposite appreciate - and I sense from what Senator Cavanagh has been saying that he realises - that the Australian Labor Party, particularly Labor senators, are the laughing stock of Australia. This matter has its humourous side - that is quite evident - but there is certainly a tragedy about it because the Australian Labor Party poses as an alternative government. I imagine that Senator Cavanagh, who started this story, poses as a prospective Cabinet Minister. 1 think the Australian people realise that while the Labor Party conducts itself as it has on this particular issue, it can no more run this country than it can run the affairs of its own Party. Senator Cavanagh suggested at the outset this afternoon that he was admitting that he was - Senator Kennelly - What did you do in 1 94 1 ? You walked out.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not know why Senator Kennelly chooses to refer to something that may have happened in 1941. At this time members of the Opposition will bring up anything at all to avoid attention being paid to their actions in the last 3 weeks.

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But you have been in government. You have to defend your administration.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-I assure Senator Mulvihill that it is an administration which can be defended with a great deal of assurance and satisfaction.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. (General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business)

page 411

EDUCATION

Appointment of Select Committee

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I move:

  1. That a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the needs of pre-school, primary, secondary and technical education throughout Australia and to recommend such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth as will enable the best standards of education for all.
  2. That the Committee consist of Senators to be appointed by a subsequent resolution.
  3. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
  4. That the Committee have power to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.
  5. That the Committee report to the Senate within twelve months after the appointment of the Committee.
  6. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

This motion springs from the conviction which we on this side of the Senate have, and which is shared by teachers, parents and other education conscious sections of the community, that there is a crisis in education at all levels and in every State and that something should be done about examining the dimensions and the incidence of the crisis and about making a nationally based attack on the problems which such an examination would expose. The community interest in this matter of education runs very deep. It is manifested in many activities by many groups in the community, some of them local, some of them national. It is manifested in such ways as the presentation of petitions of the kind that was presented to the Senate this afternoon by Senator Wriedt on behalf of a considerable number of citizens interested in promoting education at all levels in the Australian community. We start, I think, any consideration of this subject, with an awareness of the context of the problem in the CommonwealthStates complex, both constitutionally and financially. It can be assumed in what I have to say here that I am perfectly conscious of the constitutional position and of the financial position - that financially, in practical terms supremacy lies with the Commonwealth, and both the States and the people look to the Commonwealth for initiative and leadership in the provision of funds for the expansion of educational facilities. I am conscious, too, of the fact that the Commonwealth can make financial grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution subject to conditions, and 1 believe that with the cooperation of the States there is no danger that the Commonwealth will lack the necessary powers as occasion arises to act to improve Australia’s educational services.

This motion which I ask the Senate to pass springs from the failure of the Government to act on the oft repeated request of educationists and parents for a national inquiry into all levels of education - pre-school, primary, technical and secondary. I exclude university at this stage and for the purposes of this motion, because universities have been the subject of a number of inquiries. The interest of the Commonwealth in universities is well established and in recent times there has been a move in other tertiary directions as a result of the Martin committee on tertiary education, so that the Commonwealth has now become involved in the provision of assistance to colleges of advanced education and so on. But the truth is that the Commonwealth has failed to respond to many requests for a national inquiry. These have not been confined to political opposition. The Australian Labor Party has for a considerable period been committed as a matter of policy to a full public inquiry by the Commonwealth into primary, secondary and technical education in both government and non-government schools. That has been a part of the established approach of the Party which I represent. But the pressure has come not only from the Australian Labor Party. It has come also from teachers and parents and from soundly based opinion in some of the great journals of public enlightenment. The Melbourne ‘Age’, for example, has stated editorially not so very long ago:

The consensus of opinion is that the proposed review or inquiry -

That is, the proposed national review or inquiry into education - would persuade Canberra to loosen the purse strings. There are some educational problems crying out for solution which a national meeting of minds might help to solve.

The ‘Canberra Times’ on 10th September 1968 stated editorially on the subject of a national approach to education:

For several years now politicians, teachers and parents have spoken of the need for a national inquiry into education. The suggestion has merit; it would focus attention on a matter of public concern and no doubt it would produce solutions. The decision to hold such an inquiry would have to be political, however, and the present Government shows no sign of interest.

The Chairman of the Victorian ParentTeacher Education Council, Mr Rex Pitts, who is also President of the Victorian Teachers Union, said in June 1968 that the impotence of the States to do anything effective about education made a national inquiry essential. He said also:

Australia’s grave education problems could never be solved while the States were forced to adopt ‘a piecemeal annual patch-up’. State education authorities must be free to plan within developmental guidelines laid down in a national policy with guaranteed national- finance. Only an informed public opinion could bring home to Parliament the need for this planning and the need to provide enough finance to carry them through. 1 could cite many other instances of viewpoints firmly held by the great journals of opinion supporting requests for such an inquiry. The case for a national inquiry, in our opinion, into pre-school, primary, secondary and technical education in both government and non-government schools is unanswerable and the Government has for years, as we see it, been guilty of grave delinquency in failing to promote such an investigation. Three Prime Ministers have refused this request, including the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) when he was Minister for Education and Science. The present Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) takes the same negative stand with regard to the request for an inquiry.

We believe that if the Government will not act this Senate should set up its own select committee and get on with the job. There is a wide variety and. complexity of problems at all levels of education, yet the Government’s approach to the development of educational facilities in Australia has been piecemeal and unplanned. There is no plan or anything that looks like a plan. Education, of course, has to compete with many other urgent and insistent demands on the public purse and there can be no sound educational planning without a proper investigation of needs and priorities on a national basis. Even though education is in the first instance, as I have said, a matter for State governments, there is an urgent call for a national review of education.

There are two broad questions. Of course, a select committee would break those two questions down into many more practical considerations designed to answer all the problems raised. However, as we see it, there are two broad issues: Firstly, what are the needs in all sectors of education? Secondly, how much of its resources is the community prepared to give in order to satisfy its properly assessed educational needs and to lay a sound basis for future development? Perhaps a third question could be added: If it be right that a greater proportion of our gross national product should be devoted to education - as most of us would assert - then what are the priorities and hi what areas should the people’s money be spent?

Mr Deputy President, on this occasion I do not propose to elaborate on what has been amply demonstrated, I think, by the figures - that as one of the reputedly advanced nations we spend a considerably lower proportion of our gross national product on education than do comparable countries. There are many backward countries which spend, as a proportion of their national income, much more heavily than Australia does. I think those statistics are well known to honourable senators.

Senator Wright:

– They are not well known by anyone, of course, are they senator?

Senator COHEN:

– They are accepted broadly and 1 am not putting them forward as demonstrating with any mathematical accuracy what the position is. Indeed, I had abstained from giving the figures because I-

Senator Webster:

– That is very wise. Could you justify them?

Senator COHEN:

– Yes. Venezuela and Morocco are not known as being in the forefront of advanced nations. They spend 8% of their national income on education; Australia spends 4%. I am accepting what the Minister, for Education and Science and other Ministers have said on other occasions. To a large extent it is common ground although there may be some difference of opinion as to whether the figure is 3.9% or 4.1%. I have been present with educationists on occasions and these matters have been very much a matter of common assumption, common ground, and they have not been contradicted.

So far as the Labor Party is concerned, to us the Government seems to be merely playing with education problems while reaping large political rewards for relatively meagre expenditure. We think this is just not good enough. The Government goes along complacently with one scheme at a time. The science laboratories scheme began in 1964 and is likely to be terminated before many years have passed. The school libraries scheme has just commenced. However, the process of education is complicated and continuous. The Government’s attitude will never be satisfactory until it begins to develop national education objectives. The question that parents and educationists are asking is: What do we aim to achieve in our schools?

Only a proper inquiry ranging over the whole field and open to all who have a case to present can give us some of the answers we seek. There are glaring inadequacies in every State and in every level of education. Almost every week there is some new manifestation of inadequacy in our schools. Conditions in some schools are so deplorable that teachers and pupils have become disheartened and demoralised. There are crowded classes, sub-standard classrooms and amenities, and serious shortages of qualified teachers. These things are part of our daily news diet and the situation just is not funny any more. Not only is there overcrowding of classes but there is a depressingly low teacher-pupil ratio. There is the lack of recognition of status which governments and the community accord to the teaching profession, and so on. These are part of what we see day by day. You can open any newspaper in Australia, even those - and it would be the majority - which generally are sympathetic to the Government, but feel that more should be done. The newspapers give prominence to reports of glaring inadequacies in the education system.

This can be illustrated at the various levels of education. In the pre-school field the Government recently passed the States Grants (Pre-school Teacher Colleges) Bill. The Opposition welcomed Commonwealth assistance in this field but at the same time drew attention to the fact that so much remained to be done. Pre-school education, as it is not compulsory, inevitably has been the educational Cinderella. State governments, other than Tasmania, have taken little responsibility, even for the training of kindergarten teachers. It is sobering, Mr Deputy President, to learn how small a proportion of the Australian infant population actually receives any kindergarten or pre-school education. The proportion is only 60,000, or I in 12. Public expenditure on pre-school education represents only 0-5% of the total amount spent on education by State and Commonwealth governments. Yet educationalists, not only in Australia but in the United States of America and Great Britain, agree that the first 4 or 5 years of a child’s life is the period of most rapid mental and physical growth and of the greatest susceptibility to environmental and educational influence. lt is important to train kindergarten teachers and the Australian Labor Party fully supports this objective. But we feel that a government should also be concerned with the wider aspects of pre-school education. One of these is the inequality of educational opportunity. It was claimed that the recent education legislation covered this point but this is disputed by leading educationists whose main criticism is that most kindergartens are being established in areas where there is already a favourable educational background and that not enough effort is being expended in areas where children are suffering from severe deprivation, economically and culturally.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– What about Carlton in Victoria? The demonstration centre is located there.

Senator COHEN:

– One swallow does not make a summer. I said most, and I stick to what I said.

Senator Cormack:

– Nobody knows whether the honourable senator is making a speech or is reading someone else’s speech.

Senator COHEN:

– Some of us have a sense of responsibility in these matters. I have spoken often enough on education on other occasions in this Senate not to invite such a remark. The Plowden Committee in England recently recommended vast expansion of pre-school facilities and suggested programmes aimed at giving more benefits to children suffering from deprivation and inadequate homes. Other experts have pointed out that many countries have high aims in the pre-school education field. New York, for example, aims at accommodating all its 4-year-olds by 1970 and all its 3-year- olds by 1972. By comparison, what we complain about in the Commonwealth’s attitude is its lack of ambition. There is no sign of any attention being given to the problem on the massive scale necessary in order to eliminate social inequalities at the level at which they can be eliminated, the pre-school level.

Let us take primary education now, Mr Deputy President. This is the next field in which 1 invite the Senate to act. This is a vast area as yet unexplored from the Commonwealth point of view. We may note that both the science laboratories scheme and the school libraries scheme have been limited to the secondary level. When the libraries scheme was before the Parliament the Australian Labor Party sought to have the Bill redrafted in order to provide for the extension of the grants for libraries and library materials and equipment to primary schools. We believe that the library ought to be the heart of the primary school because that is where children learn to use books in a way which lays a firm foundation for their later development. This is only one example. The needs of primary schools and primary school children should be the subject of our investigation. There has never been an inquiry into this area of education, not Commonwealth wide at any rate. An inquiry would enable the Commonwealth to decide to what extent and upon what conditions it might be prepared to make financial assistance available.

The Commonwealth was a late starter in the provision of finance in the secondary and technical fields. Until the 1963 election Sir Robert Menzies resolutely refused to extend the Commonwealth’s interest in education beyond the university sphere. In 1963, fearing electoral disaster, he triumphantly produced not only what he elegantly described as the ‘immensely advantageous’ Fill contract but also promises of sholarships to secondary and technical students and of science laboratories, all in one breath. His successors have now given us a secondary school library scheme as well. But many serious problems remain in the secondary sphere, lt is not fair to attribute all these problems to any government, State or Commonwealth. There are some shortcomings which cannot be laid at the door of governments. They are part of the historical process of development. It is worthy of note that now, almost 24 years after the end of World War II, something of a population explosion has taken place. One of the consequences - and this is critical to my argument for the establishment of the Committee - is the increasing proportion of children of school age in the total population. Since the end of World War n total school enrolments have doubled, from a little over 1 million in 1945 to more than 2 million today. At the same time pupils have tended to stay longer at school. In 1954, 18% of the 15 to 18 years age group was at school. By 1964 the proportion had risen to 32%. These pupils numbered 1 in 10 of total school population instead of 1 in 20 as was the ratio in 1954. Of every 100 children who started secondary studies in government schools in 1950, 8 stayed to matriculation level. Of the children commencing in 1960. the comparable figure was 20 in 100.

Senator Wright:

– How does that prove the honourable senator’s point?

Senator COHEN:

– My point is that the enormous rate of expansion of school population has created problems which call for the kind of attention that they have not been getting.

Senator Wright:

– I thought the honourable senator was trying to prove that the relative number of students who matriculate has greatly increased in the 10 years.

Senator COHEN:

– I will develop that theme. The total number of children of school age has more than doubled in this time. I think both considerations are relevant; firstly, the absolute numbers and the extraordinarily rapid rate of expansion and, secondly, the proportion of children staying on at school, which is creating a bulge in the upper grades of secondary education, which in turn is creating pressure at tertiary levels.

Senator Marriott:

– Not all the problems have been created by federal governments.

Senator COHEN:

– I am not saying that nothing has been done. We say that the Government cannot continue to ignore the problem by saying that it has spent $Xm The Government has spent a comparatively small sum and has achieved a good deal in political results. We have an enormous bulge in the education system at the top grades of the secondary schools. A higher proportion of the young people of Australia are going to the universities. I shall not discuss the university aspect because I have excluded that from the scope of the motion. There is a population crisis in the group that is most expensive to educate, the children in the top grades of secondary school. They are expensive to educate because they need highly qualified teachers with high levels of scholarship and teaching competence. They need proper facilities and equipment if they are to take full advantage of the long period of schooling. That should be appreciated.

Senator Cormack:

– We have not produced enough secondary school teachers in that period. Is that what you say?

Senator COHEN:

– Yes. The Government should have adopted the recommendations of the Martin Committee on teacher education. That was a disgraceful omission.

Senator Sim:

– What was?

Senator COHEN:

– We shall have to pay for a decade or more for the failure of the Government in 1964 to implement the recommendations of the Martin Committee on teacher training. Not only are more children staying at school longer; the challenges facing the education system are multiplying. It has been said, and I think truly, that, looking forward to the civilisation of the year 2000 - that is only 30 years away - we will not be able to apply yesterday’s thinking to tomorrow’s education problems. Even more truly we will not be able to apply 19th century thinking to tomorrow’s education problems. In the year 2000 civilisation will, barring a nuclear holocaust, be as different from anything we have experienced to date as civilisation today is different from that in the year 1500. As the rate of change increases the capacity for change in the educational system will be taxed severely.

I have mentioned the problems at the pre-school, primary and secondary school levels. Provision of facilities for underprivileged children would be covered in the ample terms of reference of the select committee that I want to see set up. Those children would include mentally handicapped children, physically handicapped children, migrant children and children who have problems of assimilation. The inquiry I have in mind would cover the problems of all those groups. It is important to recognise that a crisis, whether it is temporary or permanent, in one area of education affects every other area. Remedial action is often necessary in ways and places other than where the symptoms of stress are obvious immediately. For example, the future of the universities is intimately bound up with the crisis in secondary schools.

I deal now with the problems of teachers. It is critically important in considering the needs of schools to study the position of teachers. Sufficient teachers should receive an adequate professional education to meet the requirements of all schools, government and non-government, along the lines recommended by the Martin Committee. Nothing less than a thorough overhaul of teacher training will meet the present unhappy position. We have never had such discontent and unrest among teachers as we have today, lt springs not only from their legitimate claims for recognition in terms of salary, working conditions and indeed status but also from their dissatisfaction with the state of education throughout the land. It is important that we take steps to dispel the atmosphere of gloom amongst the teachers because it inevitably affects the children as well. We cannot have a first class education system without a sufficient number of first class teachers. I would expect the Senate select committee to tackle this problem by examining the educational deficiencies.

We specifically intend the inquiry to include non-government as well as government schools so that the committee may have the fullest information on the facilities available and the standards of education provided in such schools. Any analysis of needs and resources must cover the whole field. The select committee will have the responsibility of recommending such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth - in the words of the motion - as will enable the best standards of education for all. That is our objective.

We proceed on the basis that there is a crisis at al’l levels of education and that an inquiry of the type we propose is an indispensable first step towards the formulation of appropriate policies to remedy the situation for the benefit of future generations of Australian children. Unless we are prepared to make this obvious move we will, as a nation, continue to flounder about in the dark talking about the millions of dollars we are spending on education and not conceding that, despite the millions, things are getting worse rather than better. This is not a matter for low level thinking. We need resolution and bigness in setting guidelines for future development in the interests both of the community and of the millions of individuals who will be caught up in the education machine, either as the teachers or as the taught. If the Senate accepts this commitment it will be assuming a very great responsibility, but J would hope that posterity would thank us for taking the initiative.

The reason we seek to have this committee of the Senate established arises from the fact that the Government has failed or has been unwilling to act to set up its own national committee of inquiry which, with the co-operation of the States, could lay down guidelines for Australia’s educational future. This is a matter which honourable senators could enter upon enthusiastically because it is quite plain that there should be no preconceived approach to these matters but that a thorough and searching inquiry should be held. I believe that we would be taking a great step forward if we came together and resolved to set up this committee. Other parliaments have acted in educational matters to deal with broad problems of education, lt is not so long ago - in 1968- that the Parliament of the United Kingdom set up a select committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of examining the activities of the Department of Education and Science which, as everybody knows, in the United Kingdom has very widespread ramifications which run throughout the whole system of education.

Senator Marriott:

– But they have no sovereign States.

Senator COHEN:

– That is no reason for shirking the problem. Surely it is a challenge. Here we are in Australia with a federation of a Commonwealth and six

States. There are certain clear Commonwealth responsibilities in the Commonwealth’s own territories. We have established patterns of assistance that I do not decry, so far as they go, although we have criticised aspects of individual schemes that the Commonwealth has set up. What we do assert quite definitely is that so far there has been no Commonwealth leadership which has brought everybody together to say what are Australia’s educational objectives for the next 10, 20 or 30 years or to say what we as a nation, by way of consensus, ought to be aiming at in our educational system. Let us not think in terms of divisions between Commonwealth and States. Let us look at the whole problem and see where it is that we are going. Let us resolve that in the next 30 years, which is all we have until the year 2000 when the world’s population will have doubled and when Australia’s potential1 will have increased astronomically, we can measure up as a nation to the challenges that lie ahead of us. So far that approach has been completely missing from the present Government. 1 am inviting the Government and other honourable senators to join with us in the setting up of this committee. It is designed to be a committee which represents all Parties and every point of view. 1 can see no difficulty about anybody agreeing to this because, as I say, we start without prejudice and without pre-judgment of any of the issues that the committee would have to face or on any of the questions that it would have to examine. I commend the resolution to the Senate and I hope that it will find acceptance.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– lt is difficult to listen to Senator Cohen with any viewpoint that there is much sense of purpose behind his proposition tonight. It is difficult to extract from the words he used any ideas of reality that would make a practical contribution to any area of education where there may be a need for action. But it is entirely mystifying to find a man of Senator Cohen’s experience in the political consideration of education who will suggest that any advantage would accrue from a Senate committee of inquiry into all aspects of education, as I understood him to say, excluding only university education. As he has phrased it, pre-school, primary, secondary and technical education is the ambit to which he would aspire. While listening to Senator Cohen tonight one would think of the parson taking wider and wider sweeps, now harking at the church commissioners, now harking at theology and schism until he settles down upon the general decay of faith throughout the world, and one would be left with an impression that this was a political exercise which had been rehearsed.

This matter was put on the notice paper 12 months ago, but for some political manoeuvre this is the one selected by the Labor Party tonight. I think I am not ungenerous to Senator Cohen in this respect because 1 propose to go through the matter as patiently as the Senate will permit and examine this proposition that the Senate should constitute a select committee to inquire into the broad subject of education as proposed by the honourable senator. He indicated at the outset of his remarks that he was conscious of some incongruity in the situation when he referred, with the experience of the distinguished lawyer that he is, to what the Constitution provides. He would recognise at once that one of the fields of fundamental importance which has been reserved to the States as a matter of constitutional expression and also constitutional practice has been the responsibility for education.

In the Constitution, there is little that one can find, except in relation to the Territories, that will invest the Federal Government of its own initiative with the power to legislate in the educational field. It has been cardinal to the success of the policies propounded and actually achieved by this Government, a success which Senator Cohen acknowledged, that it has recognised this fundamental interest and responsibility of the States in the field of education and has accorded the States the initiative in these matters. The Commonwealth, having discerned special fields where there are needs for supplementary assistance, has provided for those needs so that over the last 15 or 20 years handicaps have been removed.

Nobody who has made the slightest study of the Commonwealth’s educational programme of the last 20 years or of Commonwealth supplementary’ assistance in this field - acting in co-operation with but not in substitution for or in dominance of the States - could suggest that the Commonwealth has not achieved in significant respects a revolutionary and outstanding improvement. I shall venture to suggest to the Senate, before I finish, that the improvement has been such that even our greatest critic in the political opposition, Senator Cohen to wit, could scarce forbear to cheer. Would we as a party have any prospects of successful achievement of an education policy if part of this Parliament of its own initiative and without any special request, so far as I know - Senator Cohen has not vouchsafed any instance to the contrary - set up a broad, roving, indefinite inquiry into the general area of education? I ask you. as a practical proposition: What chance has that of achieving anything? It is nothing more than window dressing to make it appear to some people who have a genuine concern for further information in relation to education that the members of the Labor Opposition in the Senate are their friends and favour their cause.

If you want to get progress and improvement in the field of education the first thing to remember is that there are constituent elements of the Commonwealth which have a prime right to express their views as a matter of initiative. Secondly, if not that, they have an inalienable right to be consulted on any proposal so to overlay their sphere. If you neglect either of those attitudes you doom the cause to such dissension that, in practical terms, it must fail. I suggest that no approach is better calculated to bring a reaction adverse to education in this country than to proceed, as suggested by Senator Cohen, as though the Senate should take the initiative, uninvited and without consultation with the States, to set up such a broad inquiry. If you wished to advance this cause I suggest you would say to the Parliament: ‘The responsible elements in education have been asserting for a period the need for the Senate to set up a select committee of inquiry now.’ But what State government has ever requested any government of the Commonwealth, or any House of the Commonwealth Parliament, to proceed with such an inquiry as this? None. They would resent it bitterly if the Commonwealth Government, without consultation with them and without recognising their special interest in the field, were to embark on a general inquiry such as has been suggested. Let us suppose it were practicable to adopt the approach that the Commonwealth institute some form of inquiry. As to the nature of it, how appropriate is it to suggest that it should be a committee of one House of the Parliament or, if you please, a joint committee composed entirely of members of Parliament - in other words, to subject the matter to an exclusively political scrutiny? I suggest that if an inquiry were to stem from this Parliament the only appropriate form of inquiry would be one which called to the committee making that inquiry not merely members of Parliament but also other notable citizens who had experience in the actual exercise of the education profession, with the addition of other people whose field of knowledge and insight were akin to those of educationists. Then you would have a knowledgeable committee which would be entirely appropriate to assess the very knowledgeable evidence that you would expect to evoke from people who are participating in the educational effort today. But what is better calculated to frustrate the fulfilment of education than to subject it to a mere parliamentary political inquiry for the purposes indicated by Senator Cohen?

What were those purposes? With an elevated and, I thought, detached and objective reference he brought the FI IIA aircraft into his argument and then referred to the high political rewards that have accrued to the education proposals of Liberal governments since 1963. In addition to those references he expressely made it clear that he would not detract one iota from the merits of individual measures that Liberal governments have introduced. It is obvious that he wants to start a political bandwagon so that he will get a little political credit for appearing to favour the cause of education.

When referring to the political terms in which this could be discussed did you notice, Mr President, that he told us with great assertion that his policy included a specific proposal to subject education to an inquiry, but that when he came to refer to that separate section of education - God bless the name ‘independent schools’ - there was no indication, despite an invitation, of what policy he was putting before the Parliament. It seems to me that there is a significant omission of any reality in his proposition unless he indicates in that special field what view his Party puts forward as the proper view to advance the cause of education. In the knowledge that he could not disclose his Party’s view and that his hand was tied and his tongue was silenced in that respect, I would have thought that Senator Cohen would have recognised this as the outstanding political issue in education during the past 2 decades.

What contribution have Senator Cohen and his Party made to it? So far as I know and so far as I have been informed, their attitude is to devote all funds that all governments have available for education to the assistance only of government established schools. Am I wrong? I pause for correction. Bc that as it may, and despite his remarkable ambiguity, surely we should recognise the importance of this one aspect of education when we remind ourselves that of the school population of Australia the independent schools are responsible for the instruction of not less than 25%.

Senator Cohen:

– The proposed inquiry will specifically cover that.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Senator Cohen has made it quite clear that the proposed inquiry will specifically cover that aspect. But he wants to hide that issue by holding an inquiry which will last for how many years? lt could last for an indefinite period. It could last for 1, 2 or 3 years. One year will be sufficient for the Opposition. So long as it can camouflage that issue and keep it uncontroversial until the next election is held a great service will be performed to the Labour Party, lt is quite obvious that an inquiry would provide the Opposition with a means of escape from the giving of its definition of policy on aid to independent schools before the next elections are held.

Senator Cohen:

– Will the Government appoint members to the committee if the Senate decides to set it up?

Senator WRIGHT:

– That situation will be considered when it arises.

Senator Cohen:

– lt is a fair question.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That situation will be considered when it arises. I have just referred to a few preliminary, broad facets of education in relation to Senator Cohen’s motion. It is astounding that the view is advanced that the Senate should undertake a broad, national inquiry into pre-school, primary, secondary and technical education in this year, 1969, when over the last decade the States, whose prime responsibility it is to maintain the schools, have increased their expenditure from $286m to $706tn a year. One honourable senator opposite says that that only parallels national growth - that that is the extent to which national growth has occurred in the last 10 years. The national growth in the last 10 years is something of the order of from 3 to 7. If that is the situation, is it any wonder that the proponents of this proposition are so far from reaility that they do .not expect much endorsement from the electorate to improve that rate of general national growth? I .suggest that this expenditure by the States shows a desire on their part to improve their educational facilities at a faster rate than that of other aspects of national growth. I repeat that in 10 years State expenditure on education has grown from 8286m to S706m a year. Coupled wilh that is the fact that in the same 10 years the- Commonwealth Government has taken measures in the field of education that have so shone as still to dismay Senator Cohen. These have brought to the Government not only political credit but. also the richest of rewards, which is a sense of achievement. The Government has, starting out wilh a policy of supplementary assistance, increased its vote from a total appropriation direct to education of S67.6m in 1963-64 to $2 1 0.8m last year. In the plethora of words used by Senator Cohen one should remember that the Commonwealth’s direct vote to education last year was S2 10.8m.

Senator Cohen:

– Does the Minister know how much is necessary? That is the point of having the inquiry.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is a fair question and a relevant one. If the honourable senator will give me an opportunity to do so I will show him how I think it should be answered. He asks whether I know how much money is necessary. A significant part of the vote to which I have referred relates to universities. What did the Government do before it began appropriating the increasing millions for universities? lt sought the advantages of the experience of

Sir Keith Murray of the United Kingdom University Grants Committee and joined with him other leading educationalists.

Senator Cohen:

– That was back in 1957.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, indeed. The honourable senator asked whether I knew how much money was necessary; I am going to answer bis question as a reasonable person; 1. will not resort to political claptrap. In 1957. Sir Keith Murray brought forth one of the most impressive reports on university education that had ever been prepared here or in Britain. It followed on inquiries into Oxford and Cambridge universities. Taking Britain as a model Sir Robert Menzies brought this man here to lead a committee of inquiry. Much as I value parliamentary inquiries in their proper realm, I say that the Government did not set up a committee consisting merely of politicians. In order that the Government would know how much money was necessary for university education it sought advice from Sir Keith Murray and the other redoubtable educationalists who comprised the committee. Therefore, I say that I am entitled lo answer yes to the honourable senator’s question. We have had advice from a committee thoroughly knowledgeable in the university field. The next point is: Docs the Government know what is required in the field of science education? I suppose that Senator Cohen read in the report of the Murray Committee that in this technological age Australia’s chief dearth in the educational field was in the sciences. What did the Government do? It came forward with a policy which is very much envied by its opponents. It decided to help the States by providing assistance towards science laboratories and other facilities. Senator Cohen apparently laments that the job will be nearly completed by the end of this triennium.

Senator Cohen:

– The Government is proceeding in hursts.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Senator Cohen realises thai the Government’s assistance in this field will soon have covered all the schools where it is required, and that the grants, if not reduced to nil. will be diminishing. Did the Government know what was required here? Yes, it did. lt did not seek the advice of a parliamentary select committee: ii sought the advice of the

Murray Committee, which was supplemented by various educational committees in the States. Some were representative of the State schools, some representative of the independent schools and some representative of the Catholic school area. I remind the Senate that these committees were established when the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was administering the education portfolio. This has been the broad base upon which this information has been made available to us, and I challenge any honourable senator to name one instance in which there has been any public complaint or question as to any grant that has been made in any field where science facilities have been provided. Do we know how much is required? Yes. Even Senator Cohen has imbibed the knowledge that at the end of this triennium the sum of Si Om will have been appropriated for science facilities. Do we know how much is required? Yes. Even Senator Cohen almost acknowledges that he shares a common view with regard to it.

Then, when we come to colleges of advanced education, do we proceed by consulting Senator Cohen? We do not. With due respect, we pass by him and consult Professor Martin. Then, when we want to consider other fields for scholarships, do we consult Senator Cohen or his colleagues on a committee, or in any other way constituted? No. We go to Dr Walkerden. Let us be excused if in these respects we fail to make ourselves cognisant of how much is required. But it will take a lol of convincing on the part of the Labor Party to show that that is not a much more practical approach to actually assisting any deficiencies in education than starting out on a political inquiry - a political inquiry which knows no point of commencement and which has no boundaries to contain it. May I be permitted now to remind Senator Cohen that this year, for colleges of advanced education alone, for instance, this Parliament will be appropriating. T think. SI 6m? 1 think 1 am right in saying that.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Does the Minister not know?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Would ii be a laughing matter if I sought confirmation of one figure in a budget of this magnitude? I would expect that to be a matter of amusement in a pre-school but not in the Upper House of Parliament.

Senator Wheeldon:

– But you have to be reminded of something you do not know yourself.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If 1 falter on occasions just to get confirmation from my advisers, I offer no apology and pretend to be no more complete. So God forgive me. Then, when we come to science laboratories, we have the sum of $1 2.574m. If Senator Wheeldon had ever read a brief and known how the eye can get out of alignment, then, out of respect for his hearers, he would often ask his junior for confirmation. In all, this year, for the National University, for assistance to universities, for grants to the States in the fields I have mentioned - colleges of advanced education, science laboratories, technical training facilities, teacher training colleges, school libraries, pre-school training colleges and other items - the Commonwealth will be appropriating a total vote of $2 10m.

There are one or two other general facts which I think it is very fitting to reflect upon. I interjected only twice during Senator Cohen’s speech. On one occasion I asked what use he would make of this figure. He puts slightly different figures to these, but he will agree with me when I say the true position is that whereas 10 years ago 22% of the 15 to 18 years age group was still at school, by 1967 the proportion still at school had grown to 38%.

Senator Georges:

– Not high enough.

Senator WRIGHT:

– No. But with the guidance of a practical government and with the assistance of an economy which has been acknowledged to be growing under the stimulus of the Federal Liberal Government, and now with the assistance of Liberal governments in most of the States, it is growing faster than it ever was under Labor and faster than Opposition senators ever dreamed of. I repeat that in 10 years the proportion has grown from 22% to 38%. Is not that an acknowledgement that, in increasing measure, the 15 to 18 years age group, which were not resorting to education in sufficient numbers are now showing an increasing interest in education by reason of the accessibility of facilities?

Let me now take another figure which I suggest is most striking especially when it is suggested that we should follow resolutions of the House of Commons. In this country at the present time our student population at the universities is of the order of 100,000. 1 shall check that figure. The information will be turned up as I speak, but I am sure that is the position. In Great Britain, which has five times our population, it is hoped that by 1972 the universities student population will be 225,000. So we have about 40% or nearly half the university student population of Great Britain although Great Britain has a general population five times greater than ours. When we consider this land, with all its problems of development- and distance and the predominantly agricultural nature of its export industries, 1 think it is a phenomenal tribute to this Government and the governments that have preceded it in the last 10 years that those two figures can be recorded.

Senator Dittmer:

– Does the Minister know what percentage of those students will obtain degrees?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I will obtain that information and advise the honourable senator of it. But I. cannot forbear to make the rejoinder that the obtaining of a degree is not an invariable indication of intelligence. I ask the honourable senator to to bear that in mind. As the student population increases the number of graduates increases too. Whereas 10 years ago we got about 100 graduates for every 100,000 of our population, today we are getting about 200 graduates for every 100,000 of our population.

Senator Dittmer:

– What was the number-

Senator WRIGHT:

– I do not think Senator Dittmer has given himself sufficient time to understand what I said. Let me repeat, in the hope that I- can prevent one further unintelligent interjection, that whereas 10 years ago we were getting about 100 graduates per 100,000 of the population, today we are getting about 200 graduates per 100,000 of the population.

It is quite obvious, I hope, that even I cannot forbear to generate a little enthusiasm on the subject of improved education. It is impossible- for people who have had access to education or even the slightest acquaintance with it, and who have seen the scope of knowledge and consequent peace of mind that can bc attained, not to have this cause at heart. It is only because of the complete unreality, inappropriateness and indefiniteness of the proposal that Senator Cohen has put forward that one is forced to submit to the Senate that it is a quite inappropriate proposition to accept. One has only to add that one cannot escape the conviction that the proposal is advanced as a further gesture in the hope that it will camouflage the issue of aid to independent or nongovernment schools, which will be the subject of inquiry but not of any definition of policy by the Australian Labor Party at least until after the next election. I ask the Senate to reject the motion.

Senator WILKINSON (Western Australia) 1.9.13] - 1 have listened very carefully to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in an attempt to discover the reasons for his arguments. In the first place I hoped that he would support the motion for an inquiry. As he progressed, 1 listened to him in an endeavour to sort into categories the arguments that he was putting forward, lt seems to me that his main emphasis is that such an inquiry should not bc carried out by the Senate; that the Senate is not an appropriate body to determine the needs of education; and that the ramifications of an inquiry into pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary education would be far too wide and would take far too long for a Senate committee to handle.

He says that the Commonwealth’s attitude on the question of education is amply demonstrated by the fact that this year it will be making available in excess of S200m for education and that this amount will be spread over all the States. He then makes the point that, when the population of Australia is increasing and at the same time the demand for facilities for students is increasing, we are bound to have teething troubles. I submit that, put in very short form, that is what the Minister put before the Senate in his reply to Senator Cohen. I know that he went very much deeper into the matter than 1 have indicated in my summary. But I believe that it is a fair summary of what he said.

Senator Wright:

– Please do not ask me to accept it.

Senator WILKINSON:

– No, I will not. I will be able to read the Minister’s speech in Hansard tomorrow morning. But I listened attentively to it and, without going over the whole speech again - I would not wish to try to do that - I submit thai by and large those were the arguments presented.

There are a number of reasons why we should have a look at the proposal for an inquiry into education. 1 do not believe that an inquiry into education in the terms of this motion is any more difficult or any more impossible to achieve than is the inquiry that is being carried out at the present time by the Senate Select Committee on Offshore Petroleum Resources. 1 expect that in a couple of months we will receive a very good report from that body of men, who do not claim to be scientists, who are politicians concerned about the welfare of Australia and who are, within the limits of their powers, thoroughly investigating the question of off-shore petroleum leases and matters related thereto. It seems to me that an inquiry in the realm of education is by no means as difficult as that inquiry.

We should remember that throughout Australia there is considerable concern about education. That is demonstrated adequately by the fact that over the last 1.0 or 1 1 years demands for inquiries have been made by various sections of the community. They have come from universities and constituents in various areas. In 1 1 years thirteen inquiries in the realm of education have been instituted. The fields of the inquiries have included the universities. We are not considering them at the moment, although the Minister spent quite some time on the concern of the Government for universities in the past. He said that an inquiry had been held and that the Government had brought a competent authority from Great Britain to look into the university situation. I do not know the fields of all of the thirteen inquiries. I know that the Murray Committee was the one that inquired into the university situation. The Martin Committee inquired into teacher training. The Wyndham report on secondary education was the result of a New South Wales inquiry. The inquiry of the Wark

Committee into colleges of advanced education was mentioned by the Minister. But none of these inquiries has dealt with education as a whole.

I was interested to hear that a petition on education had been presented in the House of Representatives and in this chamber this afternoon. I understand that considerable numbers of signatures to the petition have been obtained in each State. People are disturbed. They do not ask for inquiries without justification. Thousands of people do not sign a petition without reason.

Senator Wright has said that a large amount of money has been spent by the Commonwealth lo provide science blocks which have been erected in all States. I do not doubt that they are doing a good job. However. I have been made aware that in at least one school the science block provided by Commonwealth funds is not being used as a science laboratory, but as a class room because of a shortage of classrooms. As to the provision of libraries by Commonwealth funds, so far as 1 know not one school library has yet been built with Commonwealth money. At present libraries are built wilh money provided by parents and citizens groups with some assistance from State governments. I may be corrected on this point, but my undestanding is that to date not one school library has been erected with Commonwealth funds.

The inquiry sought by the Opposition is not to cover the activities of universities. 1 gathered from the Minister’s remarks that universities are in a rather sound situation because of Commonwealth assistance. I did not have much notice that this matter was coming up for debate, but it is an opportunity for me to mention a request placed before me by a student at the University of Western Australia. He advises that quotas have been applied at that University and will operate on the following courses: Anatomy and Human Biology 30; Biochemistry 30; Bachelor of Dental Science, second year; Bachelor of Engineering; course for the degree of M.B.B.S., second year; Diploma of Social Work; microbiology 20 and 30; music 21; pharmacology 30 and 40; physiology 30; psychology 20; psychology 45; and new admissions for the degree of Master of Psychology. These courses to which quotas are to be applied are well sought after by students. I was interested to learn that for psychology 20, the unit to which my friend applied for admission. 53 applications were refused out of a total of 180. I am speaking only of the position that obtains at the University of Western Australia.

Senator Dittmer:

– But is it typical of the situation all over Australia.

Senator WILKINSON:

– -I believe that is so. Therefore we want an inquiry. 1 wish to deal with the situation in Western Australia before making some general remarks about the need for an inquiry. At the end of January of this year a campaign was commenced in Western Australia by the Teachers Federation and the Parents and Citizens Association. A tremendous amount was spent from the funds of the Association in bringing the serious situation in schools to the attention of the people of Western Australia, and therefore to the attention of the Government. Advertisements were placed in the ‘West Australian’, and a reply was inserted by Mr Lewis, the Minister of Education in Western Australia. An advertisement lodged by the Association in the ‘West Australian’ of 24th January 1969 stated that in one school there were 45 students to a classroom, or more than the limit of 40 recognised as being reasonable loading for instruction by a teacher. There was also a class of 28 students in a washroom, where they were being taught. I am refering now to schools in the metropolitan area.

Teachers were instructing two or more grades combined, in old and dilapidated temporary classrooms which were still in use although considered- by the Public Works Department to be unworthy of expenditure on maintenance. At the beginning of 1968, 539 teachers graduated from teachers’ colleges and 407 teachers resigned for reasons other than marriage in 1967. This meant that there was an increase of only 132 teachers to meet the demands of about 8,000 extra children who entered primary and secondary schools in 1968. That is an average of about one teacher for every sixty-one new students. It is obvious why there is overcrowding in classrooms. I ask honourable senators to keep in mind tha comments about accommodation. 1 turn now to consider teaching aids and school books. I will deal with the situation in Western Australia, but 1 assume that conditions are similar in other States, Schools require new books and equipment to teach reading, spelling and arithmetic and new demonstration apparatus. Teachers admit that these represent a tremendous advance on the old methods because of the speed with which the children learn and the ability they show to grasp and absorb the details. In State schools - and I have no doubt the same thing happens in independent schools - the parents are called on to supply these needs. No subsidy is provided. I referred earlier to libraries. Librararies are not provided by the Government, although some assistance is givens I will refer to two examples of State school libraries. One is reasonably adequate. It holds about 5,000 books and caters for seven primary grades. It took 10 years to establish and cost the Parents and Citizens Association about $12,000, including the cost of the building that houses the library. The maximum subsidy of $1.20 per annum amounted to $1,200. This is the type of situation that justifies our request for an inquiry.

I wish now to consider accommodation provided for school teachers. An advertisement by the Parents and Citizens Association included a photograph of the accommodation provided for a Kalgoorlie State school teacher with a family of four. After graduation, most young teachers are required to do country service, but ramshackle, sub-standard housing is common. Teachers are forced to take almost anything at almost any price, but no subsidy is paid to teachers in privately rented accommodatoin. So what happens? We have 407 resign for various reasons. It is interesting to note in passing that many of these teachers are going to Canada where they are receiving a salary of about $10,000 to $12,000 a year, and they are taking their families with them in order to get a more adequate living and better conditions than they have in Western Australia. I have no doubt that other speakers will be able to give illustrations from their own States which will reveal conditions similar to those in Western Australia.

In order to meet the teacher shortage in Western Australia we are applying at teacher training colleges lower standards than have been the case until recently. Western Australia has had a record of a pretty high standard for students entering teacher training college. They had to spend much longer - an extra year, I think - at college than is the case in other States. Quite a high standard was achieved. Now a pass in ‘any four Leaving subjects, provided English is one of them, is sufficient for applicants to train as teachers. In passing, on this question of teacher training, I might mention that a friend of mine who was studying al the Hobart teacher training college was in Western Australia last Christmas. He did not think that he had done very well in the examination. I said: ‘What happens to you if you fail? What do you do then? What does the college do if you do not make the grade?’ He said: ‘We have to go out to teach.’ It is an astounding thing, but 1 understand it is true, that the failures go out and teach.

Senator Marriott:

– What is done by those who pass?

Senator WILKINSON:

– They go on to do their next year. This was a student who had completed his first year. Incidentally, it was a case of nerves. He did pass so he was quite all right. I understand that is the situation. I can be corrected by anybody who knows that the facts are different. That was what was told to me by a boy who was himself a trainee.

The Western Australian Minister for Education, Mr Lewis, came into the picture with a statement which he published in an advertisement in (he ‘West Australian’ with the use of the taxpayers’ money. It is quite a big advertisement, extending the full length of a page, and is about four columns wide. In it he came out with a reply to the statements that had been made in the advertisements to which I have just made reference. His reply was in these terms:

The teaching profession values truth. But its reputation was damaged this week by the Teachers’ Union Executive.

He then referred to the executive’s statement that a situation where children outnumber teachers 40 to 1 is a crisis. His advertisement stated:

Fact: With enrolments rising 50% in a decade, 40 to 1 is an achievement. But the real ratio is 27 to 1. Only a quarter of classes exceed 40.

A quarter of them, that is, 1,350 classes, in Western Australia exceed 40. But he just brushed that aside. He then referred to the executive’s statement that because of dissatisfaction teachers are leaving the service in rising numbers:

Fact: More teachers are leaving each year. . . Some are dissatisfied. Most do it for travel and experience.

So he admits that more teachers are leaving. This is one of the claims that are made. He then replied in these terms to the statement that the teacher housing shortage in the country is desperate and threatens the education of children:

Fact: A recent survey showed 84.7% of teachers iti the country were satisfied with accommodation.

What is not said and what is the fact is that one in every six is in unsatisfactory accommodation. If 84.7% are satisfied, obviously the balance of 15.3% are dissatisfied. Referring to the executive’s reference to 45 to a classroom and 28 in the washroom and the claim that serious overcrowding threatens education, the Minister stated:

Fact: There arc 3,400 classrooms in use. Over 3,(100 have been built by this Government. Only 26 makeshift classrooms were in use at the end of last year.

He admitted that twenty-six makeshift classrooms were in use at December 1968.

Now let us look at some of the things that ought to be considered in an inquiry. I speak only in general terms and I am not spelling out what the inquiry should do. 1 say only that these are the lines that we should follow. They are in accordance with what we have expressed in the motion so far as research is concerned. It is important that we try to find education curricula and training that will make a child socially adequate and a contributing member of the community. This is quite different from the question of teaching. It is a matter of learning. Anybody who reads the syllabus of any State Education Department will find that the emphasis is there, but is this principle being acted upon? From what is going on in the schools I doubt very much that this is happening.

An inquiry should consider the matter of school buildings, that is, not only whether the schools have adequate buildings but also whether a school is too large for proper handling. Once a school has an enrolment of very much over 1,000 it is difficult to have proper administration and proper control of teaching curricula. In particular, headmasters of large schools should have administrative staff to assist them so that they themselves may concentrate more on the educational side of school life. In each school - we have this in some of our high schools - there should be a resident vocational guidance officer on the staff who sees that the children have the opportunity to follow the course of study which is most suited to them. Only the other day a parent came to me wanting to know what could be done about his child. I could not do anything in this instance. The child is being frustrated by not being allowed to take French. She is a most enthusiastic French student and would like to become a teacher of French in a high school. She cannot take French because the French classes arc full and she is told that she will have to learn Italian. She is not at all interested in learning Italian.

These are some of the lines along which we should carry out an investigation. I do not think that the Minister gave us any adequate reason why a committee of this Senate could not adequately investigate the situation in the same way as other committees of the Senate have made investigations and brought down very fine reports. We know of the Vincent report and others. Unfortunately, what happens - the Minister might be right on the ball here - is that a very good report is produced and it then disappears. It goes on the shelf and we never see it again.

Senator Ormonde:

– Like the television report.

Senator WILKINSON:

– Yes. I am thinking of the Vincent report. I support the demand for an inquiry. It is something that we need. The people of Australia have shown by their interest in educational matters that they are dissatisfied with what is being done for their children at the present time. They feel that an adequate opportunity is not being provided. Certainly it is provided for some children but it is not available to all of the children who are able to benefit from an education. This would be one of the ways in which a Senate inquiry could do a tremendous amount of good for the growing population ot Australia. 1 want to conclude by stressing that of course this committee would not be dominated by the Opposition. That situation was never considered. Obviously, any committee set up by the Senate has a Government majority in its membership. Therefore it would be, as all Senate committees are, a body which would be able to investigate the situation thoroughly and produce a report which would be of value to Australian educational authorities. It would show us whether we do need more money in certain avenues of education. It would show us whether some money was being wasted. Tt would show us exactly what was going on in the education field. The Australian people would realise that the Government was concerned about their problems. This would give them confidence.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– Judging by two speeches we have heard from members of the Opposition tonight I believe that the notes I prepared prior to entering the chamber will prove that T have made a correct assessment of the position of the Australian Labor Party in respect of this motion and of some of the problems that are bedevilling the Party at the present time.

Senator Ormonde:

– What are they?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I will tell the honourable senator. Senator Wilkinson started his speech by saying that we should have a committee to investigate education other than university education. He suggested that the Senate was an appropriate body to set up such a committee because it had set up a committee to investigate offshore petroleum. He pointed out how successful that committee was. I suggest to the honourable senator that he picked the wrong example to give. He compared the Senate Select committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources with a committee which it is suggested should be set up to go into education. Off-shore petroleum is a matter concerning State rights. It involves a field of almost new law which is unknown in Australia. That field is completely divorced from a subject like education in this country where we have a Commonwealth Government and six sovereign States.

The speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen) sounded to me like a smoothly worded thesis prepared by someone trying to get, shall we say, a diploma of education- without honours. So long as no State Minister for Education was the examiner he might have scraped through with a rough pass. I thought the journalese and some aspects of the spoken word were stimulating. I will continue with a short reference to Senator Cohen’s speech. He amazed me by saying that the reason for this debate tonight springs from a wish of the Australian Labor Party. I repeat - it springs from a wish of the Australian Labor Party. But what are the facts?

Senator Cohen:

– I did not say-

Senator MARRIOTT:

– The honourable senator does not remember saying that it springs from the Labor Party’s desire? He said this twice. All I can say to him is that if this is the quickest spring that the Labor Party has in it at the present time then it is completely sprung. It has been sprung for a long time. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has. entered the chamber to take up the cudgels and I welcome him. What are the facts when we hear talk about the Labor Party springing into an education debate? This idea was conceived some time in 1967 and was born in the Senate on 14th March 1968. It appeared on the notice paper, in the name of teacher Murphy, on 14th March 1968. Tonight, 18th March 1969, it appears that we have changed teachers. This is the Labor Party springing in to set up a committee to inquire into all facets of education in Australia other than university education. Opposition senators are interjecting but I want to talk and what I say hurts them.

Senator Georges:

– You have talked against every committee that we have tried to establish.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Honourable senators on the other side of the chamber do not like what I am saying and are trying to interject. My time is almost unlimited and my dedication to put forth my views cannot be altered by the Labor Party so I shall press on regardless. You know, Mr Deputy President, that the rise to the top of the Labor Party in the Senate of the men of letters has meant a change of course in Labor Party activity and enthusiasm. It has almost sounded the death knell of the enthusiasm of many members of the Opposition here. Before this rise of the men of letters, before the academics look over the leadership of the Labor Party, we had to be on our mettle because of the incisive, quick and dedicated opposition of leader Willesee. Before him there was that great Tasmanian McKenna. They spoke about arbitration, housing, wages - things that were dear to the pursuit of happiness of the Australian people. But for 2 years now, or more, we have had thrown up to us in the Senate, for debate on Tuesday nights, motions on education and other subjects. However, education has had preference and there have been very few speakers. We had the example over a year ago of that Goliath of debaters, the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), knocking to pieces any arguments that the Opposition put forward in support of its motions before the Senate.

On those occasions in due course - and Opposition senators cannot shake their heads at the truth of this statement - word would come across from the Opposition to the Government Whip asking us to pull off our speakers. The Opposition would say: Pull off your speakers and we will let it ride. We have no more speakers’. On other occasions the word would be: ‘We want to take a vote’. The towel was thrown in by the Labor Party in more education debates than on any other subject in the last 2 years. Why was this so? It was because honourable senators opposite would rather talk about the things that the Labor Party of yore was interested in. They are the only things that the Labor Party should think about if it ever wants to occupy the Treasury benches. Those are the facts which honourable senators opposite cannot deny.

How the old order has changed. The controllers of the Labor Party now are the seekers, the self-seekers. They have a one track policy - education. They have been critical of every facet of the Government’s education policy. We have been told about the crises. We have been told about some hidden thoughts, problems and desires in respect of education and now two speakers from the Opposition tonight have gone to great pains to say that the universities should be kept out of this debate. Why is this? The reason is they know perfectly well that 12 years ago the Government started to give a new look to education, a new enlightened look. We went not to areas involving sovereign State rights but to the experts. We got reports and put those reports into operation. Because of the Government’s activity the Opposition has to admit that in many cases and in many facets of university life the universities are saying: ‘We are getting on very well, thank you’. Therefore the Opposition grudgingly excludes universities from this motion. Why has the motion been brought on tonight? It is No. 3 on the notice paper. Does the ballot that the Labor Party has on Monday morning, or whenever its executive meets, decide what will be debated or do honourable senators opposite think that it is sound political tactics to bring this on 4 days after the end of the first year on which the motion has been on the notice paper?

Senator Murphy:

– I raise a point of order. Surely the respected senator is out of order when he reflects upon a decision of the Senate. The decision was to bring the matter on this evening. May I observe that that decision was assented to by all the Senate, including members of the honourable senator’s own Party? The decision was to bring the matter on this evening. Under the Standing Orders it is not proper for any honourable senator to reflect adversely on any decision of the Senate. The Senate decided to bring this matter on this evening.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Forgive him, he has just walked into the chamber and he cannot bear to listen. He does not really know about which subject we are talking. When Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Opposition, said that the decision was one taken by the Senate and when he implied that I was questioning a decision of the Senate, he forgot that Tuesday night is given over to business that the Opposition has on the notice paper. We have an agreement that what the Opposition wants to bring on, so long as it tells us - and we have pleaded with the Opposition to be decent and to give us plenty of notice - is brought on. Senator Murphy knows perfectly well that it is the Opposition’s decision, to which we have agreed. He interjected on a point of order because he forecast what was coming and he did not want to have to take it. Let us look at the notice paper. What could we have had tonight?

Senator Murphy:

– Housing.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– We could have had housing. Is everything in the garden lovely with housing? We could have had overseas investment in Australia, but that subject was discussed in another pl’ace a fortnight ago. The Labor Party got such a belting that its shadow Treasurer, Mr Crean, the economic brain in the Labor Party, was congratulated by a Government speaker for the clear enunciation of what was almost Liberal Party policy. Caucus said that it could not let overseas investments be discussed until it put its house in order and ascertained what it knew or thought about overseas investment. So honourable senators opposite did not look any further. They did not took down to No. 4. They did not bring on poverty in Australia.

Senator Cohen:

– Would the honourable senator support a select committee on poverty?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I would support a debate on poverty.

Senator Cohen:

– Would the honourable senator support the appointment of a select committee on poverty?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My dear man, I have not heard the case. The honourable senator seems not to want to bring it on. If he puts his case 1 will be man enough to answer it. I give as much consideration to poverty in Australia as he has ever thought of. I will take any challenge from Lim on knowledge of, sympathy with and interest in poverty. All I know is that tonight honourable senators opposite preferred to debate the third motion. I will stop wound.ing them for a while. Education is acknowledged by Senator Cohen as-

Sena’ or Mulvihill - The honourable senator will succeed Senator Scott in the Ministry with this effort tonight.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– That is the most consensical thing of all the very nonsensical things I have ever heard come from the hi honourable senator, although I do not listen to him on the adjournment. Education is a State responsibility. Because of the

Commonwealth’s power over the finances of Australia, it has heavy responsibilities to the States and their problems in education. [ believe that the Government has carried out its responsibilities. I shall not refer to universities because the terms of the motion do not include universities. The Commonwealth policy makers, with their wise thinking in respect of education, realised that Australia, because of the great developments taking place in this rich land, was being catapulted into an age of science and technology. Early, quick and large grants for secondary education were made for the training of students to prepare for the new era of science and technology into which Australia was entering. I do not give the Government credit for this; it was mother earth and the developments of men and women that were responsible for us requiring more scientists to be trained. The Commonwealth showed foresight and good judgment in giving priority to that part of its assistance to the States. 1 am very happy that the Government is studying the problems of the States, is in communication with the State governments and listens to the experts. In the last 5 or 6 years, practically every year another facet of secondary education has been supported and helped so that the States can carry on expanding that facet with their own resources plus that granted to them, as their right, by the Commonwealth Government. I hope that this attitude of gradual development of Commonwealth help to the States, where it is needed, will continue. How does this come about? I believe it comes about in the most expert and democratic way. The State Education Ministers meet at least once a year. The Directors of Education meet more than once a year; they can meet as many times as they like to discuss their problems. If they have a joint case to put to the Commonwealth, they do so. They derive the benefit of regular communication. The Commonwealth Government ensures that their communications reach Cabinet, which takes action accordingly. I believe the Commonwealth is playing the correct role, as the central Government, in secondary and primary education. I hope that this will continue.

We heard about the problems that exist in Western Australia. I do not think any select committee could phty a useful part in trying to solve the accommodation difficulties of teachers in Western Australia. That problem is one purely and simply for the State Government. I shall not weary the Senate with stories of any laxity with or requirements of education in Tasmania, but I speak as a Tasmanian. I believe I am right in saying that no State Government wants control of secondary, primary, kindergarten or pre-school education from Canberra. The States need Commonwealth assistance because of Commonwealth-State financial relations. I earnestly believe that they do not want Federal control. Curricula, the types and timing of examinations are matters that are controlled purposefully by the States because the requirements differ from State to State. Climatic conditions, density and spread of population, teacher availability and types of schools may differ. Honourable senators opposite probably do not know what an area school is. They are a boon to our primary producing and wonderful State. We do not want any nabob in Canberra, because of the decision of a Senate select committee, controlling education from Canberra. We in Tasmania de not want to be told that our area schools are no good, that we will not be given any money and that the schools wilt be closed down.

I believe that all honourable senators taking part in this debate tonight should really and truly search their hearts and ask themselves whether they could go back to their State Ministers for Education, whether they be of the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party or any other political party, and ask whether the State would like the control of primary and secondary education to be vested in the Commonwealth. I am certain that the answer would be no, that the States would not have a bar of it. Their reaction would be that they want more financial help but that there are forms of communication as between State government and the Federal Government, that while these forms exist they will be happy. Time has proved that. No Premier of any political colour is backward in coming forward to ask for money for education projects or any other aspect of State government responsibility.

In relation to the overall picture of education, in one respect we who support the Government differ from the Opposition. We realise that a government must measure out its resources according to the importance and priorities of its responsibilities. No Senate committee, however dedicated or non-partisan, could possibly come back to the Government with a report in respect of the expenditure of money on education and claim that it is a fair and correct request because that committee would not be conversant with and would have none of the responsibilities of the priorities which the Government must set in spending the money available. I believe that the State governments would not want control from Canberra. I suggest that if the Senate were unwise enough to set up the committee which is proposed and one State government decided not to have a bar of it, the committee’s findings and report would be completely abortive. Not one tittle of evidence has been given here tonight to show that the State governments want a Senate committee to probe into pre-school, primary and secondary education. Perhaps the Opposition has not done its homework. All we have been told is that petitions in the name of human rights year are being presented to Parliament - one by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) and one by my colleague and friend from Tasmania, Senator Wriedt - well timed for the purposes of notice of motion No. 3 and winning the ballot for debate tonight.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I was rather surprised tonight to hear the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) so vehemently oppose any form of inquiry. For all his life he has taken an opposite attitude on other matters that have needed inquiring into, but on this question of education, on which I would have expected him to have a big broad mind, he apparently settles for the advice that he receives from people outside the Government. Although they might be educationalists, they probably give him the same type of advice that would be available to a select committee. What is the purpose of a select committee as set up by this parliamentary institution? Whether the committee is inquiring into oil, clean air or television and radio, a subject which was investigated by a committee of which Senator Wright was a member and which took 12 months to report, its purpose is to learn from experts about their problems. It is presumed that the committee does not understand what those problems are. What would be the purpose in having a committee of inquiry If the committee knew all about the subject into which it was inquiring? A committer’s purpose in bringing experts before it ls to get knowledge. Generally that is Senator Wright’s view, but on this subject / h* does not think along those lines.

J have gained the impression that Senator Wright wants to turn this matter into a political struggle, that he wants to gain some support from the fact that the Government has been doing something for the soculled independent schools. I refer to them a; ‘so-called’ independent schools’ because ti/) at is the pew term which is ‘being applied.

Senator Webster:

– That is a very unworthy thought.

Senator ORMONDE:

– It might be, but the honourable senator was not here while Senator Wright was speaking.

Senator Webster:

– 1 was here for the whole time

Senator ORMONDE:

– Anyway, any thoughts that Senator Webster might have hAd would have been blown away by Senator Marriott. He certainly disturbed the speech that I had proposed to make. I Suggest that the Democratic Labor Party should support the Opposition’s move for the establishment of a committee. Nobody should avoid having an inquiry into the whole subject of education in Australia. I have been concerned for a few years because everybody has been talking about universities. I half agree with Senator Marriott, who is on his way out of the chamber just when I am about to praise him, that there is too much talk about universities and not enough talk about primary schools ai?d the children of ordinary working men.

Senator Byrne:

– Does the honourable senator think that the education system, both private and public, can wait for 12 months without assistance awaiting the deliberations of a Senate committee?

Senator ORMONDE:

– In South Australia they will have to wait for science teachers The Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has informed Archbishop Beovich of Adelaide that there will be fifteen places for students at the new teacher college at Salisbury. The students will spend 3 years in school, so there will be an additional fifteen science teachers available to South Australia in 3 years time.

Senator Byrne:

– Does the honourable senator think that there is a crisis in education?

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes, a big one. Senator Byrne - Does he think that a solution can be postponed for 12 months?

Senator ORMONDE:

– No, I do not think so. 1 have copies of six reports on education and inquiries into education from other parts of the world. The situation has worsened generally because of the additional problem of - I shall call it what it is - Catholic education. The Government’s financial problems have been added to because the Government now takes the responsibility for the Catholic schools at which 25% of all students attend.

Senator Wright:

– The honourable senator says that the position has worsened. What does he mean by that?

Senator ORMONDE:

– The problems have been added to by the fact that the Government has now accepted responsibility for the dual education system.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honourable senator oppose that?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I shall make my own speech.

Senator Byrne:

– Answer the question.

Senator ORMONDE:

– No, I shall make my own speech. All over the world this problem has developed and has worsened because of the additional strain on the educational service and because of the extra finance needed to keep the dual educational system alive.

Senator Byrne:

– If a Senate committee were in operation, what would be the earliest that its recommendations could be implemented - within 3 years?

Senator ORMONDE:

– In my view it is a careless use of public funds for any government to say that it will find S50m without a query as to where it is going or when or how. The proposed inquiry would find out those things.

Senator Murphy:

-$50m?

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes, $50m, without any question. Senator Wright said that.

Senator Wright:

– Mr Whitlam referred to it. but what does it mean? What is this $50m?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I ask the Minister to listen to what the ‘Catholic Weekly’ said about it last week. It said: ‘State aid: Let’s get it out of politics’. The article goes on to quote remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) when talking about the dual education system. There is then a quotation from Mr Whitlam, one from Mr Malcolm Fraser, and it finishes with one from Senator Gair.

Senator Byrne:

– Our position on that is very clear.

Senator ORMONDE:

– The writer of this, article did not think so. This is what the newspaper says:

The needs of independent schools are immediate and urgent. Many of them, particularly the church schools, are unable to accept all children who apply for admission. They cannot embark on the building programmes that they require. . . In short, they urgently need Government assistance.

Of course Senator Gair said that. The newspaper goes on:

Now these are all fine sentiments and are well expressed.

Mr Askin and Jack Kane get a bit of a run, because the article states:

So, too, have been those in the State field of Premier Askin. . . . and Mr Kane. But fine words won’t feed teachers or cover the staggering debt burden that our parishes now face.

They think the matter is urgent. They believe that there is need for money as well as for an inquiry. They do not deny that there is a need for an inquiry. There never has been an inquiry such as we have suggested. Let us come down from the upper reaches to mother earth on this matter. For example, let us take the case of any country town where there may be a State school, a Catholic school and another school. Who has asked whether the three schools should exist? In relation to public health such situations are considered. In the town of Young in New South Wales there is a big Catholic hospital and a public hospital. They exchange their specialists and their equip ment. If itis operating day in the Mercy Hospital for certain heart or other cases, it is not in the other one. Who has ever thought of doing anything like that in respect of schools? Let me return to the elements of this problem, because it is a new problem.

Senator Wright:

– What about that $50m? What was that?

Senator ORMONDE:

-I was saying that I thought the expenditure of $50m without inquiry or direction was bad government.

Senator Wright:

– But who suggested $50m?

Senator ORMONDE:

– You did.

Senator Wright:

– I never mentioned it.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Your Prime Minister did.

Senator Wright:

– You are confusing me with Mr Whitlam.

Senator ORMONDE:

– All right. Let me tell you a short story to show how we should be thankful for small mercies. In 1951 part of my duty was to distribute welfare amongst coal miners. The Joint Coal Board was responsible for the distribution of the money to depressed areas for school amenities. My first experience of discrimination was in Cessnock where we found that we could not give anything to the Catholic schools; funds could go only to the public school. The Catholic school had to do without aid. Being who I am I thought to myself: ‘We have a strike issue here. This is an injustice. If J. do not know enough Comms in this town to pull Out a couple of pits because of this disparity in treatment my name is not Ormonde’. Three days later 4 or 5 mines stopped work on the understanding that no more coal would be produced until the Catholic miner got for his kids what the Protestant miner got for his. It was not a bad argument industrially.

I moved in government circles and found that even my legal friends said that the Catholic kid could not be given the amenities that were going to kids in the other schools by permission and with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government. So I went to see the Government and I want to admit now that even the Labor Government - I say ‘even’ advisedly - said that it was illegal to do it. All the lawyers - including, I will bet ray bottom dollar, Senator Wright - said that it was illegal. We had to rest on our laurels but I did not stop fighting. When the Labor Government was defeated in 1949 a change did take place. I saw the late Senator Spooner, because even the legal situation was beginning to unravel itself at that time. Senator Spooner, who I should imagine would have been violently opposed years before to doing anything like this, said to me: ‘If you can work out a scheme whereby I can give relief to the Catholic kids as well as the Protestant kids I will have a look at it’.

So 1 went to some of my Irish friends on the coa) fields and we worked out the idea of setting up parents and friends associations. I took the proposition to the Bishop. In those days bishops were hellishly opposed to giving powers to anyone, particularly school committees. That was the parish set up. I got agreement on this from the Bishop after I convinced him that it would be all right and in the interests of the people, and we set up a committee the purpose of which was to get the welfare material legally by paying so much a week rent. This is from whence we came 15 years ago. The committee was set up and the children received equal treatment. What a shocking state of affairs that we had to go through all these subterfuges to get assistance for the Catholic schools.

As you know, things have developed since then. I dispute Senator Wright’s statement that there were some scholarly people in the background who thought out the scheme to provide science blocks. If I remember rightly, the provision of science blocks was the brain child of an independent expelled member of the Liberal Party in Burwood, New South Wales, named Ben Doig. He bad the brainwave and with Mr McMahon, the present Treasurer, they thought up a scheme and presented it to the then Prime Minister who slept on it for two nights. He said: ‘This is a winner’, and when he announced it in the House one-half of his Ministers nearly fell off the front bench. So the revolution that I started in the mines finished in that way. If many people in the parents and friends association today knew 1 was its founder they probably would resign from it, but we did a good job.

I think, Senator Wright, that you are doing the wrong thing. I think an inquiry into education is needed. There have been inquiries all over the world - in Ireland, in England and even in Scotland which is supposed to have the freest education system in the world. There has been no trouble or argument about State aid anywhere in England. It is not and never has been an issue there, but it has been a big issue in this country. For the reasons that I have mentioned it should not have been.

Are you not concerned that in the Catholic system of education they have now only one-half the number of religious teachers that they had 5 years ago? Their numbers are diminishing. Their places are being taken by paid teachers. That is why the Catholic education system is in trouble. My understanding is that the Catholic system - particularly in primary schools - was built on the basis of free, if religious, labour. But this cannot be obtained now. This week’s Catholic Weekly’ has an article entitled Why our patience is exhausted’, which gives the facts of the financial plight of parish schools. Finance is a tremendous problem. I am not interested in the future of the children of the wealthy. 1 believe that if we look after the workers and the poor the wealthy will look after themselves. The Government is subsidising schools which charge high fees and are attended by the sons and daughters of the wealthy. If ever a means test should be applied, it should be applied with this type of school. I am not exaggerating when I say that there are poor schools. It is not so long ago that I was at a Catholic school which still had a pan system although it was only 2 miles from the city.

Senator Wright:

– Would the honourable senator apply a means test to State schools?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I do not think so because they are free, are they not?

Senator Wright:

– But a lot of wealthy children attend them.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Unfortunately, we form our opinions on the schools in the city. We should get out into the bush and see the conditions the children have to live under. I have been told by experts that the ability of a child to learn when the temperature and the humidity are high is reduced by 45%.

Senator Cormack:

– That is right.

Senator ORMONDE:

– High humidities and temperatures are experienced all over Australia, which means that a great percentage of the children are being hampered in their studies because there is no air conditioning. It may be said that this is a State matter. Of course it is a State matter, but it is an important matter. Our children are not being properly educated because we cannot provide them with correct conditions during their schooling. 1 think that Senator Wright is wrong in accusing the Australian Labor Party of bringing this matter up as an electoral gimmick. I can imagine nothing less favourable for winning votes on the hustings than this. There are no votes in it at all. The Opposition is not trying to stir up the pot. Education is a big problem which has to be faced. The fact that the Catholic section of the education system is not capable of carrying on is a matter of importance. I do not think that the Catholic section has told us all that it can about its problems. I do not think it has ever been asked. 1 think an inquiry should be conducted into this aspect to determine how help can be provided.

One has only to attend a few teachers’ conferences to find out what the conditions are in the State schools. They are not good. I cannot understand why Senator Wright is closing his eyes and ears to the fact that for years the main interest of the Press has been in what is happening in the field of education. I have in front of me a statement by a senior lecturer in education at the University of Sydney, Mr McMahon, to the effect that the training of technical teachers is hopelessly inadequate and is partially responsible for the enormous failure rate of students. Every day of the week one reads criticisms of that nature in the newspapers. I think that the best thing that can be done is to forget politics for a while and set up a committee, on which the Government would have a majority anyway, to call in all education experts and get their views on record. In this way the Government would be made aware of what is necessary to do the job properly. I hope that the Democratic Labor Party supports Senator Cohen’s motion. I think the DLP understands what I have been putting to the Senate. 1 believe that it should support the setting up of such a committee so that its knowledge can be brought to bear on the problems of education in Australia.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– 1 rise at this late hour to express the hope that the Opposition is’ genuine in its professed desire to see improved conditions in education throughout the nation. I wish to attribute that genuine desire to the Opposition, and to Senator Cohen in particular. Some of my colleagues may not believe this, but I would like to treat this question on the assumption that in this debate the Opposition is interested in the welfare of the people in regard to matters pertaining to education. The proposal before the Senate is for the setting up of a Senate select committee to inquire into and report upon the needs of pre-school, primary, secondary and technical education throughout Australia and to recommend such legislative and administrative measures to the Commonwealth as will enable the best standards of education to be provided to everyone. I think that the terminology of that motion sets the proposed Senate select committee a mammoth task. I am not going to argue that, given time, a Senate select committee could not achieve some recommendations along the lines indicated. Later on I will attempt to define the methods that any such committee will have to adopt in order to achieve the desired end.

In order to appreciate why there is so much publicity today as to the needs of education in the community, I think one must firstly understand something of the processes of education and why the present situation exists. The educational processes can be compared with climbing a mountain. As one ascends, the horizons widen and from that height we can see a greater area about us. So it is that as one attains education one becomes increasingly aware of the areas of one’s own ignorance and of the fields yet to be explored. Is it any wonder that those who are our leaders in education and who are most aware of the area of need in the community are constantly bombarding governments? I think that educationists would be failing in their responsibilities if they did not do this. But that is their responsibility. In government, unfortunately, one has other restrictions and considerations. One has to get down to such mundane things as priorities in the use of available funds and available resources.

Debate interrupted.

page 434

ADJOURNMENT

Repatriation - Immigration - Oil Rig Service Vessels - Reciprocal Agreement with Malta on Social Services - The Senate

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 POYSER:
Victoria

– I want to raise a matter relating to the vocational training scheme under which exnational servicemen are permitted to take courses after serving in Vietnam. I raised this matter by way of question without notice to the Minister on the first day of this parliamentary session as a result of representations made to me by a national serviceman in Victoria who had submitted an application for a full-time training course and who had been refused the full-time course but was offered a part-time training course. I understand that the present procedure is that when an application is made by a serviceman his case is dealt with in the first instance by a regional committee in the State in which he makes the application. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the regional committee, he has the right of appeal to what is called a central training committee which judges the appeal and makes a decision accordingly. The appellant has no right whatever to appear in person either at the initial hearing of his application or the subsequent appeal to present his case.

As I understand the system at present in operation, the ex-serviceman makes application on a form. It is then considered by the regional committee. If dissatisfied, the applicant appeals without having any further opportunity of putting before the regional committee any further evidence in support of his claim. The young lad to whom I refer has magnificent qualifications which have been made known to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Mackellar). He has had his appeal for a full-time course rejected and notice of that rejection has been conveyed to him in the shortest possible terms in which any letter could convey such a decision. He received from the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation, Victoria, the following letter:

Dear Sir,

National Service Vocational Training Scheme You are advised that the Central Training Committee has considered your appeal and decided that it is not to be allowed and the Regional Committee’s decision for part-time training is to stand.

No reason whatsoever was given to this lad as to why his appeal has been rejected. As I said earlier, there is no opportunity for him to appear in person before the Committee to state further reasons why he believes he is a suitable applicant for a full-time course.

On the second day of this parliamentary session, in a supplementary reply to the answer which he gave me the day before, the Minister for Repatriation said:

Yesterday Senator Poyser asked me a question relating to the Central Training Committee. He wanted to know whether it was possible for an applicant to appear personally before the Committee. I told him mat I did not think so but I would make inquiries. I have done so and 1 find that no provision is made for an applicant to appear in person. There was no such provision In civil cases during the 1939-45 war and the Korean war.

It would appear that the only reason why an applicant cannot appear in person to present his appeal is that it has never been done before. 1 appeal to the Minister tonight to examine the position to see whether the Act provides that an appellant has no right to appear before the Committee or whether it is just a matter of policy which can be altered. If the Act provides that an appellant shall have no right to appear then I submit that a simple amendment is necessary and this could well be passed through both Houses very quickly in order to eliminate this anomaly.

The lad about whom I am speaking, who served overseas in Vietnam as a national serviceman, on his return to Australia, went to the trouble to consult the reputable firm of Chandler and Macleod Pty Ltd of Melbourne, who are industrial psychologists. He received a psychological appraisal report of his abilities. This information has been made available to the Minister, and I understand that it was made available to the committee at the time of the hearing of the appeal. This lad is most anxious to do a full time course. He is now nearly 24 years of age and he wants to go on and do further studies in civil engineering. This means that it will take him a long period to do his course if he has to go through the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology after doing a matriculation course, which he is seeking to do on a full time basis. The report of the firm of psychologists is as follows:

Intelligence (capacity to reason and to learn): Verbal Intelligence: Superior, falling in the top 18% of the adult population.

Numerical Intelligence: Superior, falling in the top 16% of the adult population.

Abstract Intelligence: Very superior, falling in the top 4% of the adult population.

Aptitudes (potential to develop skill in areas of work if given training):

Speed and Accuracy (ability to perform clerical tasks quickly and accurately): Very superior, falling in the top 5% of the adult male population.

Mechanical Comprehension (understanding of mechanical ideas): Very superior, falling in the top 1% of the adult male population.

Other matters are dealt with in the report which show quite clearly that this lad has the capacity to carry out a full time course and to do very well at it. If he had been able to appear before this central committee at the time of the hearing of his appeal and be examined in relation to this report and the reasons why it was so important for him to undertake a full time course rather than a part time course which will take some years, I am certain that the committee’s decision would have been different from the one which it so boldly gave in a few lines rejecting the appeal.

I believe that men who have served in Vietnam and who are entitled to a vocational training course should be given the best possible course that is available to them in accordance with their capacity. Firstly, I believe that on this occasion the regional committee made a wrong decision in not granting a full time course to this lad. Secondly, I believe that the central committee which heard and rejected the appeal, apparently without hearing any supplementary evidence, made a wrong decision. I hope that the Minister, when examining this case, will be in a position perhaps to alter the decision even at this late stage. I appeal to the Minister to examine the position to see whether it is in any way possible to alter the system whereby an appellant has no right to appear personally to put his case before the appeal committee. If this was done I believe that more just decisions would be made by these appeal committees.

Senator MULVIHILL (New South three facets of immigration administration. Firstly, I want to deal with the situation in which many migrants find themselves when they suffer a serious injury in industry. Due to the fact that the country of their birth, in which they may have wives and dependent children, does not have any reciprocal agreement with Australia, these people encounter difficulty under most State compensation laws. In fact, on many occasions it is impossible for them to receive a direct dependant’s allowance for their wives and children under the State compensation Jaws. Rather than unduly belabour this matter 1 ask permission of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a letter which I received from Mr Charles Oliver, the New South Wales Secretary of the Australian Workers Union.

Senator McManus:

– Can you tell us what the letter refers to?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– It is an industrial matter germane to this subject.

Senator McManus:

– I think we should hear it.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask permission to incorporate it in Hansard. If I do not obtain it I will read the letter out.

Senator Cormack:

– Read it out.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I am quite happy to stay here until 1 o’clock. If that is the challenge, I will engage in a filibuster. So honourable senators can like it or lump it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Leave is granted.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the letter in Hansard.

Senator T. Mulvihill,

Senate,

CANBERRA, ACT, 2600.

Dear Sir,

I would like to bring to your attention an anomaly that is causing this Union some concern when dealing with injured workers that have families in foreign countries.

Section 71 clause (2) of the Workers Compensation Act, NSW, does not permit a claim for dependants of an injured worker who are living in a foreign country unless there is a reciprocal arrangement between (he Governments of both countries.

We have recently had a case whereby Mr Goroi Hijevski (of Yugoslavia) was injured on 12th November, 1968, while employed by Thiess Bros at Talbingo on the Snowy Mountains project. This member is still unemployed and drawing $26.00 per week. He has a wife and three children back in Yugoslavia who are dependent upon his earnings in Australia.

We feel that the Government of both countries must share the responsibilities of guaranteeing the security of the dependants as a basic issue when formulating an immigration policy and would appreciate the co-operation of the Department of Immigration m arranging reciprocal arrangements with Yugoslavia, in accordance with Section 71 of the Workers Compensation Act, NSW, and any further assistance that might assist this member j» the interim.

Yours faithfully,

  1. T. OLIVER.

Branch Secretary.

Briefly, the case involves a member of the Australian Workers Union who was employed by Thiess Brothers at Talbingo on the Snowy Mountains project. The Union has been told that it is impossible for the wife and children of the migrant concerned, who live in Yugoslavia, to receive dependants’ allowances. Let me refer to page 9 of the report of an address given by the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) to the Monash University Liberals. He pointed out that we have received migrants from more than thirty countries.

While this is a case history, I believe that there must be a host of other countries, such as Poland, Greece, Italy, Hungary and Holland, in respect of which this situation remains somewhat obscure. 1 believe that the Department of External Affairs should endeavour to have reciprocal agreements made so that this industrial coverage can be complete. Earlier tonight 1 heard a Government senator talking about the responsibility of the Opposition on fundamental issues. I think we will agree that, with the mineral bonanza and big projects that we have at Port Hedland, on off-shore rigs, at the open hearth furnace in Port Kembla and at many other places, accidents can never be completely eliminated. This extra protection must be afforded as a right. It is on that basis that I make this submission.

The second matter that I raise concerns the impending Maltese migration convention in Valetta. Recently the Maltese citizens association in New South Wales, which has among its component bodies the George Cross Association of Wollongong and the

Maltese Ex-servicemen’s Association, suggested to the Minister for Immigration that, as delegates from every country in which there are Maltese migrants are expected to attend and as the United States on occasions has assisted various ethnic groups to return to fraternal gatherings in their birthplaces, some assistance should be given to the Australian delegation to this convention. The Minister replied and rejected the submission. The point that I am making applies to both my first submission and this one. It is bound up in public relations and contentment.

I think we will agree that 10 years ago it might have been sufficient to give a migrant a job and a hostel bed. But everybody, including the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Immigration, knows that the recent report by the Immigration Planning Council, which was a very lengthy one, indicated clearly that we have to go much beyond that. In regard to this Maltese migration convention, as the Minister for Immigration indicated there may be some inhibitions about expenditure being incurred by his Department. But many payments made through the Prime Minister’s Department are based on public relations. So I believe that some money should be forthcoming for this purpose. At this convention there could be a stocktaking of migration agreements with other nations including Australia. Some intemperate statements might be made and the Department of Immigration might have to go on a vast backtracking expedition in order to refute them. It is on that basis that I make this submission.

Finally 1 wish to deal with the status of interpreters. The Minister for Housing is aware that on 4th March I made other submissions in regard to the quality of interpreters. On that occasion 1 dealt extensively with New South Wales baby health centres. As the Minister knows, there was an area of no man’s land and some doubt as to whether it was a matter for a State authority or a Commonwealth authority. Let me refer now to a letter that appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph’ of 8th March 1969. We find that there was a vacancy for an interpreter at Sydney airport which had not been filled for 12 months. It was one of those jobs that involved customs, health and immigration officers and dealt with the arrival of overseas passengers. I notice that the President of the Australian Translators Association expressed the view, with which I agree, that the salary of $56 a week was not commensurate with the languages required. In this case 2 or 3 languages were not sufficient. As well as being fluent in Italian, Spanish, French, German and Dutch a knowledge of Russian, Polish, Yugoslav and Asian languages was required. A person would have to be a pretty hot shot to be reasonably conversant with all the languages mentioned. But the point is that it is not merely a question of salary. Anyone knows that planes arrive at all hours of the day or night and a person who takes on this assignment would have to be on call at all times.

It may be argued that possibly the Australian Translators Association is not a registered trade union to bargain for its members. I am not canvassing the idea that perhaps the Commonwealth and State Public Service unions could feel it was their prerogative to negotiate for these people. But the point I am making - and Senator Poyser would confirm this as a result of some of our excursions into migrant hostels - is that there is a lack of communication and not enough interpreters. I am not reflecting on . officials of Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. I have found them co-operative and very keen to do the right thing with migrants. We find that communications do break down and situations arise that should not arise. The point I make to the Minister - and this is a corollary of my earlier submissions of some weeks ago - concerns the language ratings. I am mystified by the high rating that French receives. If we study the influx of migrants we find that very few come from France. I cannot see why the French language is rated in the first grouping. But be that as it may, the point I am making is that there are a host of post war migrants in Australia today who are competent in two or three languages. I feel that the corps of interpreters should be increased specifically for this work.

If Senator Bishop were here at the moment, he would confirm from an industrial basis that the concept of pulling men off one job and putting them into a mixed function is irritating. In the case of Villa wood Migrant Hostel a clerical assistant may be taken off one job and told to go down to the baby health centre or to some other block to talk to someone who has a couple of children. There is no guarantee that when the girl goes back to her desk she will find that the work has been left for her to do. She gets a little snouted at times when such situations arise. She might be a bit abrupt with migrants. This is where the problems arise. Harking back to Senator Marriott’s words, these may be considered small things. But as I know the Minister for Housing realises, they concern people. I think they are all matters in which adequate assistance should be given. I think I can do no more when making this submission and asking the Minister for early assistance than to quote the Minister’s remarks from Immigration News Release 17/69. Among other things, he said:

We depend upon migration to contribute towards a sound rate of overall economic growth.

We depend upon migration for ‘steady increases in our domestic markets.

The comment goes on wel’l into the second page. I would say with respect to the Minister for Immigration, through the Minister for Housing, that the three submissions I have made tonight are matters of extreme importance and am confident that they will be transmitted to him for appropriate attention.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I rise in regard to a matter raised by Senator Mulvihill. 1 queried this matter by way of interjection but was not answered. I query whether the matter of which he complains is one concerning a decision by a court of law or whether it concerns advice given by an industrial union organiser or some other person. As I understand the law - and my understanding in this respect may be imperfect - what one has to prove is marriage and dependency. But one can prove this without the formal recognition of the marriage by the interchange of governmental documentation. There are many cases in which this has happened. There are many cases in which there is no record of a marriage, even in Australia. Yet the courts have held that there was dependency. It is a question of fact to be determined by a court. I rather wonder whether Senator Mulvihill has been barking up the wrong tree in complaining about this matter.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the submissions of Senator Mulvihill, particularly in regard to the immigration convention to be held in Malta.

Senator Cormack:

– Who is sponsoring the convention?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– The people of Malta. There are about 200,000 people of Maltese extraction in Australia, about 50,000 of whom resided here prior to World War II. Maltese migrants are coming to Australia at the rate of about 7,000 a year. 1 believe that Australia should be represented at the forthcoming convention, as requested by Senator Mulvihill. For quite a number of years I have been asking questions about former Maltese citizens in this country. They are British subjects. Recently Sir Hubert Opperman was appointed as our High Commissioner in Malta. Very shortly our representatives will mix with representatives of Malta at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. The people of Malta displayed great valour in World War II. The island of Malta was a great prize to be won by our enemies - Germany and Italy. Their air forces attempted to bomb Malta into submission. The British Government bestowed a great honour upon the people of Malta.

On many occasions I have asked for a reciprocal social services agreement to be established between Australia and Malta, similar to those which operate between Australia and Great Britain and Australia and New Zealand. My colleague Senator Mulvihill reminds me that the British Government awarded the George Cross to the island of Malta. I have addressed questions about a reciprocal social services agreement to the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in this chamber, and to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson).

About 2 years ago Dom Mintoff, Leader of the Malta Labor Party, visited Australia. A VIP plane - one of those which caused so much commotion in the Senate about a year ago - was chartered to bring Mr Mintoff and his party to Canberra to discuss with the Honourable Ian Sinclair, then

Minister for Social Services, a reciprocal1 social services agreement. After that meeting 1 waited for an announcement. After waiting in vain I directed further questions on the subject, but without exception they have been ignored. No reply has been given. After waiting patiently 1 placed a question on the notice paper, believing that this method would give the Minister an opportunity to reply. On 13th November of last year I placed question 775 on the notice paper, which read as follows:

What action, if any, has been taken by the Australian Government to bring about a reciprocal agreement with the Government of Malta on social service benefits, similar to those which operate wilh the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

To my surprise I received no reply whatsoever to my question. In this sessional period my question has been removed from the notice paper. Therefore I have taken the opportunity to raise this matter of importance tonight. It is a matter of great importance to those 200,000 Maltese who are in this country and, in turn, to the many thousands who come here from year to year. We have a representative in Malta and we are seeking Maltese migrants, so we are asking what the Government is doing about this.

Senator Cormack:

– Have you taken this up with the Minister direct?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I have taken it up by way of question on notice, by questions to the Minister’s representative in this place over a period of years, and 1 have taken it up with the Leader of the Senate. It is about time a reply was given to this question which concerns so many people.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I rise to address the Senate at this late hour because of a matter that I consider to be of major importance. It arises out of a report from Darwin last Sunday which reads:

The oil rig tender ‘Missouri’, arrested on a $50,000 damage writ in Darwin harbour last Thursday, was released by the High Court in Sydney at the weekend - but it is still stuck in port.

A sea-cock on the 196-ton ship was left open and flooded the engine room three feet deep covering the generator.

It may be days before the ‘Missouri’ ls able to service the Sedco drilling rig at Lacrosse 1 in Bonaparte Gulf.

Under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act the Minister for the Interior is the Designated Authority who is responsible for the administration of that Act in respect of the Northern Territory. Among his responsibilities - which are not listed in section 16 of the Act which transports the laws of the land into the adjacent area of the continental shelf - are the administration of common law, machinery safety law, electricity regulations, accommodation law, workers’ compensation, industrial law and industrial inspections. Under section 125 an industrial inspector has very wide powers in respect of the off-shore oil industry. But the Designated Authority is charged with the administration of all these laws in this area. lt is common practice in off-shore operations in Australia for the Designated Authority’s officials to use the transport facilities of the operating company to go backwards and forwards to the oil rigs out at sca. In this context I would ask the Minister, seeing that this service boat is out of commission and likely to remain out of commission for some time, what provisions are being made to protect the laws, as they are transported under section 16(1) of the Act, to ensure the safety of the sixty workmen employed on this rig. Further, I want to know why this ship was arrested. After all, it is (he lifeline that exists between the mainland and the rig and by its arrest the workers were deprived of the service boat. Admittedly the arrest was of short duration. On Thursday the rig was arrested and over the weekend it was released.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you know who was the owner or the charterer of the boat?

Senator CANT:

– No. I do not know, but this information could be ascertained easily from the responsible department. The Minister could indicate lo what company or companies a permit was issued in respect of Lacrosse No. I rig. My further concern is with section 97 of the Act. I want to read part of it to the Senate to give some idea of the responsibilities that arc placed on the employer, as distinct from the Designated Authority. The Designated Authority is responsible for administration but certain responsibilities are laid on the employer. Sub-section (1.) provides:

A permittee or licensee shall carry out all petroleum exploration operations miti operations 11543 ‘69 - 8- fill for the recovery of petroleum in the permit area or licence area in a proper and workmanlike manner and in accordance with good oil-field practice-

Whatever that might mean - and shall secure the safety, health and welfare of persons engaged in those operations in or about the permit area or licence area.

If the lifeline of the operating company is taken away from it as in this case - the ship was arrested and now it is on the bottom of the harbour because of the sea cocks being opened - in what way can the operating company ensure the safety, health and welfare of the workers on the rig?

What is the position of workers who may bc injured in their employment out on this rig? What facilities are available for quick access to them? Has the company alternative facilities to enable it to service the rig? What conditions are imposed upon the company by the Designated Authority when the permit is issued? There are no regulations at present under this Act. We have already had experience of a situation such as this in the case of an oil rig off the coast of Western Australia, when a man unfortunately lost his life. Whether or not he could have been saved, I do not know, but in fact an application was made to the Department of Civil Aviation for a licence to fly a helicopter out to pick him up on the rig and take him ashore where he could receive treatment, and the company was unable to get a licence from the Department to fly out a helicopter. This is the position in which workmen are put when they are sent out to sea and their lifeline is taken away from them. There can be a serious accident out there and there is no lifeline to get them in.

Taking the position overall, I think that the Designated Authority has quite a lol to answer for here. When there is conflict between Commonwealth departments, as there must have been in this case, when the ship was arrested because of some damage that it had caused or that it was alleged to have caused to the extent of $50,000, some alternative facilities to provide a lifeline to the rig should be provided. Workmen cannot bc expected to bc sent into isolated areas of this nature without a lifeline to protect them. There is a responsibility upon the Designated Authority to see that a lifeline is provided. There is a responsibility upon the employer under section 97 to see that there is at all times a lifeline. This may mean that two lots of facilities will have to be provided by the operator of the rig at sea. What methods the operator uses to overcome the difficulty is up to him, but the Act passed by this Senate and the other place imposes pretty strict responsibilities upon these people to protect workmen. I do not know whether the legislation was intended to protect workmen. My feelings are that it was intended to protect the licence areas and permit areas of those who had licences and permits issued to them. Nevertheless, workmen will be employed out there. In work on the continental shelf, workmen will be employed many miles off the shore of Australia. They will be beyond the range of helicopters. It will not be possible to protect them by helicopters and a boat service will be too slow in the case of a serious accident. This is a question that the Designated Authorities in the States and the Territories have to face up to when they administer this legislation. I. say frankly that the Designated Authority must give some answer as to what he will do to provide facilities whilst the ‘Missouri’ is out of commission.

Senator Scott:

– Is the ‘Missouri’ at the bottom of the ocean now?

Senator CANT:

– The report states:

A sea-cock on the 196-ton ship was left open and Hooded the engine room 3 feet deep covering the generator. lt may be days before the Missouri is able to service the Sedco drilling rig at Lacrosse i in Bonaparte Gulf.

Senator Cormack:

– What is that report from?

Senator CANT:

– It is out of the ‘West Australian’ newspaper.

Senator Cormack:

– That is not up to date.

Senator CANT:

– The honourable senator would not care, because he has no concern for workmen. Western Australia is west and north of the Murray River and the honourable senator’s vision does not go any further than that. This matter should be brought urgently to the attention of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) and some answer should be provided to the Senate not later than tomorrow so that we will know the conditions that will apply to the safety, health and welfare of the workers on this rig.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I want to bring to the attention of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) a question that was posed to me. He dealt with it partly when he answered a question asked in the Senate a week or so ago. A national serviceman who voluntarily accepts a further period of duty after completing his national service, because he then is not able to comply with the time factor, is denied certain educational and reemployment benefits. The Minister said that the Government was contemplating action. I point out to him that the young people who are affected consider that this is a matter of extreme urgency and hope that a positive decision will not be postponed.

It seems incomprehensible that any government would want to deny to young men who accept a greater responsibility than could be adjudged their fair share any of the advantages that are available to others. The young people attending universities are particularly conscious of the position. The whole question of national service is the subject of a great deal of discussion amongst the university communities these days, and indeed the Government must accept some responsibility for this state of affairs. Ils public relations are very poor. It does not do enough to explain the whole of its programme or the reasons why the programme is necessary. When young people at universities who have done an excellent job for their country find that they are denied benefits that are available to others and they cannot get a positive or satisfactory explanation, they become discontented. One can well understand the discontent not only of the young people but also of many of their associates. They want to know precisely what the Government proposes to do and, if the Government decides to give them these benefits, whether this will be made retrospective so that any young men who have been affected and who have sacrificed their rights will have those rights restored to them. I am sure that every honourable senator and everybody in the community would like to see those rights restored to these young people.

It may be that the Government proposes to consider this matter at some future date. However, the young people concerned feel that this is a very urgent matter and they would like to have answers as quickly as it is humanly possible to give them. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Repatriation because two people who have been affected tackled me personally on this subject at the University of Melbourne only a week ago. If two people mention it to me, there must be more at the university who did not. If two people at the University of Melbourne have been affected, there must be more than this number in the community generally who have been affected. I think the Government should act rapidly on this matter. It is a subject that should receive the most sympathetic consideration of any government.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– Mr Acting Deputy President, it is a lovely autumn night and I feel revived by the touch of autumn air in the Senate. Firstly, if you will permit me, I should like to extend to Senator Keeffe my personal congratulations on being able to survive the problems that all husbands have to survive from time to time. 1 have become interested in a problem involving the Standing Orders of the Senate. 1 refer to the procedures of the Senate covering the motion put by the President this evening at 10.30 o’clock. In accordance with the sessional orders, he formally put the motion that the Senate do now adjourn. This is an old parliamentary device which enables a private member to bring forward matters which he considers important and appropriate. He does this by opposing the motion for the adjournment. However, it has become clear over the past 6 or 7 months - at the end of the last sessional period and at the beginning of this sessional period - that opposition to the motion has become a device to keep the Senate in session in order to prolong not the debate on matters on the notice paper but debate generally.

It seems to me, in the first instance anyway, that the Senate is not spending enough hours on its work. Perhaps the sessional orders should toe referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Perhaps the Senate should not rise at 10.30 o’clock but should continue to sit until 11.30 p.m., midnight or 12.30 a.m. in order to dispose of its business and discuss the problems that confront us. To me, on this autumn evening, this idea has an appealing character and quality. On the other hand, of course, if enough senators object to the use of the motion for the adjournment of the Senate in this way then it is possible for the Senate to be counted out. This would happen if insufficient senators were present to hear the oppositon to the motion for the adjournment.

I am not speaking facetiously, lt seems to me that there is a determined effort to oppose the adjournment because of the fact tha: the transaction of the Senate’s business is choked - I. repeat the word choked - by attempts to defeat it. Surely the Senate exists to deal with the orderly transaction of the nation’s business. If the forms of the Senate are varied or if emphasis is placed on them in one way or another so as to prevent the orderly transaction of business then, manifestly, something is wrong with Senate procedures.

One thing in particular has interested me tonight. I have attempted, by interjection on two or three occasions, to discover from honourable senators who have been speaking to the motion for the adjournment whether in fact they have taken these matters up with the Ministers of the Crown who are answerable for them. On each occasion I discovered that the honourable senator opposing the motion for the adjournment had not been in touch with the responsible Minister. He was using the forms of the Senate to enable him to record a protest without going through an examination of the matter concerned. Surely such an examination is required in order to determine whether there is an administrative solution to the problem being raised.

Senator Murphy:

– That is not true.

Senator CORMACK:

– Senator Murphy interjected and said quite categorically that the forms of the Senate were being properly used and that there was no necessity for or obligation upon any honourable senator to go through the process of seeking information from the Minister concerned. This is what Senator Murphy said by way of interjection. He did not even have the call. Quite properly, I called upon Senator Mulvihill to read aloud a letter, to which he was referring when opposing the adjournment motion, so that honourable senators on this side of the chamber might discover what business was referred to in it. He instantly said: ‘Well, I will filibuster’. In other words, he was standing over the Senate. Now that we have come to this subject, it is quite characteristic - I say this inoffensively, I hope - that Senator Mulvihill has got into the habit of using the motion for the adjournment as a method of introducing new business into the Senate.

We can do one of two things. We can carry on by a process of exhaustion - I am quite prepared to accept Senator Mulvihills terms of involving himself in a filibuster, if that is what he wants - and sit here until 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning, or we can make a serious attempt to observe the Standing Orders of the Senate and not subvert the normal process by which the Senate conducts its business. Under sessional orders the motion for the adjournment is put at half past ten. It is now a quarter past eleven. We can sit here until a quarter past one, a quarter past two, a quarter past three or a quarter past four. I do not mind at all, but for goodness sake let us have some rationale in this or change the Standing Orders to provide that the motion for the adjournment be put at half past eleven or 12 o’clock.

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

[11.16] - I want to reply to some points which Senator Mulvihill raised. I have been endeavouring to do so for a little while. First of all, in connection with the comment he made about the Yugoslav worker and the letter which was written to him by the Australian Workers Union, of which I also have a copy. I discussed this matter with the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden), because I felt that it was of importance. The Minister informs me that a number of matters which are affecting dependants of Yugoslav workers in Australia are presently under discussion with the Yugoslav authorities in connection with a proposed agreement for residence and employment of Yugoslav citizens in Australia. The Minister for Immigration and State Ministers for Immigration are meeting regularly to discuss matters of mutual concern affecting migrants. No doubt, since the particular matter raised by the honourable senator is covered by State legislation, the Minister will be prepared to take it up with the appropriate State authorities. I shall be pleased to place Senator Mulvihill^ comments before the Minister.

Senator Mulvihill also raised the question of the Maltese migration convention. The Minister for Immigration has informed me that careful and sympathetic consideration was given to the request by the Maltese Community Council of New South Wales for financial assistance to enable a delegation to attend the Maltese migration convention in Malta. Unfortunately, funds are not at the Minister’s disposal which could be used to help the members of the Maltese community travel to Malta. The Minister does recognise that the objectives of the convention could be of interest and importance to members of the Maltese community in Australia. He hopes, therefore, that a delegation will attend, but for the reasons which he has already given to the honourable senator his Department is unable to assist financially. Senator Mulvihill also mentioned interpreters. He has on a previous occasion taken up this matter. I remember well his comments concerning mothers with babies at baby health centres - I think he also referred to bigger children - who were concerned with this problem of the lack of an interpreter who could make it easy for the mothers to receive the assistance they need.

Senator Mulvihill referred first of all to interpreters at airports. I am informed that this is a question for the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz), so the query should be addressed to my colleague representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Because of Senator Mulvihill^ interest in the matter I shall be pleased to ensure that the Minister for Civil Aviation receives notice of the comments made. I am quite certain that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), who represents him here, will be quite happy for me to do that.

Although the honourable senator’s main point was the use of interpreters at airports, he mentioned also his interest in interpreters in the Department of Immigration, their earnings and the jobs they were doing. I think the best answer I can give him, certainly while registering the point made, is to give information which I have been given by the Department. Interpreting duties are included in a number of clerical positions in the Canberra, New South Wales and Victorian offices of the Department of Immigration. Positions which include interpreting duties have salaries determined by the Public Service Board on the basis of the assessment of the level of responsibility assumed and the skill required. These range in salary from $2,551 at the minimum of one classification to a maximum of $5,172 in another. As the need arises the Department uses the services of officers at more senior salary classifications who are proficient in but are engaged substantially in functions other than interpreting. I hope that information is of benefit to Senator Mulvihill.

Senator Fitzgerald spoke about the reciprocal social services agreement with Malta. I know he has asked questions during question time or has made comments during debates - 1 cannot recall which- concerning this. I am interested in the point he made. I could not quite hear what he said about a question on the notice paper being taken off. On what date was the question asked?

Senator Fitzgerald:

– On 13th November.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator said that the question was taken off. Did he by any chance receive a letter from the appropriate Minister before that happened?

Senator Fitzgerald:

– No. .

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall check this because I thought that perhaps the reason why the question had been removed was that the honourable senator had received a letter from the Minister. 1 shall take up the matter with the Minister to see what information I can get.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I understand that at the opening of today’s session a question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) about an event that occurred in my family. I understand that the question was answered very graciously by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), who did not request that it be put on notice. Senator Cormack has left the chamber. I appreciate his remarks. No doubt he was delighted that 1 did not interject. This is probably the first time I have not done so. One gets into a mellow mood on these occasions. Tomorrow it will be business as usual. I appreciate the action of the Senate, on both the Government side and my own side.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I rise to answer a few queries raised by my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Cant, who is concerned about the servicing of the Sedco oil rig out of Darwin because a vessel that was servicing it has had a court writ issued against it for damages. It would appear that the oil rig supply vessel ‘Missouri’, of American registry, is owned by Tidewater Marine Pty Ltd of the United States of America. The operating company in Australia is the Sydney subsidiary, Tidewater Marine Port Jackson Pty Ltd. The company is working out of Darwin with the vessel servicing the Sedco 135 (e) oil rig. However, the ‘Missouri’ was involved in a collision with Nyhavens Rose’, a Danish ship, in the Fremantle area. The owners of the Danish vessel have taken out a writ against the owners of the ‘Missouri’. Therefore it appears that this vessel will not be able to service the Sedco oil rig. Senator Cant has shown concern about the people that are working on the Sedco 135 (e) rig and about the rig not being serviced. He said that it should be and is, no doubt, a responsibility of the Designated Authority to ensure that some type of service is given.

Senator Cant:

– And the operator.

Senator SCOTT:

– And the operator. I noted with great interest what Senator Cant said and I assure him that I will take it up with the Minister concerned and ask the Minister to give the honourable senator full particulars as far as he knows them.

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

– Senator Poyser raised a matter tonight which he has raised with me previously. He wanted to know why there was no provision for an appellant to appear in person before the committee charged with the administration of the national service re-establishment training scheme. I had explained previously that when this committee was originally set up no provision was made for an appellant to appear in person and it had not been found necessary so to provide. That is the main reason why no provision was made on this occasion. The present arrangement is working quite well. The case he referred to is one that is known to me. The facts which he recited are as J know them. 1 am pleased to inform him that after further representations were made this case is being looked at, and although 1 cannot promise anything I am hopeful that a decision will be arrived at in favour of the appellant.

Senator Little referred to the problem of a national serviceman who because of his re-enlistment for a period of time renders himself ineligible for the vocational training scheme. Thisis the true position. When the Act first came in these men coming back from national service had to put in their applications for vocational training on their discharge. It was felt that some latitude should be given to them, and therefore an amendment was made giving them a period of 3 months in which to apply. The Army is naturally anxious to retain the services of many of these fellows and it has prevailed upon them to re-enlist, sometimes for a period of 3 months, sometimes for 6 months and sometimes for 12 months. I am afraid that in some cases it was not made clear to these chaps that by so doing they would divorce themselves from the provisions of this vocational training scheme. My Department took this matter up with the Army and it has given us the definite assurance that all those re-enlisting are being made fully aware of the position as have all others who. for some time in the past have re-enlisted. In spite of this there are so many cases of this kind being brought to my notice by different members, both in this chamber and in the other place, thatI have taken this matter up with my colleagues. After personal discussion I wrote a letter suggesting that we should have another look at this. As a result the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) is convening a meeting of the interdepartmental committee which was set up in the first instance to establish this vocational training scheme. This should not be confused with repatriation because an officer of my Department is in charge of the recent committee that administers the training scheme, but the interdepartmental committee was set up in the first place to nut out the scheme, and it is being reconvened to consider whether or not there will be a further extension of time. One of the reasons we were a bit chary about increasing the length of time was that some Regular Army men would be coming out at about the same time, and as honourable senators know they are not eligible for this vocational training scheme. If a period of 2 years were allowed for these chaps to apply it was felt that those who volunteered for the Regular Army would not be getting a fair go. This is one of the reasons that has militated against a further extension of time. As I have said, the Committee is being reconvened to consider this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 March 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690318_senate_26_s40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant