Senate
17 September 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 903

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS GRANT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of a statement attributed to the Tasmanian Minister for Lands and Works yesterday in which he laid on the Federal Government the blame for the substantial reduction in the rural roads grant for Tasmania under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act? Has he been informed of the serious embarrassment to a number of larger rural municipalities in Tasmania through the consequent reduction in their allocation for rural roads and the possibility of staff retrenchment? Will the Treasurer earnestly consider restoring the Commonwealth allocation to Tasmania to a level consistent with the expectations of those councils which have planned works on the basis of their former matched grants from the State Government instrumentalities? Finally, does the Minister not consider that local government in Australia is at the crossroads and deserves far greater financial consideration than it is currently receiving?

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

– Quite clearly the question should be directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport, because it deals with some matters of particularity in relation to the Commonwealth roads allocation. I suggest that that might be the answer to the question in the first place. In general, however, it is abundantly clear to everybody that the renegotiated Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement is significant in that it makes contributions to the States which are far in excess of what has been given in the past.

As to the question of the relationship of local government to the Federal Government, I am sure the honourable senator will recognise, because of his previous experience in local government, that the third tier of government, that is local government, receives its resources not only by means of rating but through State instrumentalities and that the link is not directly between local government and the Federal

Government. Local government is the next step down from State governments and any assistance local authorities require should come automatically from the sovereign States. It is the responsibility of the States, within the framework of their allocation under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement, to make provision for local government.

page 903

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that some Australian meat exporters trading with the United States of America, having earned the necessary entitlements under the diversification scheme and having arranged sales of meat with United States importers, now find that they are prevented by the Australian Meat Board from shipping because the quota arranged with the United States is apparently over-committed? Is the Minister aware that some exporters have been seriously embarrassed by the enforced cancellation of their contracts? Does this mean that some other exporters have shipped more meat than their entitlement? If this is so, was this brought about by the Meat Board not having adequate up to date statistical information about entitlements and shipments?

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

– I believe that the honourable senator well knows that problems are associated with quota exports of Australian meat to the United States market. Problems arise because of the workings of the quota system. In each of the last 2 years the quota has been filled before the end of the calendar year. This has created certain difficulties between some Australian meat exporters and United States importers. As to the diversification scheme, I understand that it is working quite satisfactorily from the points of view of the Government and the Australian Meat Board. Under the scheme it is necessary for an exporter to obtain other markets for his meat before he may export to the United States. This is being done. The honourable senator will know that the Australian Meat Board is now considering ways and means to increase the quantities of meat that may be exported from Australia to the United States, and also methods to regulate the quota levels, when established, so that they will cover the whole 12-month period.

page 904

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Is it correct, as reported in today’s issue of the ‘Australian’, that the Minister for the Army had knowledge of allegations similar to those contained in the letter from Mr Walsh of the Royal Military College before that letter had come to his notice? Had the Minister ordered an inquiry? On what date did the Minister receive information that he thought justified an inquiry? On what date did he order such an inquiry? Who was detailed to make the necessary inquiry?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– As I told the honourable senator in an answer to a question he asked yesterday, towards the end of the week before last the Minister for the Army first received from a private source advice that excessive bullying was occurring at the Royal Military College. The Minister immediately asked the Secretary of the Department to investigate the matter.

page 904

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen a report in the Adelaide ‘News’ of 9th September that a majority of almost three to one of University of Adelaide students by referendum rejected a proposal to establish a sanctuary in the University Union for National Service Act defaulters? Does this not show the value of referendums in obtaining the opinion of a majority of a student body, in preference to the mass meeting opinion of an active minority?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The affairs of a university are within the responsibility of the university itself. I agree with the honourable senator’s suggestion that the problems of students should be resolved in an orderly way. I am sure that all honourable senators commend the approach that decisions, rather than being influenced by members of a minority group who shout the loudest, should be resolved by an orderly expression of views of the people within the campus. I commend that type of approach and I hope we will continue to see such approaches and the level of judgment that they produce.

page 904

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the world demand for specific grades of wheat and the actions of many exporting countries to meet the demand by segregating grades of wheat, would it not be preferable to abandon the f.a.q. standard and increase the quantity of Australian wheat that is graded?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– A number of problems exist in many countries in relation to the excess quantity of wheat that has been grown and that is for sale in the markets of the world. Under the International Grains Arrangement the main exporters of wheat - Australia, the United States of America and Canada - are endeavouring to get the maximum amount that it is possible for them to obtain for their wheat. At present, representatives of each of those countries are debating the question of the price of wheat. The honourable senator also asked whether the f.a.q. standard for wheat should be lower-

Senator Wilkinson:

– Graded, not lower.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes. This is a very technical question. 1 ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper so that 1 may obtain a detailed reply from the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 904

QUESTION

WOOMERA

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It relates to a report in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of Saturday last referring to the establishment of a defence space communications facility at Woomera. Can the Minister indicate the significance of this facility to the total growth of both Woomesa and Salisbury? Is it correct that any agreement between Australia and the United States of America on this matter will not be required to be tabled in the Parliament? Can the Minister say whether any components of the new facility are likely to be manufactured in South Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The joint defence space communications station near Woomera will not have any significant effects on the size of Woomera. No new houses are contemplated but some existing accommodation, which is expected to be available within the next year or two, will be occupied by the staff of the station. The effect on Salisbury will be negligible. The agreement relating to the project is at present under negotiation and will be tabled in the Parliament in due course. The policy of the Government is that, wherever practical, Australian resources will be used. This policy will be reflected in the arrangements which will apply to this station. Naturally, South Australian suppliers will have equal opportunities with other Australian contractors.

page 905

QUESTION

COLLEGES OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Last week, 1 drew the attention of the Minister to the concern and dissatisfaction among the staffs of colleges of advanced education at the failure of the Government so far to table in Parliament the Sweeney and Wiltshire reports and to the alarm felt at the possibility that this Parliament would rise before any action was taken. As I understand the position, as the Minister explained, discussions have been proceeding between the Commonwealth and the States on this question. I would ask this question of the Minister: Will he give an assurance that the reports will be tabled in the Parliament before the Parliament is dissolved so as to give us the opportunity of discussing them?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I informed the honourable senator last Wednesday that consultations were taking place between the Commonwealth and the States on the contents of these reports. Those consultations took place on Monday of this week. The results of those consultations are under the active consideration of the Government. Every effort will be made to inform the Parliament at the earliest opportunity of decisions taken upon them.

page 905

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS GRANTS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Because the Leader of the Government in the Senate answered a question posed by Senator Devitt regarding local government finances, I ask the

Minister: Is it not a fact that the aggregate road grant to Tasmania this year is considerably greater than the grant last year and that some unbalance has been caused by the amount which must be spent on urban roads and because of the parlous condition of State finances inherited by the present State Government in Tasmania? To place the position beyond doubt, will the Government give consideration to specifying in future road grants that a certain amount of a grant must be spent under the jurisdiction of municipalities?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Answering first the last part of the question about placing certain funds under the jurisdiction of local government bodies, I come back to the point I made to Senator Devitt that in my view the authority of local government of necessity must come through the authority of the State government concerned. But there are elements in this question which, like Senator Devitt’s question. 1 believe should bc directed to the responsible Minister, the Minister for Shipping and Transport. It is true, as I understand the position, that the allocation recently made to Tasmania is greater than was previously the case.

Senator Wright:

– That is true. It is much greater.

Senator ANDERSON:

– lt is much greater, lt is also true that there is a requirement to allocate certain funds to urban roads. The implication of that requirement on the balance of the situation in Tasmania I am not competent to deal with at this time. However, there is an agreement and the States have a responsibility, and I believe that that responsibility in turn is passed down to local government. If the honourable senator puts his question on notice I will obtain a comprehensive reply to it and to the question asked by Senator Devitt.

page 905

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OCCUPIED LAND

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Apart from his reference to the release of Heffron Park in Sydney from Commonwealth occupancy can he report any further progress in the release of additional Commonwealth occupied land on Sydney Harbour foreshores, particularly the North Head quarantine sector, for harbourside parkland?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 suspect that this is a reference to statements I made during the debate on the estimates of my Department. I could speak about the arrangements for Heffron Park and the projected move to St Marys because that matter came within the responsibility of my Department. I am not competent at short notice at question time to speak with such assurance and authority in relation to the other matter. I will obtain some information and make it available to the honourable senator.

page 906

QUESTION

CANBERRA AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator MARTIN CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the

Minister representing the Minister for the Interior aware that there is a large cultivated bed of a serious weed known as common gorse between Parliament House and Lake Burley Griffin? Is he aware that this bed is seriously infested with rabbits? Is he further aware of the damage that the existence of this ridiculous situation does to our national image? Will he rake action firstly, to exterminate the rabbits; secondly, to spray the gorse with hormone; thirdly to sterilise the soil to kill any seeds of the common gorse as they remain viable for many years; and fourthly, to upgrade this portion of the area in front of Parliament House to a standard in line with the remainder of the area?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am not aware that a weed known as gorse is growing between Parliament House and Lake Burley Griffin, and I have walked around the area quite a good deal without seeing a lot of rabbits there. However, in view of the honourable senator’s interest in the matter, particularly regarding the spraying of the gorse to get rid of it and the killing of the rabbits, I will take up the matter with the Minister for the Interior to see what can be done.

page 906

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of the record deficit for which the Government of

Victoria has been forced to budget? Does the Commonwealth Government intend to take any steps to correct the deterioration of Commonwealth and State financial relationships? When will the Commonwealth Government announce what action it intends to take to stop the double taxation system on wages which it condemned 18 months ago?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not able to comment on the budgetary position of Victoria. The honourable senator linked that position with the matter of Commonwealth and State relationships. It is a fact that the financial agreement between tha Commonwealth and the States expires on 30th June next year. Very properly, the Commonwealth and States will require to renegotiate that agreement. I have no doubt that any State will raise any matter in relation to which it is in disputation with the Commonwealth. The Premiers Conference meets every year, as does th.2 Loan Council. The States discuss their requirements under a formula. In addition, grants that are made to the States for special purposes. The matter of Commonwealth and State relations is currently and constantly under discussion between the respective parties and will be critically under discussion, no doubt, prior to June of next year.

page 906

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Can the” Minister for Supply advise the Senate what stage the light aircraft project known as N2 has reached? Is there any likelihood that this aircraft will go into production in the near future? Can the Minister also advise the Senate whether the aircraft industry has received any firm contracts from overseas aircraft manufacturing companies for component parts which are likely to be in production in the immediate future?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Dealing first with the second part of the honourable senator’s question I would imagine this to be a reference to the contractual arrangement that the Government has entered into with the General Aircraft Corporation of America to build aircraft parts for export to America. At the moment we have entered into no firm contracts other than the overall general contract. We will enter into a contractual arrangement only when the General Aircraft Corporation is satisfied that it has sufficient orders in its order book to justify a commencement. I had an interview with executives of the Corporation in Sydney a few weeks ago. At that point of time they believed that they had sufficient orders to give them reasonable prospects of being able to make an executive decision on the fundamental issue within the next couple of months. That was probably three weeks ago. We are currently still viable in relation to that possibility. The situation in relation to Project N is that tremendous research has been done, as the honourable senator knows, in relation to this matter. We are almost at the stage where an executive decision will be made in relation to it. I cannot say any more at the present time.

page 907

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it not a fact that the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation have shown no enthusiasm for general wheat grading and segregation in Australia on the grounds that it would certainly increase storage and transport costs and there would be no certainty that it would either increase sales or the price of Australian wheat?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– A similar question was asked by Senator Wilkinson and I asked him to place it on notice so that a considered answer could be given by the Minister for Primary Industry. If I were to answer this question I consider that I would be out of court. Consequently, I ask the honourable senator to place this question also on notice.

page 907

QUESTION

WOOMERA

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence and also as Minister for Supply. Like Senator Davidson, I refer to the early construction of the United States communication station at Woomera. Is the Minister yet in a position to answer my previous question as to whether the operations of the station are likely to interfere in a technical sense with the present operations of the Department of Supply at Woomera or to have any effect in relation to administrative matters?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 do not believe that United States operations at Woomera are in any way likely to inhibit or interfere with the role of the Department of Supply there.

Senator Bishop:

– The Minister said he would make some inquiries.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. My belief is that these operations will not inhibit or interfere in any way. In one sense the United States operations will enable us to use housing facilities which may become available or which have already become available. In that sense they will add something to the community of Woomera. I am now referring to matters quite outside the defence role and to Woomera as a community complex.

page 907

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC FOODS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Government given consideration to the statements of various industrial interests that in the near future Australians will be eating industrially made food products which will have chemical components similar to the natural basic foods now produced in this country? I refer particularly to products in substitution for milk and its allied products and particularly beef and manufactures therefrom. Does the Government recognise the very serious problem which may beset the most important of our primary industries because of this threat? Has the Government noticed that the active governments of some States have legislated to disallow these substitutes? Will the Federal Government consider enjoining all State governments to take immediate and simultaneous action so that the dairying and meat producing sectors of the Australian community and the interests dependent thereon will be protected in the national interest?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Even the honourable senator would agree that the States are very jealous of their sovereign rights and would not thank us very much if the Commonwealth told them to intervene in a matter which was clearly their own responresponsibility. I understand the implications of the honourable senator’s question. It is true that we are living in a world of substitutes and that there are now substitute food products in the same way as there are substitutes for other products. I believe that we have the capability and know-how to adjust ourselves to the situation. Australia will always have regard to its fundamental primary industries and will protect them. That has been the policy of this Government and it will continue to be our policy. I do not believe it can be suggested that we should legislate against substitutes for foods produced by certain primary industries. I think the more practical approach would be for us to be able to accommodate ourselves to that situation. Finally I come back to my initial point that each State guards its responsibility very jealously and would not thank the Commonwealth for interceding.

page 908

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service and ask him whether the Australian Government has ratified Convention 122 of the International Labour Organisation, Article 3 of which Convention reads:

In the application of this Convention, representatives of the persons affected by the measures to be taken, and in particular representatives of employers and workers, shall be consulted concerning employment policies, with a view to taking fully into account their experience and views and securing their full co-operation in formulating and enlisting support for such policies.

Would the Minister agree that a more positive approach to promoting industrial peace would be per medium of Article 3 of such Convention than by inflaming the minds of unionists by criticising statements made by leaders of the trade union movement when they express views concerning the penal provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am at a loss to understand the reference in the last part of the honourable senator’s question. If it is a reference to a question asked of me and to the answer given by me in this place yesterday, I would hope that nobody would attribute to me any purpose to inflame or any words that would have the effect of inflaming the minds of unionists.

Senator Milliner:

– The questioner did.

Senator WRIGHT:

– We must always be prepared to exchange objective statements of purpose with regard to these matters, but I disclaim anything but an appreciation of discussion of these matters and any attempt to inflame the minds of unionists. Far from it. The honourable senator mentioned the particular Convention by number only. I would have to refer to my records before I could give an answer to the question, but the general principle of having present representatives of parties affected undoubtedly is one of the chief foundations of a sense of justice and one would readily support that in general.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator COHEN:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Does the Government intend, in its dying days before it leaves office, to tell Parliament what it would have done about the Fill? If so. when?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that the Parliament is to be dissolved on 29th September.

Senator Cormack:

– The Government will not be dissolved.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Parliament will be dissolved on 29th September is what I said and that is the exact constitutional position. I would say that it is almost as certain that the Government will be returned after that occasion.

Senator Georges:

– The gallup poll does not agree.

Senator ANDERSON:

– One is a document and the other is the will of the people. I have every confidence in the will of the people. After that little bit of horse play or fun and games I come to the substance of the question, which deals with the Fill. I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to Senator Devitt yesterday, and that is that when the Government has fully considered the report sought from its advisers who went to the United States of America it will then be in a position to make a statement to the Parliament or. if Parliament is not sitting, to the people.

page 908

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator YOUNG:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen the leading article in today’s Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, which states:

Blunt statements at the weekend by both the Prime Minister and Mr McMahon should put an end to the incredible mushroom of distortion that has sprung up over Australia’s attitude to Russia. The facts offer an interesting study of how quickly and widely misinterpretation or deliberate falsification can be spread.

Do not independent Press comments such as this show very clearly that many comments on statements by the Minister for External Affairs were taken completely out of context?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs on 14th August subsequently became a matter of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and indeed wrong judgments. The Minister for External Affairs himself, in the Parliament on 11th September, in response to a question asked by Mr Chaney, set out to make abundantly clear what were the facts in relation to the matter. On 12th September, in response to a question by Senator Gair, I repeated the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs in the other place the previous day in which he had made abundantly clear that what he had said had been misinterpreted.

page 909

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

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

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Its purpose is to see whether we can get some information regarding foreign companies that have borrowed on the Australian loan market. Apparently our research officer cannot get this information from the Treasury because Treasury says it is secret. Would it be possible for the Minister to obtain from the Treasury a list of all foreign companies that have borrowed on the Australian loan market?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am nol certain that the information that the honourable senator seeks would in fact be on the secret list.

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

– That is what Treasury said.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I would think that a search, of normal documents would establish overseas capital investment in Australian companies. Nevertheless, .1 shall set about getting a reply from the Treasurer on the basis of the question posed.

page 909

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether the Government is withholding action against young men who have refused to comply with the National Service Act. Is this because the Government wishes to avoid embarrassment before the general election? Or is it that the Government is reconsidering its attitude to these young men? If it is the latter will the Minister take steps to release the one young man who remains imprisoned because of the Act?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The National Service Act is part of the expression of the will of this Parliament and will be enforced in the ordinary way in every case where evidence of a breach of it is available. Misrepresentation occurred in regard to a recent incident relating to the burning of a document which was not a notice of call-up but a notice of deferment. Advantage was taken of the fact that the statute does not provide an offence for burning a deferment notice. There is no thought on the part of the Government in its action with regard to law enforcement under the National Service Act of avoiding any embarrassment as is suggested by the honourable senator.

page 909

QUESTION

SPAM

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he has seen a report that Spam is to be marketed in Australia. Spam is canned spiced ham in chopped form that became almost a staple part of the United Kindon) diet in World War II. The report states that after an initial period this product would use Australian pig meat, but meanwhile the product would be imported from the United Kingdom. Will the Minister obtain an assurance from the Minister for Health that pig meats in any form from the United Kingdom will not be allowed into Australia due to the risk of foot and mouth and other diseases?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have not seen the statement to which the honourable senator has referred; but, knowing well the concern that he feels about this matter, I will put the question he has raised before my colleague, the Minister for Health.

page 910

QUESTION

RELATIONS WITH SOVIET UNION

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, relates to the one previously asked by Senator Young regarding a leading article in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ which supports the Government on the question of negotiations with the Soviet Union. Will the Minister compare the ‘Daily Telegraph’ leading article with the contrasting article on negotiations with Russia which appeared in the ‘Bulletin’ a fortnight ago and was written by Mr Alan Reid, who is associated with the ‘Daily Telegraph’. Having compared the different lines in the leading article and Mr Reid’s article, will the Minister advise us whether the articles indicate that there is misunderstanding and misinterpreting in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ office as well as in the Cabinet?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have nothing to add to my earlier answer. I have not had the advantage of reading the article in the ‘Bulletin’ and therefore I am not competent to give an opinion upon it. But I believe that the point 1 made is still valid, namely that the statement made on 14th August by the Minister for External Affairs is and was the subject of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Happily, that misinterpretation is beginning to be recognised. The point made by Senator Young was very proper. The Minister for External Affairs himself in another place set about correcting the misinterpretation. It is refreshing to know now that a leading journal in the mother State of the Commonwealth recognises that he was misinterpreted.

page 910

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the policy of the Australian Labor Party is to continue the ban on the export of merino rams and ewes from Australia? So as to protect the great body of wool growers who strongly disapprove of the lifting of the ban, will the Minister for Primary Industry make an unambiguous and unequivocal statement that the present embargo on the export of merino rams will remain until a referendum of wool growers throughout Australia is taken and that the statement covers the period between now and the coming election?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Although I do not think it is very important, I know the policy of the Australian Labor Party. I believe that it is not important because as a result of the event that will be taking place in the near future the Labor Party will not or may not have the opportunity to implement it.

Senator Cohen:

– Such terrible arrogance.

Senator SCOTT:

– 1 have great confidence in the Government. In relation to the matter of the lifting of the embargo on the export of merino rams, Senator O’Byrne says that if the Labor Party is returned the embargo will be placed-

Senator O’Byrne:

– No, it will remain.

Senator SCOTT:

– He says that the embargo on the export of merino rams will remain. I inform him that the parliament of the wool industry has made a recommendation to the Government that the ban be lifted. As to what the Government’s intentions are and whether it will hold a referendum, that is entirely up to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask that that part of the question be placed on the notice paper.

page 910

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Will the Minister for the Army issue orders that all practices at Duntroon which have been complained of and which are now subject to inquiry will cease until the report of such inquiry is available?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for the Army.

page 910

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. By way of preface I refer to the feature article in the last two editions of the Sydney ‘Sunday Mirror’ relating to the apparent distinction applied to the migration to Australia from England of the Booth brothers. Can the Minister say whether the fact that John Booth is of Mauritian origin is the cause of the holdup? When can Mr Booth expect to know his fate?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This question, I recall, was asked some time ago when the matter first arose. I said that I had taken the matter up with the Minister, that he was having it looked at, and that as soon as 1 received some information from him I would inform the honourable senator. 1 have not yet received any information but in view of the honourable senator’s further question I shall discuss it again with the Minister.

page 911

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 wish to ask a further question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the subject of local government. Is it to be assumed from the Minister’s answer to me on the problems of local government in Tasmania that he believes this Government has no active responsibility in ensuring the viability of local government in this country? Does he appreciate the significance of the fact that while the national debt has consistently fallen over recent years the debt of local government has risen by approximately 950% and now stands at an intolerable level? ls there no initiative that the Federal Government can take in an attempt to assist, local government to get out of its present serious financial difficulty?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 would not want the honourable senator to draw any inference from my remarks that was not intended. After all, I served in local government. I was the mayor of a municipality and I understand the problems that local government has and indeed had when I was associated with it. 1 also had the responsibility of being a member of the Cumberland County Council which was the planning authority for the metropolitan area of Sydney. So I know some of the background to the problem. The point I want to make is that what I chose to call the third tier of government, local government, which is nearer to the minds and hearts of the people than any other form of government, has a line of communication and a line of responsibility which comes through the sovereignty of the States. Indeed, when there is a problem in local government it is not solved by the Commonwealth Government; it is solved through the State authorities. In the Australian Loan Council proposals, for instance, provision is made, at the sug gestion of the States, for local government to have a certain borrowing limitation. That would be a matter which was decided not as between local government and the Commonwealth but as between local government and the States. The order of progression is from the Commonwealth back to the States and from the States back to local government. That is the point that I was clearly setting out to make in my response to the question about Tasmania’s problems in relation to the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement.

page 911

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GEORGES:

– Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform the Senate how many cases concerning breaches of the National Service Act are pending?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I do not have that information. I shall see whether it is available. As soon as I can get it I shall inform the honourable senator.

page 911

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Has the present board of inquiry into practices at Duntroon power to call witnesses from outside the Service? is it the intention to call evidence from previous cadets who were discharged from the Service and who are now free of Army discipline, particularly those who claim to have suffered mental breakdowns as a result of hazing at Duntroon?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I informed the Senate yesterday, and I repeat it, that the chairman of the board had issued a public invitation to any member of the public to come forward and give information and that he specifically referred to past cadets who are now out of the Service. I also informed the Senate that the board would see to it that those witnesses would be brought to Canberra at government expense and afforded the opportunity of giving all evidence relevant to the matter.

page 911

QUESTION

MERINO RAMS

Senator COHEN:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to the answer given by the Minister to the question asked by ray colleague Senator O’Byrne about the lifting of the embargo on the export of merino rams. I ask the Minister: Irrespective of whether he approves of support by the Labor Party for retaining the embargo, does he not think it is important that the Parliament and the people should be told without any further delay whether the Government intends to lift the ban?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– A number of questions have been asked on this subject. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows - as well as anybody in the Senate - his question involves a prerogative of the Minister for Primary Industry. No doubt that Minister will make the Government’s intentions known when he thinks it right that they should be known. I ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper so that a considered reply can be given to him.

page 912

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: When will the honourable gentleman supply me with the name of the young man who has been imprisoned for 2 years for a breach of the National Service Act and advise me where he is imprisoned? Is the Minister facing the same difficulties that I faced when I tried to get this information from the authorities?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– No, I am not facing difficulties. I believe that I have the name of the young man and the other particulars on a file I have with me in the chamber, but when I refer to individual cases or incidents I like to check the accuracy of the information before I give it to honourable senators. As I indicated in an answer to a previous question I shall take the earliest opportunity available to get the information for the honourable senator and to communicate it to him. I just cannot refer to it at the moment.

page 912

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator McMANUS:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Does the report in the week-end Press of students claiming to establish a sanctuary for national service defaulters represent an attempt by a minority of students to revert to the mediaeval practice whereby persons of superior education, called clerks, were not subject to the same laws as other citizens were, and sanctuaries were established where educated lawbreakers were not subject to arrest? As the principle was established after a long struggle that all citizens should be amenable equally to the law, does the Government concede the right of this small body of students to revert to mediaevalism and to seek for themselves a privileged status not given to other citizens or even to other students?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I fully agree with the view expressed by the honourable senator in his question. I believe that there is no basis whatever for immunity from the enforcement of the law of the land on a university campus or within university institutions. What is recognised as the scope of the particular freedom or privilege of students is that they should be completely uninhibited with regard to an area of research and views as to knowledge that they develop in the course of their research and instruction. However, I would think that everybody who supports the rule of law would claim that the law applies equally to the staff and students at universities as to members of the public.

page 912

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Why, in the case of the prosecution of Robert Hall in Adelaide for failure to attend a medical call-up, did the prosecution ask for the defendant to enter into a recognisance that he would attend further call-ups and, when he refused to enter into such a recognisance, why was he sentenced to 7 days gaol, whereas such a request was not made in respect of a similar conviction in Melbourne last week? Why was this penalty sought in one case and not in another?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I do not readily call to mind the actual case in Melbourne last week to which the honourable senator refers. Therefore, to make a comparison of the two cases, I will need to ask the staff of the Attorney-General to give me a note on each and indicate to the honourable senator why the court may have taken a different view-

Senator Cavanagh:

– The prosecution took a different view.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Very well. I will indicate to the honourable senator why the court or the prosecution took a different attitude if that is indeed the case.

page 913

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a recent statement by the Prime Minister in which he said:

One of the essentials expected of overseas companies taking over or exploiting Australian natural resources is a sensitivity to the reasonable national aspirations of Australia whilst somewhat indefinable in detail but are known quite well by anybody who is at all sensitive to those aspirations.

I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has any equal in semantic balderdash ever been blurbed in a national parliament?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not think that the question rates an answer.

page 913

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

(Question No. 1324)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many people have been accorded political asylum in Australia during the last 5 years.
  2. In such cases do the people concerned have to follow the normal channels to acquire full Australian citizenship.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the foilowing answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. None. A number of persons asked to be accorded political asylum. The majority were members of crows of overseas ships and usually the requests were made orally during interviews. Statistics have not been maintained, but it is assessed that there were approximately twenty. Following consultation with other authorities and review of the circumstances, it was found in each case that political asylum was not in question and that each needed to be considered under normal immigration policies. Some of the applications were approved under these policies but again the number is not recorded.
  2. Yes.

page 913

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1341)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister satisfied that the revised international charter flight arrangements, which came into operation in late 1967, are having the intended effect of facilitating migrant family reunions either here or in their country of origin.
  2. Is the Minister aware of reports that an increasing number of overseas air travellers are purchasing tickets to the nearest terminal outside Australia where they can then purchase tickets for the balance of their journey overseas at prices substantially below those applying in Australia for the same journey.
  3. IE there is a difference in air fares in Australia and overseas, what is the reason and what can be done to bring prices in Australia into line with those applying elsewhere.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. The results of the revised international charter arrangements which came into effect in October 1967 have been highly satisfactory in regard to the number of charter flights operated. Since October 1967, 77 flights involving 9,698 charter passengers have been operated or are presently in the course of operation. In contrast practically no passenger charter flights to or from Australia operated prior to Octobar 1967.
  2. A comparatively small number of charter groups are known to have travelled on scheduled services to, and from, an overseas point near to Australia where they have joined, or disembarked, from charter flights of foreign carriers operating between Europe, and that point outside Australia. Some passengers have stated, in their experience, these arrangements have limitations such as uncertainty in regard to availability of aircraft at times proposed and inconvenience in arranging flight connections. The practice is, nevertheless, being watched closely.
  3. The air fares charged by the scheduled airlines for travel to, and from, Australia are approved by governments on the basis of recommendations by the International Air Transport Association. Fares are determined route by route having regard to such basic matters as length, operating cost and market conditions. Australia’s geographical position inevitably involves higher overall fares for travel to the more distant countries, even though on a per mile basis the cost of the fare may be comparable with routes on which lower overall fares apply. Charges for travel on charter flights, on the other hand, are a matter for individual countries to decide on the basis of their own policies toward international charter travel. The Australian Government has decided to prescribe, as it is entitled to do, a minimum fare designed to give proper protection to the scheduled airlines and, in particular, Qantas, whose revenues could be most seriously affected through substantial diversion of traffic to charter operations if no minimum price was set for passengers on charter flights. The normal minimum price has recently been reduced to 55% of the economy fare charged on scheduled services. As a special concession parents of migrants may travel to Australia to visit their families living in this country at 50% of the applicable normal economy fare on scheduled services.

page 914

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1489)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Department of Civil Aviation received any complaint that on 27th August at 11.45 p.m. and 12 midnight and early in the morning of 28th August three aircraft flew over the suburb of Bexley and the St George district in order to land at Kingsford-Smilh Airport.
  2. Is there an embargo on night flying operations at Kingsford-Smith Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.
  3. If the flights did in fact take place on which runway did the aircraft land.
  4. Will the Government ensure that there will be no relaxing of the embargo on night flying operations at Kingsford-Smith Airport except under circumstances of emergency.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. A complaint was made by telephone to the Sydney Airport authorities concering three flights which arrived in the terminal area about midnight on 27th August. These were jet aircraft, two of which arrived from Melbourne and one from Darwin. They would have passed over, or close to, the suburb of Bexley and the St George district in the course of their approach to make a landing on runway 07 (to the east). The weather conditions at the time were bad with complete cloud cover at 1000 ft, significant cloud at 800 ft, visibility two miles and continuous light rain. The aerodrome was closed at 2.24 a.m. due to fog. Under these conditions it was necessary for the aircraft concerned to use the runway which provided the most direct approach and was served by an instrument landing system. In this case the runway was 07. Use of the preferred runway for noise alleviation purposes (runway 34 into the north) was out of the question in these conditions and the aircraft were authorised to land at Sydney during the jet curfew period.
  2. Existing departmental policy precludes the scheduling of operations with jet aircraft at Sydney Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. In special circumstances, such as when schedules are unavoidably delayed due to weather, or when the demands of the travelling public justify the need for special flights, approval is given for jet flights to operate during the restricted hours. The flights in question were delayed because of weather conditions.
  3. As indicated earlier the particular flights landed on runway 07.
  4. Departmental policy in regard to night operations by jet aircraft was outlined earlier; no change in this policy is contemplated at this time. It should be noted that this policy applies to turbojet powered aircraft only. There are no restrictions on other types.

page 914

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1395)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many young men rejected as medically unfit for national service have afterwards been accepted for service in the Citizen Military Forces, or other defence services.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No records are maintained by the Services which would enable this information to be provided. Applicants for enlistment in any of the Permanent Forces, including the Citizen Forces, are required to state whether they have previously been rejected for enlistment in the Defence Forces. A person rejected for national service on medical grounds should indicate this when applying for enlistment. If he does so the documents relating to his national service medical examination would be made available if required. An applicant’s fitness for service is determined at the time of his application. Previous rejection for national service on medical grounds would not necessarily preclude his subsequent enlistment in any of the Defence Forces.

page 914

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

(Question No. 1444)

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the film ‘The Comedians’ has been banned in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. Has the censor no reason to offer for the imposition of the band other than that attributed to him by press reports that the film is undersirble and not in the public interest.
  3. Can the Minister inform the Senate why this film is alleged to be undesirable and not In the public interest
  4. Is it not a fact that thisfilm has been shown in most countries of the world and has received high praise from respected critics.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Subject to any appeal which may be lodged, the film has been refused registration for distribution in the Territory. No appeal has yet been lodged against this decision.
  2. and (3) The distribution of the film was considered by the responsible censorship authority to be undesirable in the public interest. The film as though to bc unsuitable for Papuan and New Guinean audiences because of scenes depicting racial violence.
  3. The film has been released in Australia. The position elsewhere is not known.

page 915

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 12th August 1969 Senator Lillico asked me a question without notice on the subject of imports of processed potatoes and the effect of these imports on the Australian industry. I undertook to get a reply in depth from the Minister for Trade and Industry, who has now supplied me with the following answer:

Potato production is a large and important primary industry. In 1967/68 the crop was 1,300 million lb. and the estimated crop in 1968/69 was 1,400 million lb. Local production of frozen processed potato products is not separately recorded in official statistics; however, unofficial figures supplied by the frozen processed potato industry indicate that local production in 1967/68 was 20 million lb. Imports of frozen processed potato products were 1.5 million lb in 1967/68 and 2.6 million lb in 1968/69. It is expected that sales of frozen processed potatoes will grow rapidly and should provide a substantial outlet for locally grown potatoes in the future.

The present duties on frozen processed potato products are 0.2 cents per lb (General) and 0.1 cents per lb (Preferential). The Tariff Board is currently reviewing these duties. Public inquiries were held in Melbourne on 11th and 12th August 1969.

Towards the end of last year, a Potato Products Industry Panel was established to keep a watch on the import situation. Both grower organisations and processors are represented on the Panel. Should the Panel at any time consider that the level of imports is such as to cause or threaten serious damage to the local industry it would be open to it to request action under the Special Advisory Authority procedures for temporary protection pending the outcome of the current Tariff Board inquiry. No such request has been received to date.

On the question of dumping, the Minister for Customs and Excise has announced that inquiries are being conducted to ascertain whether action is warranted under the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act.

page 915

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 26th August Senator Milliner asked me the following question without notice:

Has his attention been drawn to the contents of the Queensland Occupational Safety News Bulletin No. 10 in which it is reported that the Lovasa, Fiji, branch of South Pacific Sugar Mills Ltd, which employs over 700 adult workers, has twice exceeded 1 million man-hours without a lost time injury. Will the Minister for Labour and National Service request his officers to inquire from the firm concerned its assessment of how such an outstanding safety record has been achieved in order to ascertain whether the methods employed can be introduced in Australian industry.

In reply I said that I regarded this question as being most constructive and helpful and that as I had not seen the report referred to by the honourable senator I would refer it at the earliest opportunity to my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service. He has now advised me that the mill referred to by the honourable senator is in fact the Labasa branch of South Pacific Sugar Mills Ltd. The reported safety record is most impressive. However, without wishing to detract from this very creditable achievement, he points out that quite a number of establishments in Australia have comparable records. The journal ‘Australian Safety News’, published by the National Safety Council of Australia, has listed 46 establishments which have achieved a million man-hours free from disabling injury, some of them on more than one occasion. Three of these establishments are other mills operated by South Pacific Sugar Mills Ltd, but all the rest are in Australia. The methods by which such a standard of safety performance can be attained are therefore known to Australian industry, but there is great scope for them to be applied more widely and more effectively.

page 915

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND- SURPLUS ASSETS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - On 29th May 1968, when tabling the report of the Commonwealth Actuary on his investigation of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund in respect of the 5-year period from 1st July 1959 to 30th June 1964, 1 informed the Senate of the Government’s decision to distribute to eligible contributors and pensioners surplus assets as at 30th June 1964 amounting to $4,465,770 in respect of members who entered the Fund before 14th December 1959. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act (No. 3) 1968, assented to on 9th December 1968, provides the necessary authority for the distribution to be made.

As provided for in the legislation, of the surplus of $4,465,770 an amount of $776,000 is to be allocated among eligible pensioners and $3,689,770 among eligible contributors. To the amount allocated to each person will be added an amount that, if compound interest were payable in respect of the period from 1st July 1.964 until a future date that will be determined in due course, would be the amount of that interest. In determining rates of interest for this purpose the Act provides that the Treasurer shall have regard to the average rate of interest earned by the Fund and to such other matters as he thinks are relevant. In the financial year 1964-65 the average earning rate of the Fund was 5.325%, in 1965-66 5.739%, in 1966-67 5.685% and in 1967-68 5.886%. The rate earned by the Fund in 1968-69 is estimated by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board to be 5.935%.

When informing the Senate of the Government’s decision to distribute the surplus I stressed that there was much work to be done and emphasised that appreciable delays before payments were made would probably be unavoidable. The task is, in fact, proving to be a major one and, regrettably, is taking much longer than I had hoped it would. Thousands of contributors’ and pensioners’ records dating back to 1948 when the scheme was first established have had to be examined and reconstructed by the Board and special systems are having to be developed. However, the preparations of the Board have advanced to the stage where the Commonwealth Actuary is now in a position to devise, for the Treasurer’s consideration, methods of distribution that will ensure that each person will receive a fair and reasonable share of the amounts to be distributed and he expects to receive advice from the Actuary regarding pensioners later this month. The Actuary’s advice regarding contributors should be available to the Treasurer in November.

Allocations of surplus amounts to individual pensioners and contributors by the Board will not, however, follow immediately upon the Treasurer determining the manner in which the surplus is to be distributed after he has considered the advice of the Actuary. There is much essential data yet to be collated by the Board and additional systems to be developed. But the Treasurer has been advised by the Board that it should be in a position to make payments to most eligible pensioners currently in receipt of pension before Christmas, while payments to contributors should be possible by Easter or April 1970. A further statement will be made when the Board advises the Treasurer that it is ready to commence the distribution to pensioners.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– 1 move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 916

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) KILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As announced . by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) in his Budget Speech on 12th August, the Government has decided it would be appropriate to increase the rates of air navigation charges payable by domestic airlines and general aviation operators by 10% with effect from 1st January 1970. The Government decided to leave unchanged, for the present, the rates of air navigation charges payable by the international airlines. This Bill gives effect to these decisions.

The Bill amends the principal Act by substituting for the existing table of rates two new tables. The first is applicable to domestic airlines and general aviation operators and contains rates per 1,000 lb of aircraft weight which are 10% higher than the present rates. The second table incorporates the existing rates of charge and is applicable to the international airlines. In 1968-69 the cost to the Department of Civil Aviation of operating and maintaining airports and air navigation facilities, including administrative costs and depreciation and interest charges, amounted to some $68. 8m. Departmental revenues from the use of these facilities totalled $ 16.6m, while a further $9. 5m was paid by the operators in aviation fuel tax.

It will be seen that the gap between revenue and total expenditure is still large, even though the former is growing at a more rapid rate than the latter. The Government concluded, therefore, that if satisfactory progress was to be made towards the recovery of those costs properly attributable to commercial aviation, a further increase in air navigation charges was necessary.

In examining the matter, the Government had regard for the substantial increase in the charges payable by the international airlines which took effect from 1st January 1969. On that date, the rates applicable to the heavy international jets rose by about 21%, and this led the international airlines to protest that Australian charges were too high and that they were being required to meet more than a just share of the costs of airports and facilities.

With this in mind, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) has established a working group of Civil Aviation and Treasury officials and representatives of the domestic and international airlines which is currently examining the problem of analysing the costs of the Department. It is hoped that this working group will be able to determine whether any particular proportion of these costs can be attributed to each section of the aviation industry, thereby showing whether the contentions of the international airlines are correct or not. In the meantime, pending the outcome of this study, the Government considered it was reasonable not to raise the international charges. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator McClelland) adjourned.

page 917

QUESTION

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1969-70

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 16 September (vide page 902).

Department of Works

Proposed expenditure, S62,614,000.

Proposed provision,$ 80,3 80,000.

Civil Defence - Repairs and Maintenance

Proposed expenditure, $8,800.

Civil Defence - Buildings, Works, Fittings and Furniture

Proposed expenditure, $14,500.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– When progress was reported last night I had answered certain questions asked by honourable senators. Before I resume I would like to correct an impression that I gave which could be misleading unless corrected. In the context of losses under the armoured car payroll services I said that the Department had not suffered any loss of plant or of money, according to the Auditor-General’s report and to our own records. On reflection, and as prompted by one of my officers. I thought that that statement might give rise to a misleading impression. T specifically draw the attention of the Committee to page 354 of the Auditor-General’s report where, under the heading of ‘Department of Works’, in the general schedule of Defaults and Irregularities’, five instances of misappropriation within this Department are listed. In all, these five cases involved loss of money to the extent of $4,323.86. Honourable senators will see, in the Auditor-General’s report, the action that has been taken against each defaulting officer.

With regard to what Senator Webster asked yesterday about usable tools and their disposal, I inform him that the” capital cost and maintenance charge on small tools is charged to the projects on which the day labour employees are engaged and, after approval by delegated authority, unserviceable tools are destroyed and any tools which may become surplus to requirements are disposed of.

A question was asked, I think by Senator Wilkinson, about Post Office expenditure. I inform him that the amount of S229m quoted by him is provided under the appropriation for capital works and services for payment to the Post Office Trust Account. The amount of $30m quoted by him and appearing on page 75 of the Civil Works Programme is the estimated expenditure by the Department of Works on buildings for the Post Office. This amount is made available by the Post Office; that is, there is no appropriation of $30m to the Department of Works. The amount of $37. 35m referred to in my introductory speech on the estimates includes building works totalling $30m, engineering works totalling $250,000, repairs and maintenance totalling $5.7m and furniture and fittings totalling $1.4m, a total of $37.35m. The reference to $35m in the ‘Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme 1969-70’ is the total investment by the Post Office in building works for the year. This comprises the $30m to be expended by the Department of Works and $5m to be expended on the construction of buildings arranged separately by the Post Office.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I rise again on the estimates for the Department of Works, relating my remarks to the capital works and services for the Department of Civil Aviation, not only for the purpose of replying to some allegations made by the Minister last night about me personally and about the remarks T made when speaking to the estimates for the Department last night but also to indicate that whilst he accused me of miserable criticism for the purpose of obtaining political propaganda from a miserable and misconceived disparagement of the Kingsford Smith airport project others in the community over a number of years have adopted the same attitude. Frankly, the answers given me last night by the Minister were unsatisfactory and require specific statements from him.

Firstly, I take up with the Minister his statement about what he called my contemptible criticism that the foreshore of Lady Robinson’s Beach is late in recovery. He said:

Six months ago the same honourable senator-

That is myself - deigned to offer the criticism that we-

That is the Department - were spending too much on the project and he imputed that it was out of a desire on my part to make safe the seats of-

St George, Barton and Hughes for the Government.

When the estimates for the last financial year were before us I spoke on this matter. Since last night I have had a look at the record and, to again put the record straight, I repeat the statement I made to the Minister last night that never at any time have I criticised the Government for over-spending on reclaiming the foreshores of Botany Bay. 1 have always said that the work was behind schedule, and I quote from page 1203 of Hansard of 10th October last where, when referring to the reclamation work on Lady Robinson’s Drive, I am reported as having said: 1 notice from the documents relating to the civil works programme, to which 1 referred previously, that some $279,000 had been expended as at 30th June of last year. The total amount authorised for expenditure on the project is $478,000. For this financial year only $114,000 has been set aside for the work.

I emphasise the use of the word ‘only’. I continued:

The balance remaining as al 30th June 1968 for further expenditure is almost $199,000. Some $279,000 has been spent on the project and roughly another $200,000 has to be spent, but only $114,000 has been earmarked for expenditure in this financial year.

Then 1 went on to ask how long it would be before the beach front was restored as nearly as possible to its previous natural beauty. I emphasise that I am not alone in my criticism of the Department for the length of time that it has taken to carry out this work. In the newspaper the ‘St George and Sutherland Shire Leader’ published in October 1967, there is an article headed: ‘Liberal Outcry on Bay Erosion’. In that article the Government is criticised by the honourable member for St George (Mr Bosman) himself who is reported as having criticised the Department of Works, at a meeting of the Liberal Party, of being incapable of dealing with the erosion problem. According to the newspaper report he was joined in his criticism by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Arthur).

Senator Mulvihill:

– To what party does the honourable member for Barton belong?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– He belongs to the same party as the honourable member for St George. He represents the Liberal Party in this Parliament. I mentioned to the Minister that it was not for the purpose of political propaganda that I raised this matter; I raised it because the residents of the area have been very greatly concerned about the lack of progress, about the inadequate progress that has been made on the reclamation of the foreshores. I specifically ask the Minister how much is being allocated this financial year for the reclamation work that is involved. Further, can the Minister give any indication as to when the work is likely to be concluded?

The Minister also imputed to me improper motives in criticising the Department for the delay and the higgledy-piggledy arrangements that have gone on over the extension of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Again I emphasise to the Minister that I am not alone in my carping criticism of the Department. Over the years one can find in newspaper files reports of statements by colleagues of the Minister in this place and even by party colleagues in another Parliament concerning this matter. Criticism is to be found also in editorials of the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ which certainly is not a newspaper that supports the political party to which T belong. All speak in caustic condemnation of the Department of Works for the inadequacy of the arrangements that have been made with relation to the runway extensions to which 1 refer. Indeed, as late as 1st December 1968 the present honourable member for St George was reported in the ‘Sunday Telegraph’ as having attacked the planning and development of Mascot as a mixture of provincialism, politics and downright bungling. So I remind the Minister that when he attaches to me the adjectives of ‘contemptible’ and ‘miserable’ and when he accuses me of ‘misconceived disparagement’, it is not only I to whom these adjectives and accusations are directed but also a number of his colleagues in another place and in another Parliament, as well as others who have been criticising the Department for some time over these matters.

In addition to asking the Minister how much has been set aside this financial year for the reclamation work to be carried out along the foreshores of Botany Bay, and when it is expected by the Department that the work will take place, I ask the Minister, as I did last night, when it is expected that dredging for the additional extensions to the runway at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will commence and for how long those dredging operations will take place. As I said to the Minister last night, it is strongly rumoured - indeed it has been reported in one of the Sydney newspapers - that the dredging operations will take 120 weeks. If this is so, then I say frankly to the Minister, and to the Department, that it is not good enough.

Having said that on that subject, I again refer to a matter that I raised with the Minister last night and on which, as yet, I have received no reply. I refer to the subject of identical tenders. The Minister will recall that last night I pointed out to him that, in this place, on 21st May, in reply to a question asked by me, the Minister said that in the course of the administration of his Department within the past fortnight - that is in May - an instance came to his notice of an identical tender for some contract on the part of two or three companies and that this alerted him to pursue an inquiry into the matter immediately. Because identical tenders are a matter of great concern to a large number of public departments and public instrumentalities, as well as to some government and local government instrumentalities, I believe that when we are dealing with the estimates for this Department the Minister has a responsibility to indicate what, in pursuance of the inquiries that were made by him, was the result of the ascertainment of identical tenders being submitted to his Department.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I appreciate the replies which the Minister gave me this morning and last night, but I wish to refer again to Division 580. I refer in particular to the Customs House, Melbourne. The Minister told me that according to the best advice that he could obtain, there was nothing outstanding in relation to contracts or negotiations connected with that job.

Senator Wright:

– I have some further information for the honourable senator.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I shall be pleased to have it from the Minister. I referred to one other matter which I said had been engaging my mind quite strongly. I was concerned about what is happening in this Department, and what I would imagine could be happening in most departments. I refer to the provision for wages and salaries. 1 had mentioned that there had been an increase of 390 in the staff of this Department. I pointed out that according to my calculations this would mean an increase in the salary bill of some $2.7 1 7,000 compared with an actual expenditure last year of $25,694,000, and that this appeared to me to represent about 1 1 % or 12%.

Senator Wright:

– To what Division are you referring?

Senator WEBSTER:

– J reiterate for the benefit of the Minister that under Division 580 the actual expenditure last year on salaries and allowances and overtime was $25,694,534 and the estimate for 1969-70 is $28,412,500. If my arithmetic is correct, that represents an increase of 11% or 12%. The Minister made the comment that he fully supported his Department in its claim that because of the amount of work on hand such an increase in staff was necessary and such an increase in the wages bill was necessary.

The point that I make to the Minister is that in respect of two departments with which we have dealt previously this year’s estimated wages bill represents an increase of approximately 10% on last year’s expenditure. I have been seeking unsuccessfully some comment on how that figure is arrived at. I know that the Minister has said that it is a calculation of necessary overtime and one or two other things. But the main point in my mind is that these departments, whatever their level of efficiency is, see a necessity to increase their wages bill by 10%. It appears to me that the Department of Works, in demanding the types of personnel that are necessary for it, is putting pressure on private industry, which is in competition with it for those personnel. I can see an escalation of cost occurring in private industry. It is evident that an escalation of cost is occurring in this government department.

I note that the annual report of the Public Service Board states that methods, systems and management techniques have been promoted in the Department of Works, ft states that during the year in the Department of Works there was a review of construction administration involving mechanisation of various procedures. I suggest to the Minister and other honourable senators that that is evidence that the Department of Works was achieving savings which perhaps should be made evident in the estimates with which we are dealing. I would be pleased if the Minister could give me some of the thinking in this regard. I realise that he is one of many Ministers who are anxious to see economies produced within government. That is the point: to which I speak.

Let me put this question: What is the thinking of the Government and this Department on whether costs will escalate in the ensuing year? I have pointed out that in this Department there will be an increase of 11% or 12% in the wages bill alone. That estimate may be right at this time. I suggest that today private industry is looking for some action on the part of government to stem the ever-escalating cost of production, particularly in primary industry, certainly in secondary industry and also in the retailing industry. Some action by government is necessary to stem the constant increase in cost. I noticed, as the Minister may have done, a Reuter report in last night’s Melbourne ‘Herald*. Tt read as follows:

The Canadian Government has placed itself in the forefront of a battle against intiation with one of the severest cost-cutting programmes since the war.

Most Government departments will bc forced to curtail their programmes, and the Federal Government labour force of 250,000 will be slashed by 10%.

In effect. Government departments have been told to ‘swallow’ the bitter pill of inflation rather than pass it along into the economy of the country.

To announce the austerity programme Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau took advantage of a twonetwork, nation-wide television press conference.

By thus dramatising the occasion, he hoped to pressure the provinces, municipalities, business and labour into following the Government’s lead to check spiralling costs.

We can put that into our own context. We have heard about municipalities during this morning’s debate. I realise that the Minister’s heart is in this issue. I ask that he give us a little greater emphasis on this matter than has been forthcoming previously.

One other matter on which I wish to comment is the use of consultants, particularly Australian consultants. I know that this is a matter which the Minister has taken up with his Department and on which on occasions he has given me much information in this chamber. My comments are coupled with comments on the use of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority and its consultants. But perhaps that does not come within the ambit of the Department of Works. Quite early in the year I asked a question and received from one of the government departments a reply indicating the number of consulting jobs that had been taken over by government departments. The number amounted to ninetynine. 1 had those jobs looked at by a private consulting organisation in order to see just how many or what percentage of those jobs could have been undertaken by Australian consultants without the necessity of handing over the work to overseas based and oriented consulting firms. By far the majority of the ninety-nine jobs - in fact, something more than 70% of them - could have been undertaken with the abilities that we have within our own consulting organisations in this country.

I once had the pleasure of pointing out to the Minister something that I doubt that the people in charge of government knew, namely, that a consulting firm in Melbourne is one of the five largest engineering consulting firms in the world. Basically, the point that I make is that in consulting work - whether it be accounting consulting, architectural consulting or engineering consulting - that which is available to an Australian based consulting consortium is that which is available to a British or American consulting consortium. As I see the picture, what has happened is that we have invited overseas organisations to come here. They have willingly come to Australia. An overseas organisation has sent one of its top men out here and he has drawn from Australian organisations the staff to do the work.

The very point that 1 make to the Minister was given in reply to a question I -asked recently. I asked: When the Government approves of an overseas firm carrying out consulting work on governmental projects, does the Government calculate the financial subsidy or assistance which overseas countries grant to their firms and which in fact gains export income for those countries? The answer from the

Minister concerned was no. I regret that that is so. I know that the Minister for Works has some figures that I am anxious to hear. The position is that without great control somebody decides that an overseas firm has an expertise in drainage, for instance. So we call on that firm without ever calling for tenders and without ever looking very closely at the specific abilities that our own consortiums have. I ask the Minister and his Department to do in the coming year what J believe they have certainly done in the past year, namely, to draw the attention of the Australian public to what this Government is doing to assist Australian based consultants.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I. wish to refer to the report presented yesterday by the Public Works Committee and to try to correct an impression. The impression 1 got from the report and from the Press reports of the Committee was that the Committee had something to say about the position of the new hospital in Canberra and that it would not suggest any development until it was known where the new hospital was to be built. Senator Dittmer has informed me that the Committee was not discussing the position of the hospital at all but the position of the hospital laundry.

Senator Wright:

– That is right.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes. The wrong impression has been given to the public. I am not criticising anybody for that. The newspapers have interpreted it as having to do with the new hospital site. Senator Dittmer, who is a member of the Public Works Committee, has explained to me that the laundry work of all the hospitals in Sydney is carried out at one central hospital which has the machinery and the equipment to do the job. They are following a natural process.

Can the Minister give a brief explanation of the methods used by the Department of Works in handling tenders? The last speaker, Senator Webster, referred to tenders. I would like to know whether the Department has an established method for handling tenders for its own contracts for building work, ls there a special division which receives tenders and is there an accepted method of handling them? In what way is the Department involved in receiv-ing tenders for client departments? Do these departments have to tender in the same way as does a private contractor? Who has the general responsibility regarding tenders? In an organisation such as this the handling of tenders must be a mammoth task. Senator Wright’s explanation and demonstration of the Department’s activities makes it all the more imposing and certainly all the more involved. Proposed expenditure for 1969-70 includes $67m for civil new works and S4m for civil furniture and fittings. I cannot understand why the Department of Works has to control the purchase and installation of furniture and fittings for projects which include defence new works and defence repairs and establishment at a cost of S23m. The Department even looks after the acquisition of furniture for the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Senator O’Byrne:

– ‘But they pay the Department of Works for anything they receive.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes, but I am just saying that it could be too big a task and that the Department has too many major departments to look after with regard to furniture. For example, I worked in the Joint Coal Board for a few years and there wc had every chair numbered. That was all right, and if a chair was moved the people in charge knew what was happening. They could trace the smallest item. But I just do not see how the Department of Works can know what is happening with the S3 2m that is to be spent on furniture for the Postmaster-General’s Department. It would take a mammoth section to control all those affairs. If each department had charge of its own furnishings it would be a much easier job and could be much more easily controlled. I leave those matters with the Minister. I thank him for giving us the at sight description of his Department. I wish other Ministers would do the same thing because it is very difficult to work one’s way through these lines of expenditure which may involve an amount of S50m or Si 00m without giving any explanation. We here are quite uninitiated at these things - we are not very expert - and 1 believe that it does a lot of good to have an ‘at sight’ description of the department, as I have called it. It has allowed me to pick up a few ideas which I would never have gained otherwise, and I just pay my tribute to the Department and the Minister for doing it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I shall refer to the items in the order in which they have been discussed. Senator McClelland referred to Mascot and said that he resented criticism of him that I made yesterday. The substance of it was that although the report comprehensively describing the construction of Mascot up to October 1968 was laid before the Senate late last year no opportunity has been taken by the honourable senator to debate it in its entirety. It is a work of such dimensions that it is quite impossible to deal with it fairly in a few minutes during an estimates debate. The first thing that concerned the honourable senator was the repair work that was undertaken on Lady Robinson’s Beach. The total amount approved is $1.347m, of which $0.86 lm has been spent to 30th June 1969. The balance, $0.485m, is available for expenditure in this year. That will be spent as and when required.

One large item which will be a component of the expenditure is the re-laying of the sand on the beach when the restoration work is undertaken on the floor of the Bay in association with the extension of the runway from 9,100 feet to 13,500 feet in the contract that is about to be let. After the sand is excavated from the Bay - it will amount, I think, to 3 or 4 million cubic yards - to a shape and depth that has been advised by Wallingford’s Research Laboratory to the Maritime Services Board it is expected that any tidal interference due to the excavation will be corrected and then the beach will be in an appropriate condition to relay the sand for the reestablishment of the beach. That is the main item that is expected to be dealt with in future expenditure. But I still renew the challenge that I offered to the honourable senator last night, that at any time which is to our mutual convenience I am quite willing to inspect the foreshore on Lady Robinson’s Beach with appropriate representatives he might wish to accompany him and to have demonstrated to me any shortcoming in the work of restoration because my advice is that the work of restoration is very complete and very satisfactory.

With regard to the runway itself I inform the honourable senator that this major contract is about to be let and we may be in a position to announce the acceptance of lenders any day. According to the estimates, it involves a sum of the order of S23m. lt was a tender called after a delay necessitated by the reference to Wallingford’s Research Laboratory and the proposal to extract sand not from the floor of the Bay but from the mouth of the Bay. Therefore lenders could not be invited until May 1969, and then on a worldwide basis. When the tenders were forthcoming they did not contain the essential information which the Department required to ensure completion of the work with assurance and some time has been taken checking on the completion date. My Department assures me that the contract is expected now to be completed on the scheduled date early in 1972.

Senator McClelland:

– When will the sand be available for the complete reclamation of the beach?

Senator WRIGHT:

– ft is not possible to restore that sand until excavation has been made in the floor of the bay, removing between 3 million and 4 million cubic yards of sand according to a shape and depth devised by the laboratory at Wallingford. Then the floor pattern will be appropriate to adjust the waves to the beach. The beach will have the final layers of sand built up so as to restore it to its size and level preceding the damage.

Senator McClelland:

– But f am asking whether it will be completed before early 1972 when the total additional work will be completed.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That depends upon the time programme adopted for the excavation of the floor of the bay, and the excavation of much greater quantities - between 6 million and 7 million cubic yards - from the mouth of the bay. I cannot tell the honourable senator at just what stage in the limited time between now and the completion of the pier it is proposed to remove 3 million or 4 million cubic yards from the floor of the bay. The final restoration of the beach depends upon that factor. When these factors are taken into account, together with the progress of the construction of the international terminal itself - a contract involving about $ 1 4.3m and asso ciated contracts of sub-contractors - J think it is clear that any criticism of the project at Mascot emanates from a lack of engineering understanding.

Senator McClelland again this morning referred to identical tenders. I informed the honourable senator in my letter to him on 9th June of this year that I would write to him at a later stage. I then referred the matter to the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) who, in his reply of 3rd July, referred to matters of a confidential nature. On 4th August I wrote to the Attorney-General and asked him to communicate direct with Senator McClelland. 1 understand that since the honourable senator directed a question this morning to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-General has not furnished a reply to him.

Senator McClelland:

– I have not heard any more.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I atn giving the information now. Following the theme of the honourable senator’s inquiries, 1 would like to inform him that when my Department experienced like conduct in reference to a departmental contract there, the matter was referred to the Attorney-General who advised that proceedings should be instituted.

Senator Webster referred to the Customs House, Melbourne. In 1968 the Department rejected a claim for $561,000 by the main contractor in respect of the new Customs House for delays to the contractor and subcontractor. The claim was finally settled in December 1968 at $113,755. A further claim by the main contractor for $35,000 relating to mechanical work has been rejected. The contractor has been offered $8,369 in full settlement In addition, the air conditioning subcontractor has claimed $94,216 for expenses being rise and fall $74,216, and delays $20,000. He has just provided details to support the rise and fall claim and these are being examined. Justification of his claim for delays is still awaited. Some mechanical work included in the contract has yet to be completed to the satisfaction of the Department and an amount totalling $10,325 is held for payment when the work has been completed.

Senator Webster referred also to increases in departmental expenditure on salaries and overheads. I may have conveyed to him a wrong impression if he understood last night that I fully support the Department in increases of this nature. I said that I maintain a firm resistance against increases of this type. The situation is examined from time to time and I keep under review administrative and salaries expenditure in relation to the amount of work performed. I have soma figures showing the relationship between salaries and administrative expenditure and work performed in the period from 1963 to 1968, taking as the basis, expressed by the figure 100, work performed in 1963-64. That figure decreases in the following years, the figures being 92, 78, 76, 82 and 92.

The fall in the middle of the 5-year period was due to an upsurge of repetitive defence expenditure. The relationship is now on an index figure of 92, contrasting with a figure of 100 in 1963-64. For this year the net works expenditure was $235.75 lm, while administrative costs were $30.615m, representing a cost relationship of 13%. Various factors are involved, which I do not think honourable senators would wish me to take time to detail. In view of those factors that is not a bad relationship, but not the optimum comparison with performance achieved in this field in private enterprise.

Senator Webster has always been interested in the Department’s expenditure on advice from consultants. I put it to him, in a speech I made the other day, that the expenditure by the Department of Works on consultants has increased from $1.2m in 1964-65 to an expected $3.9m in the current year. It can be expected that it will continue to increase, not only in total value but also as a proportion of the work of the Government. A further matter which may be of interest is that in 1968-69, when the Commonwealth Department of Works spent about S3. 5m on consultant services, less than $100,000 of that amount was paid to consultants employed from outside Australia. I think honourable senators would be interested when discussing Senator Webster’s point of view to note that through the good offices of the Department of Trade and Industry Australian consultants have recently secured contracts, one for the design of roads in Thailand earning consultants’ fees of about $900,000, and another for a town planning project in Singapore worth about Sim. This indicates that there is great competition for con sultancy work. In the complex development of engineering activities a great number of jobs of the Department of Works now have a major involvement with costs ranging to $14m and even $23m, whereas the general run of work of the Department about 8 or 9 years ago was on projects costing $lm or $0.5m. The complexity of these works depends on a consortium of all the engineering skills, including consultancy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:
VICTORIA

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– Madam Temporary Chairman, I wish to make only two brief observations. I refer to Division 580 - Administrative. May I say in the first place that I am sorry that the Minister for Works spoke in such disparaging terms of Senator McClelland yesterday. I believe that this was completely unnecessary. I think honourable senators will appreciate that Senator McClelland applies himself more diligently to the task of representing his people than do many other honourable senators. I believe that the Minister’s statements were unnecessary and did not contribute to the decorum that we expect in this Committee.

I direct attention to page 883 of the Hansard report of this debate yesterday. The Minister said:

My colleague Senator Cotton also asked about apprentices. The Department employed 669 apprentices in a day labour force of 8,379 as at 30th June.

I believe that it would be of advantage if the Minister corrected that statement because it could be construed to convey that throughout a workforce of tradesmen of 8,379 the Department has only 669 apprentices. This would look bad in the eyes of a number of people who believe that governments are trying to attract apprentices. I would suggest that, if the information is available, it might be communicated to the Committee that the number of apprentices mentioned refers to tradesmen only. It would be appreciated that there would be some tradesmen, semiskilled and non-skilled persons in the employment of the Department of Works. But I believe that anybody reading those remarks would take them as indicating that out of a workforce of 8,379 the Department has 669 apprentices only. I believe that it would be better if the Minister related the number of apprentices to the number of tradesmen. 1 offer that observation because 1 believe that it would look bad if that statement were allowed to remain as it stands at present.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– 1 would not wish to make further comment in the discussion of these estimates dealing with the Department of Works about the use of consultants by this Department. We see that consultants are used to a great extent in the Department of the Interior. I believe that this is true also of the Department of National Development and the Department of External Territories. 1 accept what the Minister for Works has said perhaps as being a reflection of the great credit that the Government gives to Australian consultants who are able to gain work on their own merits in other countries. I am critical of the fact that we in Australia seem to think that it is necessary to employ overseas consultants with the result that perhaps the picture finally being given to overseas countries is that Australia would wish to select overseas consultants before it used the abilities of its own consultants.

Let me instance an example of this. I refer to a question that 1 asked the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) as Minister representing the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn). The question related to a government survey in Port Moresby. The Minister and I made some survey of this work recently. The reply reads in part:

The Minister for External Territories has stated that the Government has no plans al this stage for a transport survey of Port Moresby specifically, but there is currently being carried out a comprehensive transport survey of Papua and New Guinea (which includes urban transports) by Sir William Halcrow and Partners of London.

I realise that the Minister is unable to answer for the position that might apply in this respect. In the same answer, a further comment indicates that we are using consultants - Maunsell, Voorkees and Co. - to plan the town of Port Moresby. 1 have stated the full name of the company so that honourable senators who are muttering will be able to find out whence the company originates. I do say that we would do ourselves much greater credit by looking at the abilities of consultants within Australia before we demonstrate to some of the South East Asian countries that we do not consider that we have enough ability perhaps to develop harbours within this country, perhaps to develop railway systems or perhaps to conduct a survey of town and transport facilities. These matters in my view are pretty simple processes for any good consultant engineer in Australia to undertake.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise actually to expand the thesis that was developed by Senator McClelland. I relate my remarks to Administration, it is fitting that the Minister for Works also has a direct interest in the tourist industry. As I recall it - the Minister is aware of this - some 6 months ago, no less a person than the New South Wales Premier endorsed the scheme that I advanced that the Minister’s Department should emulate the practice of the United States of America in regard to the creation of a Federal agency to provide technical help and, in some cases, advancement guidance to assist councils and State authorities to deal with the rapidly increasing problem of beach erosion.

Senator McClelland referred specifically to the problem in metropolitan Sydney. My mind goes to belts of the New South Wales coast. Those belts would have their counterparts in other State coastlines. But 1 am thinking in particular of the coastline from Wollongong to the Victorian border and from Grafton to the Queensland border, in those areas large sections of sand dunes rapidly are becoming eroded. I think the fact that the New South Wales Premier conceded that there possibly was a case supporting the creation of an agency under the Minister’s Department is an advantage in advancing my argument.

I remember the occasion when this matter was featured in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. Following this publicity - the Minister was kind enough to give mc a copy of the Premier’s imprimatur in support of my ideas - 1 felt that I had achieved something and I hoped that the Minister might pursue the matter. Not merely did I ask how the Minister could assist the States. I understand that the Department, of the Interior is aware that in the Australian Capital Territory or regarding some sections of Jervis Bay which are under Federal control erosion is occurring. I am wondering whether or not the Department of Works has been called in to assist the Department of the Interior in relation to beach erosion problems in respect of any section of the Australian coastline, such as Jervis Bay which is under Federal control.

I wish to take the matter a little further. The Minister is also aware that a demarcation dispute arose with the New South Wales Minister for Conservation, Mr Beale, in regard to the disposal of money provided by the Commonwealth Treasury for flood mitigation. This demarcation dispute concerned the point where, by definition, flood mitigation ended and genuine beach deterioration began. I refer to the position at Shoalhaven Heads. I think the Minister will be aware that I gave him some Press clippings from some South Coast newspapers in which people, such as Councillor Gordon Ritchie of the Shoalhaven Shire, have made a feature of this region’s deterioration.. The Minister knows that I am not indicting his Department directly in any way. The fault lies with the New South Wales Minister for Conservation, Mr Beale. I have always held the view that Commonwealth departments always should be the pacesetters. They must mould public opinion. Sometimes the reluctant dragons - here I refer to some but not all of the State Premiers - must be offered a carrot before they will become concerned with these matters. I think that, as Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, the Minister is aware also that sometimes a few thousand dollars spent now to preserve sand dunes means that a particular area is being preserved for posterity as well as for its tourist potential.

To sum up, I would like to know whether the Department of Works has been allied with the Department of the Interior in action regarding beach erosion in the Jervis Bay region. I wonder further whether, following the agreement which Mr Askin expressed regarding my proposal, the Minister’s Department feels that it can emulate the structure that has been created in Washington in regard to this vital field which will grow in importance as the years go by.

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania - Minister

Ormonde on the question of furniture, I wish to inform him that the Department of Works operates as the Department which procures and supplies furniture and fittings to all government departments. This work is regarded as requiring the expertise of a special branch of this Department. I think that the honourable senator will agree that, regarding furniture, a very keen judgment is needed to ensure that sound construction is involved. When the furniture is placed with various departments, it comes under their control as to how and where it is used.

In further reply to Senator Ormonde in regard to his question on tendering, I state that in the main we rely upon public tenders, but there are some occasions when, for some reasons such as non-availability of tenders, we must negotiate contracts.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I wish only to add to the information that I was giving to Senator Ormonde when the sitting was suspended. Public tenders are dealt with through advertisements in the Press and the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’ and close with the respective branch Directors of Works at regular times and days each week. The tenders are dealt with by tender boards consisting of the Director of Works as chairman, the Assistant Director of Works (Design) and the Accountant, with the Contracts Officer as secretary. Immediately after each tender board meets the names of all tenderers in order of price, but not showing the price, are displayed on the branch notice board.

Senator Milliner referred to apprentices, f am able to inform him that of the day labour personnel mentioned 3,508 are tradesmen and, as set out in my statement, 629 are apprentices. As to Senator Mulvihill’s contribution, I take a continuing interest in the matter of beach sands but there is nothing relevant to it in the Department of Works estimates. However I can assure him that my interest in the subject will persist.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to raise two points that have been mentioned by Senator Ormonde because I think they need further consideration. I refer to Division No. 582 which relates to furniture and fittings. The Minister has told us that the Department of Works is only the purchasing department for other departments but I should like to know where the furniture and fittings are used. Where do we of this Senate, which has to approve the proposed expenditure, obtain information relating to the expenditure of funds on furniture? lt will be noticed that last year $549,500 was allocated to the Department of Civil Aviation of which $502,179 were spent. This year the proposed allocation is $890,000. ls this expenditure justified? Why does the Department of Civil Aviation need so much additional furniture this year? 1 think that details of the Department’s requirements should be given somewhere.

We cannot query the department which is securing the furniture because this is nol one of its items, of expenditure, and we cannot get any information from the Department of Works because it is only purchasing the article for another department which then decides where and how it will use the furniture so purchased. This does not seem to me to be a proper way to examine and approve estimates of proposed expenditure. The same remarks apply to the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Interior. Last year the Department of the Interior spent $136,226 on furniture and fittings but this year the appropriation is $319,000, nearly three limes last year’s expenditure. Why does the Department of the Interior want this big additional allocation of funds for furniture this year? Where do we find details of this matter? As I have said, we cannot query the Department of the Interior because this is not one of its items of expenditure, and the Department of Works is only the purchasing department and obviously does not know the reason for the increased allocation. If the Minister could help me in finding a solution to this problem I would bc appreciative.

The other matter to which I wish to direct attention - 1 do not think it was made sufficiently clear when it was raised earlier - relates to the letting of contracts. I think the Department should give closer consideration to the use of day labour on its own construction projects. Senator Ormonde pointed out that because of conditions in the building trade at present government departments should take the initiative in maintaining the high standards of building construction that we desire, thus ensuring that we have a substantial building when the job is done.

Contracts are let to sub-contractors who in the main have adopted the piecework system for the purpose of defeating awards of the arbitration commission. Their employees do not receive award wages; they receive only a living wage, that standard being attained only by their working overtime and producing quantity rather than quality of work. To a government department this raises many questions. As I have said, the piecework system is adopted essentially to defeat industrial awards and to avoid the payment of pay-roll tax. An employer is liable to pay pay-roll tax when his wages bill reaches a certain level. Because building contractors today divide a construction job into sub-contract work, they are erecting big buildings without being liable for the payment of pay-roll tax. The builders pay piecework rates, which are below award rates, and such things as workers compensation and safety on the job are neglected.

From the point of view of a building authority, which the Department of Works is, there must arise continually the question as to whether, in view of the fact that the contractor who receives the job employs so many sub-contractors who have to reduce every possible item of expenditure to get somewhere near a living wage, it is getting a construction in accordance with its specifications. The building authority always has either its architect or its clerk of works on the job to see that the building is constructed in accordance with specifications, but he works usually from 9 till 5 so that work which continues after 5 o’clock is not done under the supervision which is so essential if we are to have solid construction. It is essential to test frequently the strength of concrete - samples are taken for the purpose of testing - and it is essential that reinforcing goes into the concrete, but what happens after 5 o’clock and work continues, as it frequently does, when the job is let to private contractors? We do not know.

I would add only one other thing. The peculiarity of architectural designs and specifications today gives rise to many building practices which, to say the least, could be suspect. I noticed that ceilings in the terminal buildings at the Adelaide Airport were being lined with stolomite - I think that is the trade name - which is pressed straw with joiners glue made of some composition. The joiners glue perishes after a certain number of years. This article has been used throughout South Australia and the job has quite an attractive appearance for a time but experience over a number of years has shown that the material is not substantial and that there is very little market for it because of the maintenance and repairs that are required.

You will remember. Madam Chair, that on one occasion I raised the question of using ceramic tiles instead of vinyl tiles. Although the cost of a building can be kept down to a certain level by the use of what I regard as inferior materials, I should like to know the extent to which the Department takes into consideration the maintenance costs with which it will be faced in the future. This unusual material - stolomite - and in fact materials which have been rejected by other builders are being used in constructions undertaken by the Department of Works, such as the Adelaide Airport job, possibly at a price which is competitive with the price of a much superior ceiling lining, but I wonder whether any consideration has been given to the cost of maintenance of the material in the future. In our efforts to reduce the initial cost are we disregarding maintenance costs? I am mindful that it was said at one time that it is much easier to get through this Parliament an allocation for maintenance costs than an allocation for capital costs. Firstly, the Department should consider whether it should do more work by day labour and whether it should select contractors on their reputations rather than selecting the lowest tenderer. It should inquire into the set-up of particular contracting firms and whether they employ piece work essentially for the purpose of avoiding pay-roll tax. Secondly, there should be more consideration and consultation as to the materials used in construction.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Minister referred to the achievements of his Department and gave a dissection of expenditure as between branches. I ask him whether he will have a dissection made of the expenditure by the Victoria and Tas mania branch to determine how much is expended in Tasmania. Also, 1 should like to refer him to operations and maintenance at the Launceston Airport terminal, in relation to which the Auditor-General in his Report stated that there was an increased expenditure of $240,415, which was due mainly to additional work under the programme, the accepted tender being in excess of the estimate, design changes and rise and fall payments. Can the Minister say whether this work has now been completed and what was the final cost of the terminal?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

Senator Cavanagh referred to the proposed provision in Division 582, sub-division 1, for furniture and fittings. So far as the Department of Civil Aviation is concerned the proposed appropriation for the current year is $890,000. Last year the vote was $549,500 and the expenditure was $502,179. The total programme for the current year amounts to $980,629. I have a break-up by States which I could supply later if the honourable senator would permit that course. The programme is completely examinable by our present processes but I would be without information as to any particular purchase unless I had some notice so that I could get reference to the departmental files. Senator Cavanagh referred to the method that has developed in the building trade of sub-contracts taking the place of direct employment. It is a noticeable feature in post-war years that building contracts have become arrangements of a series of contracts. I do not profess to be able to make any comment upon the satisfactoriness of architectural design but I would not think that there would be one contract let in which the matter of the relative cost of future maintenance of one design as against another would be neglected.

Senator O’Byrne referred to a dissection of the Tasmanian programme. It is very small. He can understand that it was one of the items to which I directed my attention very early after my appointment to this portfolio. The programme is very minimal indeed, consisting of very small contracts, but as he knows there is a project proposed which, if adopted, will expand very greatly construction requirements in Tasmania. The honourable senator has referred to the increased expenditure of $240,415 at the Launceston Airport terminal and to the passage in relation to it in the Auditor-General’s report. As the Auditor-General says, it was due mainly to additional work under the programme, the accepted tender being in excess of the estimate, design changes and rise and fall payments. I think Senator O’Byrne would readily understand that that is explained on the basis of a very magnificent design and garden features that have been laid out with very great advantages from the point of view of parking space and pathways, probably earning for Launceston Airport the status of premier airport in the Commonwealth.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– Has the Department yet been entrusted with any preliminary drawing of plans or designs for the new Parliament House? Has the matter reached a stage where it has been entrusted to the Department of Works?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted.

The Parliament

Proposed expenditure, $3,079,000.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

- Senator Mulvihill indicated to me that he wished to raise some matters in relation to this proposed appropriation but at the moment he is out of the chamber. I refer to Division 101, which relates to salaries and payments in the nature of salary for the Senate. The proposed appropriation is $240,000, which ls a considerable increase on the expenditure of $173,736 last year. I should like some dissection of this amount to show whether this increase is due to an increase in the number of people employed. There is also an increase, but to a lesser extent, in the corresponding appropriation for the House of Representatives. I should like to know whether provision is being made in the appropriation for additional staff, for the Senate in particular, because of the great need to relieve the Clerk of the Senate and his assistants of many of the duties surrounding the formation of select committees. The amount of work that has to be performed by the present staff is becoming almost impossible for it to handle because of the increase in the number of committees.

The need for research staff for committees also is becoming more urgent. Whether research staff should be provided by the Parliamentary Library or directly through the Senate is perhaps a matter of policy. I draw attention to the growing need for the provision of office accommodation and all other facilities that are necessary to enable select committees to function as efficiently as possible. I am a great believer in encouraging the committee system. The committees which have been operating and which have presented their reports, as well as those in the process of preparing reports, have dedicated themselves to their work and have done a splendid job. They are making a very effective contribution to the work of the Senate and the Parliament. I believe that attention should be drawn specifically to the need to provide the proper staff and facilities to assist in this very important work. Other matters to which attention should be drawn I shall leave to my colleague Senator Mulvihill.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I always find it very difficult to ascertain from people who work in Parliament House what their wages are and which tribunals assess their salaries or determine their working conditions. Recently I was approached to say something about the conditions for what might be called the upper Public Service groups or upper-managerial staff of the Senate.

Senator Poyser:

– What about the workers? Why not start at the bottom and work up?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I started at the bottom when I said that I can never find out who fixes wages and conditions and what the wage rates are. This morning as I came into Parliament House I said to one of the attendants: ‘You will be reaping it in this week. You are working long hours as we are and you will be getting double time for everything’. He said: ‘No, you are wrong; we are not getting a penny overtime’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That cannot be right.

Senator ORMONDE:

– It is true. Because they finish work before nightfall they receive the same wages as they would receive at any other time. They are not paid overtime because theirs is all day work and includes no night work, lt is only for work at night that they receive overtime.

Senator Georges:

– What about work performed after a certain number of hours?

Senator ORMONDE:

– Surely my own side is not going to question what I say. 1 should like the Minister to explain to the Committee just what happens when men working in Parliament House are dissatisfied with their conditions. 1 should like to know also whether it is true that because they finish work before sunset they do not receive payment for overtime. If this is the situation I can understand honourable senators being surprised because overtime is usually related to work beyond a spread of 8 hours.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But those who work until 11 p.m., when the Senate adjourns, would receive overtime.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes, because they are working at night: but if they finish work at 6 p.m., even if they have worked a 10-hour shift, they receive no overtime payment.

Senator Gair:

– At what time do they start in the morning?

Senator ORMONDE:

– T do not think that matters.

Senator Gair:

– How do we measure the period of work if we do not know when they start?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I gather that they all start at 8.30 a.m. Anyone coming into Parliament House as early as 1 do would see them at their work. When the Parliament is sitting for extended hours 1 believe that the staff should be compensated for the hours during which they are in attendance to enable us to carry on our work.

Senator McClelland:

– I suppose they would have to sign on.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I did not go into those details. I am merely reporting the complaints that I have received from members of the staff. This is a matter to which Senator Poyser has applied himself on many occasions by asking questions in this place. I should like the Minister to state the official version of conditions which operate for the Senate staff.

Senator Gair:

– During the parliamentary recess also?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I do not think we should go into that.

Senator Gair:

– Let us have the whole picture.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Our wages go on during parliamentary recess.

Senator Gair:

– That is so, but that does not come into it. Do not confuse the issue.

Senator ORMONDE:

– We ensured early in the piece that our conditions would continue during the recess.’But I move on now to another point which concerns me greatly. I wonder whether the Parliament really understands what is happening in relation to the news services which emanate from Parliament House.

Senator Anderson:

– To which item is the honourable senator referring?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I am relating my remarks to Division 101. I wonder whether the Parliament as a whole understands, has consideration or sympathy for, or is really interested in the news services which operate from this chamber and the other place. There was a time when the representatives of newspapers had absolute freedom in reporting the Parliament and they provided free and competitive news services. Every boy in the Press Gallery was working for his individual employer which meant that we saw good competitive journalism. But that is hot now the situation. There is now one news service only going out from the parliamentary Press Gallery, that being the one directed through the Australian Associated Press which, if I may use the term, is the major monopoly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– I ask the honourable senator to relate his remarks to a particular vote.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I am referring to news services from the Parliament, which is very important, and am relating my remarks to Division 101.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Division 101 relates to salaries, overtime and the salary for the Clerk of the Senate.

Senator ORMONDE:

– The payment of salaries involves the expenditure of money and if the news services from the Parliament are not important I do nol know what is important. I am sure that there is no other part of the Estimates debate in which I can refer to the subject.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Members of the Press are not paid by the Parliament.

Senator Cant:

– Who provides their accommodation? That is a cost to the Parliament.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I thank the honourable senator for introducing a point that I was about to raise. Without the financial aid of the Parliament the Press could not operate in this place. We provide accommodation for the Press. But to move on to the important part of what I was saying, every boy in the Press Gallery sends out his news copy through Australian Associated Press. It all goes through the one avenue. It does not go out through a separate representative for each State, nor does it go out through separate representatives of each newspaper from each State. That means that Australians are dependent on the attitude and opinion of that one man who subs the news. If Ormonde’s story on drugs is worth printing it is run and it is run in every paper in Australia. If that one man, who is of unimpeachable character, decides that a story is not suitable-

Senator Young:

– Hear, hear!

Senator ORMONDE:

– I do not think the younger members of the Senate are serious at the moment, but this matter is a very serious one. The Ormonde story goes over Australia if this man says so. There is not half a dozen journalists to listen to it and decide whether it is valuable or whether it has anything in it or not. It is vetoed or accepted by one person, who is a sub-editor for that group. He might be a great judge of what the public should know. I suggest that the Parliament, as a parliament, should be interested in how the news of the Parliament is served to the general public.

Senator Young:

– Does the honourable senator mean a single outlet for all Press reports or for the Ormonde story only?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I could make much of that if I wanted to do so. However, it is true that there are reporters in Parlia ment House. One independent source that is not responsible to AAP, or vice versa, is the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator Georges:

– For one moment I thought the honourable senator was going to say Maxwell Newton.

Senator ORMONDE:

– That is another point altogether. The national services are available as free agencies. I think the Melbourne ‘Sun News-Pictorial’ might be a free agency also; I am not certain of that. But most certainly every other Australian newspaper uses this single service; not only do the newspapers use this single service, but one mind determines what is to be used. One mind determines what comes out of this Parliament as parliamentary news. Honourable senators do sneak out the back and slip a story out now and again.

Senator Cant:

– Oh, Jim!

Senator ORMONDE:

– I am not without certain knowledge of that. I am talking about news from Parliament. The news services are one. I do not, for example, think Alan Reid would be involved. He is a writer of great ability. He is what one would call a gossip writer. He gets on to a lot of good stories.

Senator Cormack:

– The honourable senator is not doing too bad a job of that.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I beg the honourable senator’s pardon.

Senator Cormack:

– 1 was talking about gossiping.

Senator ORMONDE:

– He is a gossip writer. I do not say that disrespectfully. The public is interested particularly in Canberra gossip. That is the real news. The public is interested in what comes from Parliament House in Canberra.

Senator Gair:

– No-one can invite a friend to dinner unless the Press finds out.

Senator ORMONDE:

- Senator Gair is not without some knowledge of how to get a bit of gossip distributed to the Press, I would think. I do not say that that is not necessary; it is. One needs to have colour. The important fellow in the news services is the fellow with sole authority to say what is read in all papers. I refer to straight Press reports. Allan Barnes of the ‘Age’ has an independent view and does things independently. The ‘Courier-Mail’ would have a similar type of gossip writer. These writers do not deal with the straight, hard news. The straight, hard news of what occurs in Parliament goes through one source, the AAP. lt is very important that the ABC continue as an independent body because most of the other stations are tied up with newspapers and with their sources of information. I had experience as a journalist. For a period 1 was in charge of public relations for the coal industry. If ever an industry was abused, vilified and misrepresented over the years, that one was. The men working in the industry and the managerial side are included. The Press always ran a good story when a ship was racing to Adelaide with a load of coal.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I ask the honourable senator to return to the estimates.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Of course I will. Madam Temporary Chairman, I do not think you understand me. lt is very important to have an independent avenue of news distribution because if you do, that at least keeps the other sources of news somewhere in line. I used the ABC to tell the factual story so that in an oblique kind of way the newspapers would have lo keep in line in some way or other with the facts because their reports were not always factual.

Senator Gair:

– That is assuming that the honourable senator told the truth.

Senator ORMONDE:

– T always told the truth.

Senator Gair:

– George Washington.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Not necessarily, but I gave the facts. The facts are the truth. Very often the facts become the truth. I rose to remind the Senate that we are in the hands of a kind of journalistic monopoly in relation to the hard news material released about debates in this chamber or in the other House. I do not say that there are not independent journalists in the lobbies who are not doing their job, who are entitled to do their job and who have the full confidences of the Ministers. I think they are entitled to that. Those purveyors of the hard truth in either House are in the hands of one journalist who sits there and subedits the material as it comes to him and determines what goes to the south, to the east or to the west of Australia.

Senator Martin Cameron:

– Would the honourable senator nationalise the papers?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I would rather nationalise them my way than let the newspapers nationalise themselves their way.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator’s time has expired.

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

– There are only two matters that 1 wish to raise. The first relates to the salary of the Clerk of the Senate. I do not want to raise anyone’s hopes; I do not intend to raise the salary angle. When one studies the information contained in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) one finds that in nearly every other department a hospitality or business expense account allowance is paid to the Permanent Head. I am not sure if 1 have the right word, lt is called an allowance, but it relates to hospitality. Surely if there is one position that needs to carry a hospitality allowance, it is the office of Clerk of the Senate. I include the corresponding position in the other place. Many overseas people visit this House, at the invitation of members of both sides of Parliament, and there is no chance to return the hospitality which is given lo our representatives when they go abroad. Overseas people extend this hospitality to our representatives, yet we are unable to return it. I. want the Minister to take note of this. I think that he, as Leader of this House, ought to take the matter up with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to make sure that next year an allowance is provided. ] do not want to deal with the snobbishness of the hierarchy in Canberra whereby a person on a certain salary level gets a certain allowance and a person on the next salary level below gets something less. That is, a person receiving a salary of $22,000 per annum has an allowance of $1,500 per annum, and a person receiving a salary of $19,000 per annum has an allowance of $1,000 per annum. Because the salary of the Clerk of the Senate is only $15,000 he does not get an allowance. I do not say that his position should be upgraded or that he should receive a salary in the $19,000 per annum range, but he should have at least a hospitality allowance.

Senator Young:

– Does the honourable senator think that leaders of parties should get a similar allowance?

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

– I am coming to that later. I now refer to Division 104 - Library - salaries and payments in the nature of salaries. I have abused the Library staff quite often. I hand in lists of books and 2 years later I get the books for which I have asked. Nevertheless, apart from that slight idiosyncrasy, I am sure that every member of this Parliament will agree that we get very efficient service from the members of the Library staff. Admittedly the staff has grown to a far greater extent than that of any other department that I know of, but the service rendered has been of extreme value to those of us who have been independents sitting alone in this Parliament without any press of private secretaries to do the work for us. We can all now be confident that if we ask for anything from the Library it will be produced within minutes. It is of tremendous credit to the Library that it has made this service available to us. I merely wanted to say: ‘Thank you’ publicly to the Library staff for the work done on my behalf.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to Divisions 103 and 104. Division 103 relates to the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. The actual expenditure by this Department last year was $255,570. It is estimated that this figure will increase to $290,000 in the year 1969-70. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether this estimated increase in expenditure is to cover the various increases in salaries and payments in the nature of salary that follow in the ordinary course of events or whether it is envisaged that there will be an increase in the number of members of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff.

Those of us who have been involved in parliamentary activities during the parliamentary recess have become aware of the extra demands that have been made upon the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. I think every honourable senator will agree that the members of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff do a singularly good job in their day to day activities while Parliament is in session. But with the advent of new Senate select committees and joint committees, in the work of which senators and members of the House of Representatives are involved, the demands made upon the members of the Parliamentary Reporting

Staff have increased considerably. Recently we have had the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution, the Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir, the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs, the Senate Select Committee on Offshore Petroleum Resources, the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and others all engaging in extensive sittings during the parliamentary recess. All these have made extra demands on the Parliamentary Reporting Staff during time that would normally be devoted to the duties connected with the carrying out of what might be called that staff’s parliamentary activities. There seems to be a desire in the community that this system of committees should be extended and intensified even though it means an increase in the demands on the time and activities of senators and members. If it should be extended, then there will need to be a considerable upgrading of the facilities that are provided not only at the secretarial level but particularly in respect of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. This could involve not only the appointment of additional personnel but, I submit, an upgrading in the machinery or processes adopted by taking advantage of certain modern recording and duplicating devices.

I come now to Division 104 which relates to the Library. Here I refer first to the efficiency of the Parliamentary Library. Having been entrusted by the President of the Senate with the privilege of being a member of the Library Extensions Subcommittee, I have had the opportunity of close association with the Librarian, Mr Fleming, and the members of his staff. I take this opportunity of placing on record the same kind of tribute that Senator Turnbull has just paid to the efficiency of that staff. I endorse what he has said also about the extraordinary increase which has taken place in the output of all members of the staff in serving honourable members and senators.

Honourable senators will have noticed that the appropriation proposed for 1969-70 represents a substantial increase over the amount expended last year. This is to cover increases in salaries and a wide variety of incidental expenditure related chiefly to office equipment, photo-copying, stationery, postage and other matters. More importantly, it is related to what I believe to be the substantial growth in the total demand made upon Library services by honourable senators and honourable members. At one time members and senators had but small acquaintance with the Library. Only in comparatively recent times have they felt persuaded to take advantage of the many services which are available, particularly in the Legislative Research Section and in the Reference Section. Because of the importance of the increased demands and their relationship to the debate on the Estimates I think it pertinent to put on record that requests for specialist research assistance have increased considerably in recent times. For example, in 1967 there were about 650 requests for specialist research assistance. These increased to well over 1,000 in 1968 and it is estimated that for 1969 the number of requests will increase to 1,500. The requests for reference information have jumped in the same period from 1,600 to something like 3,800. Naturally, in meeting this increased demand the output of individual members of the Library staff has continued to grow.

I put it to the Minister that he should keep these facts very much under survey, because if the demands from senators and members continue to grow it must surely be reasonable to expect that additional staff will be required because, in the nature of things, parliamentarians and Parliament itself require the meeting of requests quickly, indeed almost instantly. This could also mean that there will be need for additional equipment and space. Not only will the Library need books and research material; it will also need personnel. More importantly at this point of time, in my view, the Parliamentary Library services will need space. In the opinion of the Legislative Research Committee, more space is in urgent need at the moment. Indeed, the conditions under which the officers work are severely cramped and I pay high tribute to them for the amount of material which they turn out so quickly under conditions which in my view are not at all satisfactory. I suggest to trie Minister that in considering the development and maintenance of Parliament every consideration should be given to increasing the amount of space available so that the Parliamentary Library staff may be able not only to maintain the service that h is giving at the moment but also to increase that service as the demands upon the members of the staff increase.

It is interesting to note that of a staff of sixty-nine the Library, has a professional complement of some .thirty-four. All staff members are available during session for an average of 72 hours a week, which is something like 2 working weeks, yet the demands made upon them continue to require an increase in their output. 1 hope therefore that some review of the accommodation will be made, especially of that available to the Legislative Research Section, which has had so many demands made upon it in recent times, so that it may be able to meet those demands as required.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I refer to Division 101 and wish to carry on the discussion commenced by Senator Ormonde with respect to the staffs which serve the Senate. I speak now chiefly of the members of the Joint House Department staff. It is time that the Senate was given full information on their terms and conditions of employment both during session and out of session, as well as of their rates of pay, including overtime and allowances. The situation is completely unsatisfactory. Records to show when some people in the Joint House Department last received an increase in salary are not available. The Joint House Department just does not have them. This is the sort of chaotic condition into which members of the staff who look after us have been allowed to drift. I believe that the Senate should be supplied with complete details of their terms and conditions of employment and their rates of pay.

Senator Davidson did part of a job that I wanted to do, namely, to talk about the Parliamentary Library. It is true that the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service and Legislative Reference Service give the Senate and the other place an excellent service under very difficult conditions. I was on the committee, about which Senator Davidson spoke, for about 4 years. I know exactly the conditions that prevailed then. I also know the build-up of services that has taken place in the period since I was removed from that committee.

Senator Cormack:

– Who removed you? What do you mean?

Senator CANT:

– I was removed by members of the Liberal Party voting en block against me. What do you think I mean? To give praise to the people who do a great deal of very satisfactory work at times that are very inconvenient for them does not seem to me to go to the depth of the services that we receive. While we place emphasis upon the people in the Library with whom we have contact and to whom we talk about the problems that we may be facing in this place and about material that we want to use in debates, the fact that there is a back-up staff behind those people is completely forgotten. I have never yet heard that back-up staff referred to. I refer to the people on the administrative side of the Parliamentary Library. 1 say quite frankly that without proper, adequate and efficient administration the Legislative Research Service and the Legislative Reference Service could not have been built up. In addition, the accommodation in which those people work could not have been put in even the inadequate condition in which it is today without some proper form of administration. I find that over the last 4 years the staff of the Library has increased from 12 to 68. It is not the only thing that has increased over that period. All sorts of mechanical aids have been put into the Library to assist members of the House of Representatives and senators and also to assist the build-up of the various services provided by the Library. Most of this work has had to be carried out by the administrator and his staff during this period. Yet we do not seem to appreciate or even to remember that there is an administrative staff behind all that goes on.

I am also aware that during the period of this build-up in Library services the Officer who was in charge of the administration had no supporting staff, or at least no adequately qualified supporting staff, to assist him in carrying out this work. Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate like to go to the Library and be able to obtain what they want. They expect to be able to obtain what they want. I am not talking about the professional staff; that is a different matter. The professional staff, including the research officers, have a back-up staff behind them. That back-up staff comes within the ambit of the administration. I am quite shocked to find that only quite recently the position of administrator in the Library became vacant and for the first time it was advertised instead of being passed on to the man who had been doing the job for the past 4 years during this period of build-up of services, machinery and accommodation for the benefit of members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate.

I am also aware - I do not want to go into it here - of the machinery that surrounded the appointment. Briefly, it was that the administrative officer, like the rest of those who provide the services that are provided for members of this Parliament, was not on a proper classification to be the authorising officer, as demanded by the Public Service Board. Therefore, instead of reclassifying that officer so that he would be able to take the position - he had been doing the work - it was decided to advertise the administrator’s job and to bring in someone from outside to do it. This is not the first time that I have had to speak-

Senator Cormack:

– This was approved by the Library Committee - your committee and my committee.

Senator CANT:

– I am not on the Committee. The honourable senator voted against my being on it after I had been on it for about 5 years. So he should not talk about it being my committee. I used to travel from Western Australia during recess periods to attend meetings of the Committee, and I did not receive any parliamentary allowance, as the honourable senator does for attending meetings of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I attended meetings of the Committee at my own expense in order to help to provide a service for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Despite that, the honourable senator was one who voted against my being on the Library Committee.

Senator Cormack:

– Not I.

Senator CANT:

– Yes, you did. Have a look at the records.

Senator Gair:

– Had we had an active Foreign Affairs Committee, Freeth would not have made the stupid statement that he made.

Senator McManus:

– He did not listen to the Foreign Affairs Committee; that is why he fell in.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order!

Senator CANT:

– If the honourable senator wants to talk about approvals, let me talk a little about them. At the time that the National Library and the Parliamentary Library were separated the officer I am speaking of became the Personnel Officer for both the National Library and the Parliamentary Library. Subsequently he was relieved of that position and was appointed as the Administrative Officer of the Parliamentary Library with the approval of the President and the Speaker. Yet when it comes to a reclassification so that he may carry out further work that the Librarian requires of him someone from outside is to be brought in. I have spoken about this sort of thing before. I do not speak about any personality in the Library service. It is the service itself and the positions in the service that I speak about, not the individuals. We have in the Parliamentary Library on both the research side - the Library side - and the administration side quite a specialised group of people who perform a valuable service for the Parliament. When the opportunities for promotion come along it is the duty of the Parliamentary Library Committee and the Presiding Officers to bend over backwards to see that those promotions are given to the people who are in the service, not to advertise those positions outside in the Public Service and to bring in people who know nothing about them and who will have to ride on the backs of these people who have been carrying out the work. That is what is happening.

The officer who has carried out this administrative work to the satisfaction of the Parliament for the past 4 years is now to become second-in-charge to the man who is to be brought in over the top of him. I accuse every member of the Library Committee - I know a little about what goes on in the Committee - of being involved in this. If the Committee does not protect the officers who are in the Library on both the administration side and the service side, if I might call it that, very shortly we will not have anyone in there because people with ambition and ability will not put themselves into dead end jobs where they will be passed over when the time for promotion comes. I do not know whether these appointments have been made. I know that the positions have been advertised and that people have been selected, but I do not know whether they have been appointed.

But I say frankly to honourable senators that before any appointments are made the Library Committee and the Presiding Officers should have another look at this position to see that justice is done. I say that if a man has been capable of carrying out the duties of the Administrative Officer over the last 4 years, during what could almost be described as a revolutionary period in the build-up of services, machinery and accommodation in this place, he is entitled to receive consideration when the promotions are made. I urge both the Library Committee and the Presiding Officers to reconsider this matter before it goes any further, if the appointments have not already been made.

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

– The debate on the parliamentary estimates has now been proceeding for about 45 minutes and 1 think it is fair that I should interrupt to make some reference to the points that have been made. Senator O’Byrne dealt with the question of staff. Some of the comments I may make in reply to him may be applicable to some other observations which have been made in relation to the Senate staff. It is true that the proposed expenditure will rise this year from $151,239 to $214,900, an increase of $63,361. Salary increases arising from the total wage case have had an effect; they are estimated to cost an extra S3, 266 during 1969-70 as against $1,491 during 1968- 69. Incremental advancement is to cost an extra $1,889. The reclassification of three positions in the category of Chamber . Officers cost $487 during 1968-69 and is estimated to cost an extra $1,996 this year. The creation of ten positions in the Committee Secretariat cost $10,904 in 1968-69 and is estimated to cost $48,697 during 1969- 70, a quite substantial increase of the order of $37,700. The creation during 1968-69 of two positions of Parliamentary Officer cost $4,829 and is estimated to cost $9,956 during 1969-70. Four positions in the category of office and typing staff were created and there was an increase under Determination 178 of 1969 which is estimated to cost $10,300. That is a broad outline of the increases for the Senate staff which are indicative of the reason why there was an increase in the amount Senator O’Byrne inquired about.

There was a question by Senator Ormonde as to the hours of duty of attendants. Whilst I recognise that Senator Cant has asked for far more comprehensive information to which I will allude to in a moment, attendants work 31 hours per week in recess and 43i hours per week in session. During sessional periods the rostered hours are 8.30 a.m. to 8.15 p.m. Overtime is paid after 8.15 p.m. On nonsitting days the hours are 8.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Should the Senate rise before 8.15 p.m. the staff are allowed to go home and are not required to complete their rostered shift.

Senator Poyser:

– Who is this?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Attendants only.

Senator Poyser:

– Not dining room staff?

Senator ANDERSON:

– No. I am dealing only with the Senate. Senator Ormonde then went on to deal with some aspects of the Press services. Whilst it has nothing to do with the line estimates and is not related to the sort of information I have here, I think he was pointing out that because all the information is channelled into one outlet it therefore does not have the depth of coverage that it otherwise might have and that equally it could have an emphasis or lack, of emphasis in a certain direction. 1 suppose one could go on to say that if some unfortunate error crept into the reporting - I am not suggesting for one moment that it would be an improper error - or some error of judgment crept into the report it would be compounded throughout the whole of the news media with which the reporter was linked. Whilst I take note of what the honourable senator says I do not think it has a direct application to these estimates about which honourable senators are seeking information. Senator Turnbull asked a question about the salary of the Clerk of the Parliament, and I can only say that the Clerk did attract an increase in salary during the year.

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

– I was talking about hospitality.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, I will come to that. The increase was $1,101 and it took effect as from 1st December 1968. But in fact no allowance was provided for hospitality or for other extracurricular activities in which as we all recognise, heads of departments are from time to time called upon to engage. I have taken on board the points raised by the honourable senator. As with all other matters raised in the Estimates debate, they will be brought to the attention of the administrative heads concerned.

Senator Davidson referred to the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. The appropriation for 1969-70 in respect of salaries and allowances is $267,260; the appropriation for 1968-69 was $251,743. It is not a very significant variation. Funds provided under this item are for salaries of permanent officers and sessional and casual staff. An increased provision is sought in 1969-70. This is necessary because of the very greatly increased activity of parliamentary committees. In relation to the provision for permanent officers, by approval, dated 24th April 1969, of the Executive Council, seven additional permanent positions were created, being 2 additional positions of supervisor, 1 additional position of senior reporter and 4 new positions of reporters in training. In a full year an amount of $38,300 would be required to cover these positions. It is expected that appointments to positions of reporter, rendered vacant by promotions to newly created senior positions, may be made by September or October while the new positions of reporter in training may be filled for only 6 months in 1969-70 after vacancies have been advertised. Provision is also made for payments to sessional and casual staff.

Senator Davidson also referred to the Parliamentary Library, as other senators have done. I think it is fair to say that Senator Davidson gave information rather than sought it. He dealt with the development of the Library staff in a factual way, showing the significant pattern of the buildup that has taken place, particularly in the research field. Senator Cant was making a particular point, but in passing he also drew attention to the increase in staff numbers. He said that in a certain period the staff had increased from 12 to 68. I think we must accept that in the modern world, because of the demands that are made upon members of the national Parliament and the wide variety of matters to be considered by senators and members of the other place, we need the services, often at short notice, of special research officers.

We do not live in splendid isolation, in an ivory tower as it were. Things are happening in all manner of fields - the disciplines, technology, science, the arts, almost anywhere one cares to name. We live with that situation. With our physical capacity we cannot possibly cope with the weight of the demands made upon us unless we have assistance. We would not be able to do the job that the Parliament and the electors expect of us if we did not have access to a team of expert and well informed people backed up by research officers. This is a very significant side of the development of the Library’s activities. Senator Davidson has placed on the record significant figures in relation to the Library and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. I am grateful to him for the research he was able to do to obtain the figures he has placed on the record.

Senator Davidson:

– Does the Minister appreciate the need for space?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, I have a note on the question of space and a reference to the parliamentary staff. The Joint House Committee has submitted a plan for additional space for members of the parliamentary staff and has asked the Government to reconsider the proposals early in the life of the new Parliament. There is a recognition not only of the critical situation in terms of space but of the fact that it extends right throughout the Parliament. I do not think there is any location in the parliamentary establishment in which we are not bedevilled by space problems. It is quite proper that the various departments should be staking their claims for further space in the new order of things.

Senator Cant requested complete details ; I think they are his words ; of the terms and conditions, rates of pay and allowances not only for the Joint House Department staff but for all the parliamentary staff. He is entitled to those details and I will put it on the line to see that he gets them. It is not competent for me to supply that information to him today, but I will certainly see that it is taken out for him. Generally, in respect of matters on which I reply briefly or appear to pass over, action will be taken to obtain the information that is requested. I think Senator Cant’s comments were fair in seeking to ascertain the positions occupied by the parliamentary staff in relation to positions in other avenues of the Public Service.

Senator Cant went on to deal with appointments to the Parliamentary Library staff and in doing so was quite critical. He will appreciate that the Presiding Officers - the President and Mr Speaker - are in the final analysis responsible for the appointments. On the one hand they would have regard to the Library Committee and on the other hand to the head of the department. I have interceded on a number of occasions in these matters and I am aware that reference is made to the Public Service Board.

Senator Bishop:

– That is the main reference.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, in relation to analogous situations. Senator Cant has put his views on record and no doubt the Presiding Officers will have the advantage of reading them. At this time I can speak only in the generality of the situation. The system works well for the continued efficiency of the Parliament and those who serve in the Parliament. As to the point of view expressed by Senator Cant, I can only leave it at that. Senator Cant also referred to the salaries of staff of the Joint House Department.

Senator Cant:

– I want a review of the Joint House staff and of attendants.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I will set about getting that for the honourable senator. I have a general note which states that reviews of most classifications have been made recently by the Public Service Board and the results have been or are being presently implemented. The reviews are made with a view to maintaining parity with similar Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth awards. Other classifications not identical with ACT or Commonwealth awards are presently being urgently reviewed. As I understand Senator Cant, he wants a fairly comprehensive and wide sweep to be conducted so that he can do his own personal analysis. He will then have an opportunity to take the matter further if he so desires. I have nothing further to add at present.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to raise a matter about which, in anticipation of what I am going to say and so that the Leader of the Government in the Senate will not have any apprehension, I must say from the beginning of the comments that I have to make that I absolve the Leader of the Government from making any attempt to reply to what I have to say. I refer of course to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1969-70 which we are now discussing and the appropriation for the Parliament as set out in Divisions 101 to 109. I pin my remarks, appropriately and properly, to this area of the estimates.

Some honourable senators, Senator Willesee for example, will remember that in 1953 the first struggle between the Government and the Parliament, and particularly the first struggle between the Government and the Senate, occurred as the result of the presentation of the Appropriation Bills in that year in a form in which the power of the Senate over the estimates and the Appropriation Bills in respect of the ordinary annual services of the Government would have been destroyed completely. In a division - Senator Willesee, I am quite sure, will not be annoyed if I make reference to this fact - which took place after the discussion of this matter, most members of the Opposition and Government members voted together and, I am glad to say, the rank and file of senators supported by constitutionalists, such as Senator Willesee, for example, voted against the motion.

In 1953, the status quo was restored. But, 1 1 years later, in 1964, an identical attempt was made in the presentation of the Appropriation Bills to destroy the ability of the Senate to examine the ordinary annual services of the Government. Tn another vote the entire Senate supported an amendment to the motion that the Senate accept the Bills in the form in which they were presented - Ministers discreetly absenting themselves from the Chamber while the motion was carried on the voices - and the situation again was restored in the interests of the Senate.

As a result of that situation, Government senators - because they had no wish to embarrass the Opposition - formed a subcommittee to examine how the ordinary annual services of the Government should be identified. As a result of the report of the Government senators to the Government of the day, the Appropriation Bill that is before the Committee at the present moment is in the form in which it is now. I consider that it is the appropriate form. In the examination of what were the ordinary annual services of the Government it was claimed in the debate in this chamber in 1964 by the present Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) that the appropriation for Parliament could not be considered to be an ordinary annual service of the Government. The committee of Government senators which examined the relevant sections of the Constitution in which Parliament is the sole determinant as to what comprises the ordinary annual services of the Government reported to its own Government that Parliament was not an ordinary annual service of the Government.

The Government persisted with its concept of the place of Parliament, notwithstanding the report of the committee. When the report was presented in 1965, the Government of the day held to its concept. The Government has not seen fit to acknowledge that Parliament is not an ordinary annual service of the Government. In May of last year, this report was tabled in the Senate. The motion was proposed that the Senate take note of that report. The Senate, by not taking any action on that report, assumed, in my constitutional concept, that it agreed with the report.

I raise this matter in the context of the estimates at which we are looking at the moment. Parliament can be argued to be a service of government. But, at, that stage, we must ask: ‘Well, what is government?’ I am sufficient of a traditionalist to say and to agree that, if we put it in that context, the ordinary annual services of the Government are the ordinary annual services of the Crown and that the Crown is paramount. It can be argued that Parliament should have no real control over the allocation of the revenues that go to its own sustenance. This was not true of Australia in the late 1900s. In truth, it is an ordinary annual service of the Government. The Government tends not to be the representative of the Crown. But the Government tends to be the area of government that interposes itself between the Crown and Parliament. The Government itself has two major components. It has the component of the

Ministers who are drawn from members of Parliament and it has the administrative component that is attached to the ministerial responsibility. This becomes the executive component of government.

It can be argued of course - and this is the very matrix of this problem as I see it - that as the House of government, the House that controls finance or the House that controls revenues is the House of Representatives. Therefore the ordinary annual services of the Government with regard to Parliament should be embodied in the ordinary annual services of the Government. This means that the Senate has no control over the appropriations which are presented to it for its approval because the Senate, in respect of the ordinary annual services of the Government, only has the power to request the House of Representatives to make an amendment. Therefore, if the Senate in its own interests wishes to make amendments in the context of the appropriations at least for the Parliament it can do so only by making a request to the House of Representatives.

It was argued in the report tabled here in May 1968 that it is improper that the resources which the Parliament requires to nourish itself - in the interests of the rule, not government, of this country - should be subjected to the surveillance of another House or a government that is embodied in another House. So, the reality of presenting a Bill in this form and the context in which Parliament becomes part of the ordinary annual services of the Government are a method of subjecting the Senate to the pressures of the House of Representatives and the Government of the day.

I feel that the Senate should not be subjected to such pressures. I believe that the estimates relating to the Parliament should be extracted from the ordinary annual services of the Government. Australia is mov-ing inevitably and remorselessly into the circumstances that engaged the attention of the founding fathers of the constitution of the United States of America. They sought to divide the area of responsibility into a system of legislative checks and balances. This system is beginning to emerge in Australia. I claim that, as the complexities of government evolve in modern society, the capacity of Parliament to resist the will of the government of the day diminishes. I think that it is of paramount importance that in the future - I give notice that I intend to pursue this matter - the whole of the estimates that relate to Parliament must be extracted from the ordinary annual services of the Government as set out in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and be embodied in a separate Bill. With those comments that I commit to the record, I leave the subject.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

Mr Temporary Chairman, Senator Cormack prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not want a reply from the Leader of the Government in the Senate because of the type of argument that he was going to raise. Sir, I want the Leader of the Government to give very deep thought to this matter. Although I do not expect a complete reply immediately, the Leader of the Government may give his attention to it. It is some years since I have adverted to this matter. For your comfort, Sir, I am adverting to the whole of the. estimates relating to Parliament as contained in Divisions 101 to 109. The estimates indicate that we anticipate that we will spend $3,079,000 in the financial year 1969-70 on the running of this Parliament. Even in a big Budget, that is a fair amount of money. Any body handling the expenditure of that amount of public money ought to be giving a good service for it.

Over the years I have raised the question of having a fresh look at the whole of the machinery of this Parliament - that is, the two Houses of Parliament - its Standing Orders, its committees and so on. I dropped it for a year or two because I thought that probably people were getting a bit sick of hearing me talking about it but over the past year or two I have found that a complete review is becoming more imminent and more urgent.

I think it is true to say that in the period of almost 70 years for which this Parliament has been operating there never has been a radical examination of the workings of the Parliament. It is easy to say that this democracy is the greatest form of government and that this system has worked, but that is no reason why it cannot be made to work better. The fact that for almost 70 years there has not been a radical examination of the machinery of the Parliament is in itself, ipso facto, a prima facie case for such an examination. If any honourable senator casts his mind back over the happenings of the past few weeks, few months, or couple of years, he will realise that it is time that we sat down as reasonable people to see how we can improve and speed up the processes of this Parliament to give greater efficiency for the S3m that we will be spending in the next 12 months.

Only recently while travelling in a plane I was speaking with Senator Byrne who had been out of the Parliament for 9 years. He made the point very forcefully that on his return to the Parliament he found a completely new setup with paper work greatly increased, the decisions being made far more urgent, the pressures on every member of the Parliament greater and the decisions that senior men in the Government had to make more onerous. Senator Byrne has had the unique opportunity of serving the Parliament for one period, being out of it for 9 years and then coming back. If we examine the kind of work that we have to do now, it is patently clear that the setup of the Parliament now is completely different from what it was.

Let me refer to the relationship between the two Houses. We go through the old English tradition of reading a Bill three times in one place, walking across Kings Hall with it, presenting it here, reading it three times here and then returning it. That process should be investigated. One suggestion relating to statements which emanated from this side of the chamber has been accepted reluctantly by Senator Anderson, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That suggestion has been accepted without any examination being made of it. On occasions there have been very long statements - foreign affairs conies readily to mind but such statements could relate to the wheat industry or anything else - which have run of 30, 40 or even 50 pages. The statement has been read solemnly in the Senate, and unless it has been read here within a few minutes of its being read in the other place it has been reported by the mass media of Australia before we have learned of its contents. Senator Anderson, I think very wisely, has said that in view of pressure of business he will circulate any proposed statement 24 hours before it is presented here and then, when the matter is called on in the Senate, he will move that it be incorporated in Hansard. That is one way in which the business has been speeded up but I emphasise that it has been done without being subjected to close analysis. I agree with the suggestion that was made but I would like to hear views against that practice.

Over the past year or two we have developed the committee system. Although 1 have had some doubts about the committee system I believe that we will have to follow the practice of other parliaments - some of us have had the opportunity to see them work - and move into the committee system in all sorts of ways. In other parliaments the practice is a little different in that most Bills are referred to a committee which examines them very quickly.

Senator Cormack:

– That is where I think the Estimates should go.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I think that that interjection is germane to what I am saying. But in dealing with ordinary Bills both the Australian Constitution and the official attitude seem to be designed to ignore parlies. 1 believe that in this sophisticated age that is a pretty unrealistic approach because if a Bill relating to wheat is before the Parliament - that is probably a bad one to mention at this time - members of the Australian Country Party feel that they must speak on it because they claim to have some affinity with the people who grow wheat, and members who represent a district in which wheat is grown or in which there is a wheaties factory or a flour mill feel impelled to speak on the Bill irrespective of the fact that the Opposition may be supporting it completely.

Time and time again - I am sure it will happen with the Estimates debate this year as it has happened in other years - the estimates of many departments will be jammed out and not discussed or will be given a kangaroo court kind of justice. A Bill relating to wheat is the kind of Bill which could be examined by a committee. In Canada and America committees look at Bills within 2 or 3 days, present to the parliament a report pointing out its weaknesses and the debate then takes place. It could well be that honourable senators disagree with me. All I ask is that a committee be set up to inquire into this subject and to which I can state my point of view and bear the points of view in rebuttal.

We have set up committees which I think are doing excellent work but it must be realised that this Parliament consists of two Houses and that one-third of the membership sits in this place. When we set up a purely Senate committee we exciude twothirds of the man power and ability of the Parliament. I think there should be a close examination of that aspect to see whether that procedure is justified.It could well be that in the Senate setup we are doing the right thing but I have always felt a little uneasy when I realise that we divide the membership of the Parliament and use only one-third of the energy, ability and knowledge of the manpower that is available to examine a particular project. I will not refer to such things as the paucity of staff because I notice that the Government is taking steps now to build it up. I agree that this is a system that must grow slowly but I believe that these are subjects which must be examined very carefully. 1 want to return to matters that I have raised over the years because I believe that as part of the inquiry I have suggested the Standing Orders should be looked at and completely re-written. Again I am prepared to listen to argument against that. I am one of those who made suggestions about the Standing Orders. Some have been adopted; some have been rejected. This aspect was brought to my notice the other day when Senator Greenwood argued a point of order which has been raised several times recently about the propriety of a question being put to a Minister and the subject being within his domain. Senator Greenwood,I think quite properly on the evidence before him, argued on the literal meaning of standing order 98 which provides:

After Notices have been given Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs . . .

He rested his case on that. On the wording of the standing order I do not argue with that at all. If 1 had been putting the case I would have done exactly the same thing. But the blue sheet headed ‘Notice of Question’ which is the one authoritative tome to which we refer, states:

Questions addressed to a Minister should relate to the public affairs with which he is officially connected . . .

This is obviously sensible, and although it does not say so it has evolved from rulings given by Presidents and never challenged. Taking the wording to which Senator Greenwood referred, a Minister when replying to questions relating to public affairs could give the final football results in Melbourne or the result of the RoseOlivares fight. They would be matters relating to public affairs. That interpretation also is obviously sensible. No reference is made to the fact that the statement to which I have referred which appears on the ‘Notice of Question’ has evolved from practice and rulings given by Presidents. That is one matter - I will refer to one or two others - which should be looked at very carefully.

I am always amused because even in the most solemn places and on the most solemn occasions I seem to be able to see some humour. When we are opening a Parliament and come to the question of selecting a President we lay down most rigidly the tilings which must be done. I am not carping and I do not want to go through the whole procedure because we would be here all day but I want to mention a couple of highlights, and perhaps I am selecting an exaggerated practice to make the point more clear. Standing order 19 provides:

If two or more Senators be proposed as President, a Motion shall be made and seconded regarding each Senator, “That Senator- do take the Chair of the Senate as President’; and each Senator so proposed shall address himself to the Senate.

I have been here for quite a few years and in that period we on this side - always unsuccessfully - have proposed senators as President, honourable senators on the Government side have proposed senators and finally a decision has been made. I have been always most amused at the brevity of the address made by the honourable senators concerned. As I have said, standing order 19 requires them to address the Senate so they stand solemnly and in turn say to the Clerk: ‘I submit myself to the will of the Senate’. I suggest that one does not need a lot of research or a lot of ability to be able to make a speech like that. When we finally get to this great occasion of adopting our President, the Standing Orders provide:

Having been conducted to the Chair, the Senator so elected, standing on the upper step. . . .

I do not know what that has to do with it. I have often wondered what would happen if he were standing on the lower step and somebody raised a point of order. Would he be put out on his little pink ear and would we start all over again? Provision is made for him to return his acknowledgments to the Senate for the honour conferred upon him. Should not this be left to good taste? In the circumstances would not any person with any feeling of gratitude say something if he saw fit? There may be an opportunity for him to do it later in the day. There may be some other time when it would be more appropriate. But we lay down in detail that these things must be done. There is then provision for a senator to congratulate the President-elect. Of course, it is in the nature of bodies of fairly big minded people who can stand the clash of debate that they will congratulate somebody who is elected President.

I have mentioned many of these matters before. There are at least fifty of them. We have conducted some inquiries but I do not think that that is the radical approach that we need. It is nearly 70 years since these Standing Orders were adopted. They were not original. We borrowed them from other places. It is nearly time that we examined them very carefully, getting the opinions of people who have given some thought to the matter. We should see whether these are standing orders of the type that we require for the conduct of sixty pretty reasonable people. I mention that only in the context of examining the whole of the operations of the Parliament. I am always amused at the way in which we conduct divisions. Surely in this electronic age we could do better. We shuffle across a narrow space in the chamber. The longer we stay here the greater our bulk becomes. I always wanted to be a senator but I did not particularly want to look like some of them. The greater our bulk becomes and the wider we are, the more difficult it is for all of us to get across. It is just so childish. There is an argument that an Opposition should not give this provision away because it is one of the procedures that we use for frustration and therefore it ought to be preserved. I believe that there are a dozen other ways in the field of debate in which an opposition can show that it is opposing a government’s methods without following this time-wasting procedure. Half of the countries in the world to which we give aid have electronic voting whereby there is a quick division and the assembly gets on with the rest of its business. This Parliament has altered very much. There is so much more pressure on it that these time-wasting procedures ought not to be tolerated any longer.

Other matters ‘over the last few months ought to cause us some disquiet. I am one who believes that the whole question of privilege should be looked at. It has been hammered out in the United Kingdom Parliament. I have asked questions about it. We ought to be protected when we are genuinely trying to unravel something. The odd slip of the tongue or the mistake that we make ought to be privileged but I do not think that any member of the Parliament ought to be able wilfully to malign somebody outside of the Parliament without that person having a chance to defend himself in a court. People on all sides of the Parliament have been guilty in this respect, not in recent years but over the period since 1900. I believe that it is not beyond the wit of this Parliament to put some sort of curb on this behaviour and make people who are guilty of it stand up to their responsibility. We have become very niggling and sensitive when it comes to the question of suspensions. In Mr Odgers’s book there is a list of persons who have been suspended over the years.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cormack:
VICTORIA

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

Senator POYSER (Victoria) [3.451-1 refer to the provision in Division 105 for salaries and payments in relation to salaries in the Joint House Department. I am pleased to hear that a reclassification of employees within that Department is proceeding. Some 12 months ago in this chamber I raised this very matter in relation to the wages and conditions of persons employed particularly in the dining room and its environs. I have also discussed this matter with members, particularly on this side of the Parliament, of the Joint House Committee. I know that for many years they have been endeavouring to get some examination of this question. I do not believe that simply increasing salaries or reclassifying is going far enough. My examination of the situation, my questioning of staff members and my persona) observations lead me to believe that conditions under which people work in the environs of this Parliament are nothing short of disgraceful. Hours are worked here that would not be tolerated in any shape or form outside this building.

I do not know whether honourable senators are aware that some of the ladies who serve us so graciously in the dining room are on some occasions in this place from 9 o’clock one morning till 3 o’clock the next morning, looking after members in relation to the use of dining room facilities. It is true that they get breaks through the day, but this kind of labour went out in the dark ages. I do not know whether honourable senators realise that the staff in the dining room are forced, on many occasions at least, to eat the left-overs from the members’ dining room. In the staff dining room downstairs one will find the left-overs from the members’ smorgasborg used for the evening meal for these people. I have observed this for myself.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are these matters under the control of the Joint House Department?

Senator POYSER:

– I understand so. It pays the salaries.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why does it not act in regard to these matters?

Senator POYSER:

– I do not know. I am asking for this to happen.

Senator Buttfield:

– Have you put in a formal complaint to this effect?

Senator POYSER:

– 4 spoke about it 12 months ago.

Senator Buttfield:

– To the Joint House Committee?

Senator POYSER:

– I have put these matters to the Parliament. On that occasion the President, who after all has the final say in these matters, said to me afterwards: T wish you had come and talked to me about this before you spoke about it in the chamber.’ Now, 12 months later, nothing has happened. Do honourable senators realise that the permanent members of the staff in the bar are committed to making up all of the deficiencies in the till despite the fact that many casual employees are employed in the bar during a sessional period? The permanent members are the only ones who have to make up shortages in the till, although they may be in no way responsible for the shortages. I think there are only three permanent employees. I understand also that if there are any ‘overs’ these are not balanced against shortages. These things are still going on. It is also a fact that the staff, apart from the Public Service section of it, has no organisation that is able to speak on its behalf. I believe that the appropriate unions should have access to this section of the Parliament. I understand that Mr Cameron, a former Speaker, refused permission for unions to interview these people because they were in Parliament House. Union representatives who are able to negotiate on behalf of the staff should be invited into the building.

Senator Greenwood:

– It all reflects upon the union secretaries who are on your side and have done nothing about it.

Senator POYSER:

- Senator Greenwood is either very green or deaf; I do not know which it is, although perhaps it is both. The simple facts are that applications have been made for unions to organise the staff but permission has been refused, as I have already said.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why have not representatives of the honourable senator’s Party done something about it?

Senator POYSER:

– If Senator Greenwood wants mc to lead a strike I will be happy to organise it if nothing is done to correct the situation. I am appealing for-

Senator Bishop:

– Justice.

Senator POYSER:

– I am appealing in a reasonable way for something to be done. Senator Greenwood does not believe in justice for the working class. He wants to gaol the workers if they strike, even if they have a legitimate cause. He wants to fine the trade unions and create great turmoil in the industrial area, but I prefer to move in a conciliatory manner in regard to this matter. I bring this to the attention of the Parliament to see whether something can be done about it. If the appropriate representatives of the trade union movement are brought into this area and allowed to organise members negotiations can proceed at this level to ensure that the people to whom I have referred receive justice.

If it is necessary for girls to be here at such late hours when the Parliament sits late - particularly the House of Representatives - they should be treated justly. I believe that all honourable senators would speak highly of the courtesy and attention given to us by the staff, whether it is at 2 o’clock in the morning after a late sitting or 10 o’clock in the morning while we are having a cup of tea. They are tolerant and have been tolerant for many years, notwithstanding their working conditions. Senator Ormonde can verify that these matters have been raised on countless occasions at the Joint House Committee level. I understand that the President of this place and the Speaker of another place have the final say in relation to this matter. I make this appeal to see whether a proper investigation can be made, not only in relation to salaries but also in relation to conditions which will apply to the staff because it is absolutely essential that we have in this area well paid people who are not at a disadvantage because they are working within the precincts of the Parliament.

I refer now to expenses for standing and select committees, a subject which was referred to briefly by Senator Willesee. All honourable senators will agree that the senate select committees and the standing committees which have been appointed by the Senate or the other place or jointly are contributing something well worth while to the Parliament and our method of government. The estimate for expenses for committees this year is $59,500. It disturbs me that the expenditure of this sum is not receiving from the Government the attention that it should receive. Many committees have been appointed, particularly by the Senate. I refer only to the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television, which was known as the Vincent Committee; the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, of which I was a member; the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes; the Constitutional Review Committee; the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution; the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution; the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs; and the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. The reports of the last three mentioned committees are still to come.

In almost every respect very little action has been taken in relation to the recommendations of the first five committees, which have submitted reports to the Parliament. I know that one or two minor recommendations contained in the report of the Vincent Committee have been acted upon, but the hours of work and the expense that went into the excellent report brought down by that Committee - I have read the report, although it was presented before I came to this place - have been virtually wasted because of the lack of action by the Government or its refusal to act on those excellent recommendations. Within my knowledge - I could be corrected on this - only two recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee have been acted upon, yet that report was brought down in about 1958 - at least 10 years ago. A report from a Senate select committee on road safety was presented long before I came to this place, but I have been informed that very few, if any, of its recommendations have been implemented.

The metrics committee and containerisation committee submitted reports to the Senate almost 16 months ago. Honourable senators served long and patiently on those committees which submitted worthwhile reports to the Parliament, yet the Government still does not have the reports under consideration. Something should be done by the government of the day, whichever party might be in power, to act on reports from committees which in normal circumstances are composed of members from both sides of the chamber including, in recent months, representatives of the Democratic Labor Party. Usually the reports contain unanimous recommendations, although on rare occasions minority reports have been submitted. Unless some action is taken on the reports submitted senators will lose any desire that they may have to be appointed to committees and the desire of the chamber as a whole to appoint committees will be lost if committee after committee finds that its recommendations are put away in some nice snug pigeon hole to gather dust for all time.

I welcome the expenditure proposed for the committees. I welcome the fact that the Government has increased the staff to enable the work of the committees to be facilitated. But I deplore the fact that we can go through such a long list of committee reports which, although they have been excellent in their own way and have made substantial recommendations which would be of benefit to the nation, are still lying in a pigeon hole without receiving any attention. If this continues to be the situation there will be a great reluctance in future among senators and members of the House of Representatives to be appointed to a committee. I hope that what I have said will be considered seriously. 1 hope also that my remarks about an investigation into conditions of employment in this place will be taken seriously and that next year we will be able to congratulate the Government, not only on investigating salaries but also on improving the conditions of work that now exist.

Senator BUTTFIELD:
South Australia

– I should like to speak briefly on the matters referred to by Senator Poyser. I mention particularly his remarks about the staff and members of the Joint House Department, lt seems to me to be rather extraordinary that Senator Poyser should complain about the hours worked by the staff in the dining room when, to my knowledge, those hours are exactly the same as the hours worked by members of Parliament. Does the honourable senator suggest that a union should come in and alter the hours worked by members of Parliament? No-one has to join the staff of Parliament House. There are many days and weeks of the year when the staff does not work many hours. The staff have chosen to come here; they are not forced to come here. I have not heard complaints from the staff. As a member of the Joint House Committee I have never heard complaints from members of the staff about their conditions.

Senator Poyser:

– They have no spokesman.

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– Members of the staff could mention their complaint to me. I have asked whether I could go down and look at conditions in the non-members bar and dining room, but the staff could just as easily have spoken to me, to a member of the Australian Labor Party, any other member of the Liberal Party or a member of the Australian Country Party. We all are open to suggestion and are anxious to look after them. They could quite easily ask us to look at their conditions.

I have been in the non-members bar. I recommended that it be repainted. With no hesitation at all, the head of the Joint House Department accepted that suggestion. The work was carried out immediately. I have had meals in .the non-members dining room, where a choice of-

Senator Poyser:

– I did not speak about the non-members dining room. I spoke about the staff dining room.

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– I have not been where T am not able to go. 1 have not been asked to go to the staff quarters. Certainly if the staff wanted any member of the Joint House Committee to look at their quarters, I would be the first to do so. lt is absurd to say that nobody on the Committee would be interested in the conditions under which the staff work.

Senator Bishop:

– Has the honourable senator heard complaints about the wages of the staff?

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– Yes. Those complaints have been investigated. The Committee has had full reports on the wages conditions. The wages comply with and in many cases are above the award rates. With the spasmodic conditions of employment of the Parliament House staff, it is very difficult to compare their wage rates with normal wage rates. The Committee has had reports on wages. In my opinion, the wages have been quite satisfactory. Certainly nobody on the Opposition side complained when such reports were presented to the Committee.

Senator Gair:

– Who fixes the wages?

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– It is done through the Joint House Department, which reports to the Joint House Committee.

Senator Gair:

– Does the honourable senator want the Senate to become the wage-fixing authority?

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– Members from both sides of both Houses have examined wages when reports have been presented to the Committee. There were no complaints. Everyone on that Committee has the interests of the staff at heart If any member of the staff is not satisfied with wages or conditions, he or she has only to mention that to any member of the Committee and, I am quite sure, the matter will be taken up. Such a matter was taken up by me personally when I was asked to go to the non-members section of the Parliament.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The matters I wish to raise come under the broad headings of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Library. Firstly I think I should comment upon the matters mentioned by Senator Buttfield following Senator Poyser’s comments. Senator Poyser said something that is very well known to all members of Parliament and to all honourable senators. Most of the attendants, the people who back up honourable members and honourable senators, consider that they are not being paid the correct wage and that their rate of pay is lower than the rate paid to persons in the equivalent category of employment outside. I have personal knowledge about one case; that is, the salaries paid to transport officers. They have not complained to me. Those who have knowledge of how these officers work will realise what a great and responsible job they do. They are specialists in their field. In the Services these people would have some kind of officer status. I understand that members of the Opposition on the Joint House Committee have brought such matters before the Committee at various times. As I understand the position, the Presiding Officers examine the proposal and some kind of agreement is reached. Fundamentally the Joint House Committee has no final responsibility in relation to the payment of wages. Its position is no different from that of the Library Committee. 1 refer to what you, Mr Temporary Chairman, said earlier about the Library Committee. I have been a member of this Committee since I have been a member of the Senate. The Committee does not fix the salary rates for the various categories of library specialists and clerical assistants. The Library Committee determines the establishment and the general outline of the scheme of appointments, but it does not determine the salaries of the officers of the Library. This is determined largely by the Commonwealth Public Service Board, which interferes to some extent. It lays down the principles. Apparently it convinces the Presiding Officers which rates should be paid.

Senator Gair:

– The salaries paid have to relate to salaries paid to officers in comparable positions in other departments.

Senator BISHOP:

– Of course. The salaries are based on uniformity. I do not agree that the salaries should be determined in this way. When dealing with various Public Service Bills I have made the point that in some respects in some departments, in this Parliament particularly, the standards of the Commonwealth Public Service need not be followed. There is no great need for uniformity where there are specialist services. I. think it is very well known that the attendants feel they are not getting the remuneration they should. All that Senator Poyser said was that there is some kind of vacuum there and that somebody ought to do something about it. The Parliament or the Government can do something about it by inviting representatives of both sides - representatives of the trade unions and the management experts - to study the situation. We hope that this will be done so that the people who tend us in Parliament and who supply the services we need will not feel that they are suffering any kind of injustice.

I now make a brief reference to the Library. As I mentioned, I am on the Library Committee and on the Library subcommittee. I pay great tribute to the Library staff and to the members of the Library Committee - some of whom are present - who have contributed towards extending the services of the Library. In my opinion, one of the reasons for improved debates in this chamber is the extended services provided by the Library. As Senator Cant said, the staff has grown from about twelve 5 or 6 years ago, when he was on the Committee, to thirty-eight or forty now. I know that the expanded services are being used very frequently by many honourable senators and by many honourable members. If one asks a research worker for certain information and if one has asked for similar information 6 or 12 months previously, the research worker will bring out a large file. The size of that file always convinces me that to some extent these people are being overworked at present. They are providing a fine and efficient service. What they need in future and what they certainly will get when the Senate and the Parliament become more efficient and grow in importance and stature is an expanded back-up service. Some of the specialists appointed to the Library staff ought to have clerical officers to do some of the spade work or the ordinary paper work for them.

I do not use the services of the Library as much as 1 should. I know that these people are being overworked. I am quite sure Senator Mulvihill will support me on this point. They are doing a very fine job. For a minute or so during the debate on the estimates for the Parliament we ought to recognise them. We ought to have regard for the conditions under which they work. 1 want to make one point about those conditions. While we have managed to modify Library accommodation to do all the things that we want its staff to do, we have squeezed the staff into box-like accommodation. One of the rooms which concerns me is the new accommodation provided for the people who are doing copying and printing work in a room below this chamber. That staff certainly has changed and has increased. Three or four employees work in that room. They need good ventilation. They need some type of mechanical ventilation. This has not been installed. Whoever is responsible for this should see that it is installed quickly. In the warm weather the conditions will be very bad. That is all I want to say. I hope that, as a result of what honourable senators on this side have said about the conditions of the attendants, some consideration may be given to improving those conditions.

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) [4.8 1 - For about 1 hour and 50 minutes now we have debated the estimates for the Parliament. I made a quick calculation - and do not hold me to the precise accuracy of my mathematics - that if we continue at this rate we will need another 94 to 96 hours to finish the Estimates, which will be another 4 to 5 weeks sitting. We should try to push on if we can. I hope to be able to get through the estimates for the Parliament fairly quickly. Some points were raised to which I shall reply briefly.

I listened with extreme care to what Senator Cormack and Senator Willesee said. I find very little in the contribution made by both with which to disagree. I do not think there is any doubt that we need to look to the mechanics of parliament and to have, as Senator Willesee said, a radical look at the working of our parliamentary procedures. Like the honourable senator, from my experience here, I could give many examples of the need for us to investigate into whether, in the modern world in which we live, we can afford to continue with the old and traditional practices of parliament which, in the main, we took from the Mother of Parliaments - procedures regarding divisions, procedures regarding presentation of business and so on - for all of which, in this day and age, we cannot afford the time. Senator Willesee referred to the taking of divisions. Most of us have been overseas and have seen the modern procedures adopted in parliaments there where, instead of adopting the time consuming procedure which we follow there is a mechanical device for the taking of divisions. I know the method we follow accords with old tradition, but when controversial matters are under discussion such as happens here, when 20 or 30 divisions may be taken on one Bill - f experienced something like that at one time in a State Parliament - most of the day is spent crossing the floor in the taking of divisions, and this is all time-consuming at the expense of the debate, argument and analysis which would otherwise be possible. 1 agree that there is need for the setting up of some organisation to look at our Standing Orders. Tn the limited time available to it, our Standing Orders Committee tried to do this during the last sessional period. Some progress was made, but 1 think this is a task which should be more permanent in its character and which calls for much more searching work than the present Standing Committee is able to put into it. Certainly busy people find that they have to do the work, but I think we should seize the nettle in connection with a whole wealth of matters connected with both the presentation of the Estimates, to which Senator Cormack referred, and our normal procedures.

Senator Poyser raised a series of questions relating to the salaries of the Joint House Department staff. He also dealt with some of the problems connected with the conditions under which the staffs of the Parliament work. I inform him that the wages for sessional staff are based on 40 hours a week. Time and a half is paid for the first 3 hours after that and all additional time is paid for at double time. Other members of the staff work 31 hours a week in recess and 43 hours a week during the session. I also understand that the wages of refreshment room sessional staff carry a 12i% loading over and above the Australian Capital Territory award because of the uncertainty of the length of the session. I think that the information we intend to seek for Senator Cant will cover most of the other points the honourable senator raised and give him the opportunity to make a closer analysis.

Reference was made to the handling of money in the till. I understand that what are referred to as unders and overs, if they are of a minor nature, are generally adjusted by the staff. A recent shortage of something of the order of $22 was written off as a charge against the Parliamentary Refreshment Room Fund. Incorrect registrations on the cash register generally are allowed to be adjusted the following day. I think the system works reasonably well.

Senator Poyser:

– Why are casuals involved?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I do not have the answer to that angle of the question. Senator Bishop referred to the Joint House Committee. I think it is as well to bear in mind that certain honourable senators serve on that Committee. Currently, Senator O’Byrne, Senator Ormonde, Senator Buttfield, Senator Maunsell and Senator Withers are members of the Joint House Committee. Senator Buttfield has already told us how she has interested herself in the problems that emerge from time to time. I should think it would be perfectly competent for any honourable senator who is a member of that Committee to raise with the Committee, of which the Presiding Officer is chairman, any matter which in the opinion of the honourable senator is unacceptable. That would seem to me to be the proper place to raise these matters.

Senator Poyser spoke of the good work that select committees do and expressed disappointment that the work and energy devoted to their task sometimes goes for naught, that it does not appear to receive the commendation or approval of the Executive. But that is of the very nature of a committee’s task. The fact that after a committee has done a considerable amount of work and carried out a great deal of research into a particular problem the Government does not adopt its recommendations does not mean that the work done by the committee has been valueless. It would be quite false to imagine that the committee’s work has gone for naught. Its report becomes a document of the Parliament. It is there for all time for people such as the members of the Government and others to scrutinise closely and base judgments upon. It would be quite inappropriate to think that because a select committee’s report is not accepted either in whole or in part it becomes a valueless document. I do not agree with that at all.

The honourable senator referred to the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures. That Committee’s report is still under close analysis by the Government. In my opinion, it is one of the most important reports ever submitted by a select committee. Senator Poyser referred to a committee on road safety of which I was chairman years ago. That committee dealt with transport problems. The honourable senator said nothing had been done about the report submitted by it. The fact is that a great deal has been done. The whole point was that the matters dealt with were all matters falling within the responsibility of the States governments. The recommendations which the committee made were recommendations made to the State governments for their consideration. Most of the recommendations submitted by it have been adopted by the State governments in their transport codes. There was certainly a lapse of time before the recommendations were adopted, but that supports the point I made earlier that the reports of these committees are documents which are available for review and further analysis at any time.

I appreciate the points that have been made by various honourable senators. Everybody has tried to be helpful by suggesting things which in their opinion can be done to improve the conditions under which we work. I take on board all that has been said. I am sure that any point that I have missed will be picked up and referred to the appropriate authority.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– There are two points upon which 1 support Senator Bishop and Senator Poyser. They relate to wages paid to the dining room staff. The experience here, as Senator Buttfield would appreciate, is somewhat like that in the transport industry. The great problem is the difficulty in attracting staff because of broken shifts. One important point to consider in connection with the dining room staff is that several married women are employed in the dining room and the long spread of hours plays havoc with their home lives.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is the typing staff for the Opposition. The volume of work here is increasing. Many of our constituents expect covering letters with any information we supply and I should like an examination made to see whether it is possible to increase the typing assistance available to us. I feel the present staff are overburdened with work.

There is one other point I should like to mention, but I do not expect an immediate answer from the Minister. I merely mention it to have it on record, because I think all these things will be evaluated. 1 think that Parliament must upgrade the procedures relating to what is done with committee reports. I leave those three points with the Minister.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I want to direct my remarks in the way that Senator Cormack and Senator Willesee did earlier. I relate them to the functioning of Parliament. I assume this would come under Division 101. One aspect that certainly is of growing importance and one to which little attention has been given is the appropriate relationship between Parliament, the Press- and the public. After all, Parliament is the nation’s legislature. The members of the Government are drawn from the Parliament and the continued existence of a government depends upon that government being able to retain the confidence of the Parliament.

Knowledge of the actions of the Government, the debates in the Parliament, the questions which are asked and the replies which are given is vital to the functioning of a democracy. Unless there is knowledge of what is happening in the legislature, then the efficacy of the Parliament as an institu tion of government is so much lessened. It therefore appears to me that the question as to how that knowledge of what is happening is communicated to those people who want to know or. who ought to know what is going, on in the Parliament is tremendously important. It is one of the paradoxes that, with the passage of the years, when we have facilities like broadcasting and television and greatly enhanced means of communication less attention is paid in those media to the happenings of Parliament than was paid to them 50 or 100 years ago. To me, that type of development creates a problem to which I think Parliament, as an institution, should be prepared to give its attention from time to time.

Currently we have the broadcasting of the Parliament on an ad hoc basis, lt is not designed to give - I do not think it ever would give - a completely adequate coverage. We have always had a free Press to report what is desired to be reported and, generally speaking, to report in whatever way it requires whatever it wants to report. We have the new medium of television, which essentially is not a reporting of what occurs in the Parliament but a medium by which persons who acquire a certain expertise comment upon and give as news events that happen in the Parliament. These are instruments of passing on information which are tremendously powerful and which, in their potential, are sometimes frightening.

The particular matters to which I refer are Press reports and, to a certain extent, reports that are given on radio and television. With every report that is given there is the question whether what is said is accurate, and the degree of accuracy is necessarily involved in that question. The other aspect is the decision as to what is to be reported. If there is no report whatsoever of a particular debate or issue, this knowledge which I regard as a very vital matter is not being communicated to the places to which it should be sought to be communicated. Very early in this debate Senator Ormonde referred to the problems that arise with the Press gallery. I think he said - I hope that I do him no injustice in repeating this - that Australian Associated Press is the sole channel of communication from this chamber to the newspapers that want to report its proceedings. I understand that AAP is a channel that has a tremendous number of outlets; but there are still approximately five other independent sources which have gallery staffs, in addition to the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

We have seen - I am sure honourable senators will recall this - incidents which have occurred in this chamber and which have been reported in one newspaper, and if one goes to other newspapers one finds exactly the same report in the same words appearing in the other newspapers. Notwithstanding that, as [ see it, Senator Ormonde may have been somewhat inaccurate in his description of AAP as the only source of information, the point to which he was addressing himself is one well taken. If there is only one report and it is the report that is disseminated throughout the country, there is the risk that, if it is inaccurate or slanted or gives a completely wrong impression of what is occurring, in fact there will not be a communication of knowledge at all.

Senator Bishop:

– How can the trouble be cured?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– This is a problem which I believe has to be looked at. All I suggest is that if we start looking at it we have the means, in the form of select committees or standing committees, by which we can regard this as of sufficient importance to make it the subject of a full time study by some members of the Parliament. We have a committee of privileges. The whole concept of privilege is outdated and does not apply to the sort of situation to which I am now referring. But that committee, in its genesis, has the sort of function which could be applied to achieve some of the results which I think, from Senator Bishop’s interjection, he and I regard as desirable.

One other element of this matter of passing on what occurs in the Parliament is that in addition to the reporters of the Parliament who sit in the gallery there are the roundsmen who are appearing in a veritable spate, with varying degrees of competence and invariably well informed on what is happening in and around the Parliament. One of the problems is that we have reports from the parliamentary commentators and news reports, and it is very difficult for any but the most discerning reader of the newspapers or hearer of the reports to determine what is news and what is comment. I do not wish to introduce an inharmonious note into the discussion of the point that I desire to make quite seriously. But one of these problems has been evidenced recently by the general Press comment and other comment which attached to the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Freeth) on 14th August.

I believe that a reading of newspaper editorials in the last 2 days indicates a realisation by the editorial writers - I think many of them accepted this right from the time the statement was made - that there is nothing objectionable and nothing remarkably changing in the statement made by the Minister for External Affairs on 14th August; it is simply the emphasis and the reaction to new conditions. But the comments and news reports which followed the making of that statement were such that an impression was built up and generally accepted that there had been some substantial change in policy. I believe that this derived from the fact that there was an inadequate distinction between what was news and what was comment.

When one considers the functions that we as members of Parliament have to perform these days, one can only contrast our position with that of members of Parliament 50 or 100 years ago. In those days, a debate in the parliamentary chamber did have as one of its purposes the determination of the form of legislation that was currently being debated. There was some prospect that by the interchange of views, the development of argument and the close and scrutinising study of the legislation changes would take place or the legislation would be withdrawn. That, to a certain degree, is still the function that we all perform; but in another way - I think in a more real way - the important function of debating in this chamber is to develop arguments in favour of a measure or to develop arguments against a measure, and the purpose of developing those arguments is not to achieve in the chamber itself a change in the legislation that is being debated but to provide information which, it is hoped and believed, will be communicated to those people who have an interest in knowing what is taking place.

Therefore, it is vitally important that this element of communication - passing on relevant data, reasons, facts and circumstances to those people outside the Parliament who should know and in my opinion want to know - be preserved, lt is in this field that there is a tremendous power which the Press reports, television commentaries and news report exercise. 1 believe that it is appropriate for the Parliament to take these matters under study, whether it be by way of a select committee or a standing committee of both Houses. The questions that arise- such as whether there is misreporting, whether there is a scanty or condensed report, whether there is any report at all or whether there is any adequate coverage of a particular vote - are ail ones that require attention.

Reverting to the point upon which I started this discourse, I say that it is vital for the functioning of democracy that those who are the electors or those who are the governed should know what is happening in the area in which those whom they elect to govern are attempting to carry out the functions of governing. Unless there is that knowledge there is a tendency for the whole democratic system to be bypassed and for there to develop what we have seen developing, namely, demonstrations of one sort or another. These demonstrations, in essence, are the expressions of closed minds on particular points. By the mere fact of a show of force in one form or another, people seek to express a point of view which is not accepted. There is far more to be achieved by the interplay of arguments and the exchange of views, and if the media of communication can be encouraged to pass on the interchange of views the public undoubtedly will be the stronger and the better informed.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– Speaking to the appropriation for the Senate, I should like to say that I have been very interested in the remarks of Senator Greenwood. He has touched on a point of which we as parliamentarians should take some note. He mentioned that on one side arguments are put forward and on the other side opposing arguments are put forward. He said that the basic idea of it is more or less to pass out information to the electors. To my way of thinking the system which is developing, particularly in this chamber which is a House of review apart from anything else it may be considered to be, is a downgrading of the Parliament. It is a chamber which should look at arguments from the standpoint of establishing in the minds of honourable senators whether legislation should be passed or rejected. There has developed over a period of years - the parliamentarian has himself to blame - the attitude that whatever the government of the day says supporters of the government must adhere to and the Opposition must oppose. This is a negation of the democratic outlook. If a good argument is put forward, even if it comes from the other side, I can see no reason why it cannot be accepted. 1 think the nonconsideration by the government of the day of a logical argument from the Opposition is a very foolish attitude to adopt and, as I said before, is a negation of the democratic system.

Senator Greenwood:

– What about the Opposition at the same time?

Senator WOOD:

– I am talking about all honourable senators. I am talking about the Senate as a House of Parliament. 1 think that in this way we would be doing better things from a legislative point of view. I have served in local government - the oldest form of government - for many years, and to me it seems silly not to do in Parliament things which one does in local government. In a normal municipal council if one person puts up an argument and no politics are involved, one finds that it is accepted; but here, because of a political set-up, it is not accepted. We downgrade Parliament by adopting this sort of attitude. The error has been built up in our minds that whatever legislation is brought forth by the Government must be accepted. Let us follow the procedure and see what happens. Each Minister decides upon certain legislation. He takes it to the Cabinet, the members of the Cabinet probably thrash it out, and it is ultimately formulated and presented to Parliament. What real chance of doing research into the various problems do ordinary senators and members have? They have practically none because the legislation is brought into the Parliament, is thrown down like a bone to a dog and that is it. We are supposed to accept it and if we want to oppose or to change anything we are looked upon in a very curious sort of way. This, to my way of thinking, is not democratic.

I think the very basis of democracy is that if people want to suggest a change or to oppose something they should do so and should express themselves. If that was done more often by parliamentarians in general we would have a better parliament from the point of view of democracy. Just recently I read where some professor or some person of learning said that it has been established in the minds of parliamentarians that to change something in the Budget, the Estimates or anything like that is tantamount to a rebuff of the government and that the Government must go to the people on it. He said that was something that was built up in the minds of parliamentarians by the Ministers and, of course, when one looks at it simply that is so. Now, we should think of the Parliament as a Parliament. When we get these things before us we as parliamentarians might say: Well, we think there ought to be less or there ought to be more of it. Something should be done or something should not be done’. What is wrong with a gathering of parliamentarians deciding in a democratic way on something different, even if it changes the Budget? Let us take what happens with the’ Budget. The Government parties are told of its contents, probably half an hour before it is delivered in the Parliament; nobody knows anything about it until then. The ordinary parliamentarian certainly does not know anything about it until it is delivered in the House of Representatives and then comes up to this House!

If members and senators have had no say in the framing of the Budget does it not seem to be their democratic right, particularly here in this House of review, to be able to say clearly, without any feeling that they are trying to topple the Government, that something should or should not be done? This psychology that we have developed in the minds of parliamentarians that one must not touch this or that, that one dare not rise to oppose this or suggest a change, is a bad outlook from the democratic standpoint. I am very interested in the remarks made by Senator Greenwood; this is something which parliamentarians should keep in mind. All I can say is that if individual parliamentarians were less fearful in taking a stand on something they think is right the people of this country would have much greater respect for Parliament than possibly they do at the present time. The respect of Parliament in the eyes of the people depends on the parliamentarians themselves, and the higher the quality they are and the better and stronger the judgments they make for the benefit of this country the greater the appeal they will make to the hearts and minds of the people and the better the Parliament and its members will be for having done it.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) (4.36J - I am conscious of the fact that we have been moving very slowly in dealing with the Estimates. Although there should be full discussion of every item we all are aware of the fact that there is a programme to be completed by the end of next week. We will probably have to give some consideration to expediting matters while at the same time maintaining the opportunity for as full and as free a debate as we can in the circumstances. However, seeing that these very important general subjects have been aired by Senator Greenwood and Senator Wood 1 would like to say a few words on them. In general, my view corresponds wilh that of Senator Wood. I think that the Parliament ought not to be written off. and that in particular this Senate ought not to be written off as a place merely for the airing of matters and the communication of ideas to people outside. This chamber was set up with a legislative function. No law can be made without the concurrence of the Senate and if bad laws are made then we must take the responsibility for them. In ray experience this chamber has been one where persuasion can succeed. I can think of many cases in which honourable senators have changed their minds and have crossed the floor to vote. Although it is often said that the Opposition is not affected in the same way as are Government supporters, I can well remember one occasion - I think it was 2 years ago - when, although the Opposition through me had stated its views, a number of Government supporters spoke and over the dinner adjournment we changed our minds because we were persuaded that what was put forward by the Government supporters was correct.

I think that the Opposition together with the Australian Democratic Labor Party had the numbers to force the issue if it had been minded to persist with its viewpoint, but it was persuaded by the arguments that were presented. This, of course, is as it should be. On many issues the parties are committed by their platforms and by their announced policies and by undertaking to the people that they will carry out certain programmes and vote for certain policies. It is only right that this should be done, because there has virtually been a public undertaking to do so; but most of the issues that come before the Parliament are not in that category. I believe that perhaps 80% of the matters which are dealt with here are not subject to an absolute stand by one party or the other. In these matters it is appropriate that we should be as fully informed as possible and that we ought to be persuaded by one another as much as possible.

I think the position is improving. I am sure that in the Senate not only is more information being obtained on the various matters discussed but also more persuasion is directed at honourable senators. I am sure that we listen to those persuasions and are influenced by them. This procedure operates not only to influence the decisions that are taken on the instant matter but also to affect the thinking of honourable senators when similar matters arise in the future. The Senate has contributed a great deal to the nation through the decisions which have been taken on questions of civil liberties and personal freedom in this country. I think this has been largely brought about by reason of the discussions which have taken place in the Senate chamber. I think everyone would want to see this practice continued.

I disagree with Senator Greenwood’s remarks about students having closed minds when they demonstrate against institutions or policies of which they disapprove. I think it is rather that the students take the view that those against whom they are demonstrating have closed minds and that the only way to get change is to shake them up, to do something out of the ordinary in order that their minds will be opened. This has been the experience in other countries. Demonstrations run the whole gamut from completely peaceful and persuasive to those which involve violence, of which we all disapprove.

On many occasions demonstrations have had positive results. I refer, for example, to the famous ‘Resurrection City’ demonstration in the United States of America. It made the United States Congress aware that its laws were defective in many respects in the field of social welfare and that its administration had partly broken down, necessitating corrective action. That awareness was brought about by the extraordinary demonstration which took place. Attempts to go through the ordinary channels are often a failure. That is why people sometimes must adopt extreme measures if the legislature and the administration are not functioning properly. When that stage is reached we are partly responsible, because it is our duty to see that the laws are in proper shape and that their administration is properly carried out. If we do not have the facilities to do that job properly, we should demand them.

It is not a proper excuse for us to say that bad laws have remained on the statute books, that bad laws are being made or that there is maladministration which we could not correct because we did not have the facilities. We are in a position to demand the facilities. It is not only our right but our duty to see that we are supplied with adequate facilities to do our job. The better is the job we do, the less necessity will there be for others to engage in extraordinary measures to correct injustices. I think that the Senate in particular has a great role to perform. I think that it is doing its job fairly well. I think a great deal more could be done, and I hope that it will be done in the future.

Proposed expenditure noted.

Prime Minister’s Department

Proposed expenditure,$41 , 506,000.

Proposed provision, $103,300.

Department of the Cabinet Office

Proposed expenditure, $242,000.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I relate my remarks specifically to Division 431 - Assistance for the Arts. The appropriation for 1969-70 is $2,850,000, an increase over the appropriation of $1,666,349 for 1968-69. The Labor Party is gratified that at long last the Government has heeded our suggestions over a number of years in this Parliament that the arts of this country and our cultural life should be receiving more attention and assistance than has been given in past years. I note that the appropriations for film activities total only $300,000. I think it is fair to say that this is the first occasion on which the appropriations which now appear as items 10, 11 and 12 of subdivision 1 of Division 431 have appeared in estimates presented to the Parliament. 1 am pleased that at long last the Commonwealth has admitted that it has some responsibility to assist in the development of the film industry in Australia. The Government, by its quiescence towards this subject ever since the presentation to Parliament of the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television has been denying its responsibility in .this field. It appears that the protests of the Opposition are starting to be heeded. 1 wish only that the Government was as beneficent to the development of a film industry in Australia as it is to the other artistic pursuits, appropriations for which are set out in Division 431. A comparison of the sums appropriated for other artistic activities illustrates the paucity of the sums to be devoted to the encouragement of Australian film productions. Indeed, very little time and money have been allotted to that end.

On 13th August the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) issued a Press statement in which he said that in regard to film making in Australia the Government had accepted a recommendation of the Australian Council for the Arts that an interim council be established to investigate and report on the form and location of a national film and television training school. He said that the Government had provided $100,000 for that purpose. That of course is provided for in the estimates before us now. The Prime Minister- also said that the membership of the interim council would include a representative of the National Institute of Dramatic Art and that he would make an announcement shortly as to whom this representative would be. I am wondering whether at this stage the Minister representing the Prime Minister is in a position to be able to tell the Committee who that person might be. The Prime Minister went on to say that the Council for the Arts has formulated plans to encourage the making and exhibiting of short experimental films and provision of $200,000 had” been made in the Budget so that assistance in this direction would begin during the present financial year.

That means that $300,000 has been set aside to date by way of Government moneys for an experimental film fund, for the purchase of programme time - I assume that that relates to commercial television purposes - and also for the establishment of a training school interim council. It was on 28th May of this year that the Chairman of the Australian Council for the Arts addressed a UNESCO seminar in Canberra in connection with support for the performing arts. The Chairman of the Council, Dr Coombs, made mention of the fact that the Council for the Arts had recommended to the Federal Government a $lm 3-point plan to assist the Australian film and television industries. I interpolate here that we note that apparently $300,006 only has been set aside for that purpose. The Chairman of the Council went on to say that the 3-point plan included the setting up of a national film and television school, an Australian film and television corporation to administer the fund and to make loans to makers of films and television programmes with a significant Australian content and a fund to finance experimental films and television productions.

Apparently to date only two of the recommendations that were submitted by the Australian Council for the Arts lo the Prime Minister and to the Government have been acceded to. In answer to a question asked by me, the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Anderson, yesterday told me that the Government is giving further consideration to other aspects of the report of the Council. I am wondering whether, in the further consideration of those other aspects, the Government is giving consideration to the establishment of a film corporation fund, as recommended by the Council, of $lm to make loans available lo the makers of films and television programmes with a significant Australian content. Obviously, the Council for the Arts was considering the question of the encouragement of Australian programmes for television purposes as distinct from feature films.

It is quite wrong that this action is being taken by the Government some 13 years after television was introduced into Australia. This action should have been taken much earlier. It is quite obvious that the Council or the Prime Minister’s Department in not considering the production of feature films in Australia, has not considered any scheme that will assist our writers, our artists and our film producers in a direct way to get a market for feature films. Before this can be done, it is important - indeed imperative- that the Government establish a film fund from which operators can draw until such time as earnings from the film that has been produced start to come in.

It is very significant that throughout the whole of Australia only one Act is to be found relating to a British-Australian film quota. The only Act in existence is to be found in New South Wales. In my opinion, an Act proposing a new Commonwealth film quota should be passed eliminating the British part of the existing Act in force in New South Wales. In other words, what the Commonwealth Government should be doing so far as assistance to the arts is concerned is to establish an Australian feature film quota. The weekly screening of newsreels should not count as any part of the quota because producers in the United States ceased making newsreels for theatres years ago because it was realised that television gave a free daily service of news as against the once a week newsreels that were sold to and used to be seen in theatres.

I suggest that it would have been possible under the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department and under the heading Assistance for the Arts’ for an allocation of money to have been made for a quota of at least 6 feature films to have been produced in Australia each year with progressive increases in this total, perhaps to 8 feature films for the second year and up to 10 feature films for the third year of operation of that quota. I would go so far as to say that the Government should be in a position to say or should be indicating that it is prepared to negotiate with those from whom we take films already in order to demand that the Australian film industry receive some share of their local market. After all, by way of example, if we take 100 films a year from the United States of America, it would not be unfair for us to ask that the United States take 3 or 4 films of ours in return. I take the United States merely by way of illustration because my remarks on this matter could refer to any other country from which we receive films. If overseas film distributors are not prepared to co-operate we should be prepared to put a quota on the number of foreign films entering Australia until such time as those who supply films to us are prepared to receive some Australian films from us.

Many foreign countries foster their local film industries through screen quotas, import restrictions and excessive visa or censor fees. In some cases, I am told, there is an outright boycott so far as the importation of foreign productions is concerned. Let me by way of example take the situation in Italy. Twenty years ago, Italy had no film industry at all. It now exports films to approximately 75 countries, including Australia. I am informed that 54% of the box office grosses in Italy are earned today with Italian pictures. Features from the United States earn 33% of box office grosses in Italy and features from other countries which are shown in Italy earn much smaller percentages. But Italy is a large film market and now is a large film producer. This has all come about within a period of 20 years. It now has a healthy indigenous film industry and it has outstanding studio facilities.

During the recent parliamentary recess, I visited Sweden, a country of about 9 million people which, last year, produced 23 entirely Swedish pictures. Most of those films were placed on the export market and most of them earned substantial export income for Sweden. In addition, last financial year in Sweden four co-productions were entered into between Sweden and other nations. These are two examples of how local production can be developed. In both countries, as in many other countries that one could cite, government support has been given by way of money and protective measures. I suggest that a film corporation, which apparently has been recommended to the Government by the Australian Council for the Arts and which at this stage the Government has not agreed to set up, should be established and authorised to make loans to legitimate producers at regular rates of interest. The loans could then become the first charge against the profits to be earned by the film and could be made against Australian feature productions which could well be defined as a feature made in Australia or on location by a company controlled by Australian interests and, if possible, financed by Australian money and preferably with Australian artists, written by Australian writers and using the skills of Australian technicians, producers and directors. All profits from the films could be repatriated to Australia. No foreign corporation or subsidiary in Australia of a foreign corporation would be eligible to qualify for assistance from the film corporation. 1 notice that in Division No. 431 there is an appropriation of §20,000 for assistance to Australian composers and an appropriation of $147,000 for the Commonwealth Literary Fund for payment to the Commonwealth Literary Fund Trust Account. 1 suggest that in the development of a healthy, indigenous, viable film industry the importance of writers cannot be underestimated. The most valuable commodity in making feature films is ideas, and the Government should be taking steps to encourage actively the development of Australian writers. As one prominent producer recently said to me, one of the axioms in making pictures is that the story makes the star. Rarely does the star make the picture because no star can make a good story out of a poor story. No star can make a poor story successful and thus make it a profitable production. 1 do not want it to be thought for one moment that every film will be profitable. Doubtless, as in other countries, there will be many heartaches and some losses, but we in Australia have reached the stage today where our writers, technicians, producers, directors and actors have developed to the point where they are very worthy of receiving Government assistance so that they can utilise their talents in the interests of this country, not only in Australia but also abroad. Many pictures may not be exhibited abroad in the first instance but the future will be guided by the talent, capacity and ability of Australians to produce and by any restrictions that might be placed by foreign countries on Australian films abroad. An Australian feature production industry cannot possibly get off the ground, and when it does get off the ground it cannot hope lo survive, without regular production taking place. At this stage regular production is impossible without adequate assistance from the Australian Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

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

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to direct a few remarks to that portion of Division No. 430 which relates to grants-in-aid and to deal specifically with the appropriation last year towards the cost of the erection of the fountain in Chifley Square in Sydney, f raise this matter because I think it is agreed that most States have paid tribute to their sons who have become Prime Ministers of Australia. I know that in Victoria there are specific projects in relation to the late Harold Holt and the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. I think that Western Australia in its own way has paid tribute to the late John Curtin. Speaking as a senator from New South Wales I should like to remove some of the fog which seems to surround the construction of the fountain in Chifley Square. 1 understand that during the life of the last elected city council in Sydney the then Lord Mayor, John Armstrong, a former senator, submitted a request to the Commonwealth Government for a sum of money to be allocated towards the cost of constructing the fountain. To its credit the Commonwealth Government acceded to the request. However some confusion seems lo have arisen. 1 know that in the near future the people of Sydney will be electing a city council. I am very curious to know whether, when correspondence passed between the former Lord Mayor and the Prime Minister, the request for financial assistance referred to a fountain to commemorate former Prime Minister Ben Chifley or whether the loose term ‘Prime Minister’s fountain’ was used. I am not attempting to play party politics on this but there seems to be a view in some quarters in Sydney that the fountain will be called ‘Prime Minister’s fountain’. With due deference to all concerned, let me say that each State from time to lime has provided a Prime Minister and I am pretty certain that when the request was made to the Commonwealth Government the idea was based specifically on paying homage to a New South Welshman who became the Prime Minister of Australia.

The other matter on which I seek information relates to the appropriation of $50,000 for the Australian Conservation Foundation. I assume that the appropriation is to cover a period of years. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that point. Another matter which I believe has an association with Division No. 430 - Administrative - is a link with this Parliament which goes back to 1901. My informant is the Chairman of the Electricity Authority of New South Wales, Mr F. H. Campbell, who has directed my attention to the fact that in 1901 the National Guard Band was created and was present at the opening of the first Parliament in Melbourne in 1901. He has pointed out to me that this band operated under the direction of Bandmaster Farmer, and that on a recent visit to the north coast of New South Wales he learned that a Mr George Wybrow, now aged 86, was a member of the band. He believes that Mr Wybrow would be the last surviving member of the band. I have already advised the Prime Minister’s Department of the existence of Mr Wybrow.

In this year 1969 I believe that most Australians have a greater appreciation of their historical past. Having regard to the various grants in aid, which 1 accept unreservedly, I believe that some gesture should be made to this old pioneer who, as a very young man, was a member of the band which was present when our Federal parliamentary system was launched. 1 ventilate this matter now only because I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) 3 weeks ago and we are now on the verge of an election. I am sure the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), who is now at the table, would agree that some gesture should be made to Mr Wybrow. Possibly an official invitation could be extended to him to come to the National Capital for a few days to see what has happened in the 69 years since he was present at the opening of the Parliament in 1901. 1 notice that last year a grant of $60,000 was made towards the expenses of the Aus tralian contingent to the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico. I am one who believes that sporting bodies are eminently qualified to operate and to administer their own sports. I think that Senator Anderson, as a New South Welshman, will agree with me that if ever there was a shocking fiasco it was the awful situation which confronted the members of the Water Polo Federation - I speak with some feeling because 1 think the Minister is aware of this - who, by voluntary effort, deliberately obtained experience of water polo in the European theatre. Upon their return, as a result of mismanagement by the Australian Swimming Union, they were kept in suspense as to whether they were to be competitors at the Mexico Games. Finally they were denied this honour. Dawn Fraser had the courage to take on the officials of the Australian Swimming Union in court and prove what old fuddy-duddies they were. So I will not canvass that further. Senator McClelland has referred to what other small nations do in the field of films and culture. We can probably do more in the way of grants to Olympic Games contingents. No doubt the reactionary attitude of the swimming organisation and its bungling over the water polo group make the Government a little apprehensive as to how far it should go. I say to Senator Anderson: By all means boost the grant to the next Olympic Games contingent but spell out loudly and clearly to the Swimming Union that we do not want the bungles that prefaced the departure of the contingent to the 1968 Games.

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

– I refer to Division 430. I notice that the proposed appropriation for payment to the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account has been reduced by nearly S3m. I am not quite sure what is meant by Aboriginal advancement. Is the amount lower because the Aboriginals are now in a satisfactory condition? If the Government really thinks that it should think again. Perhaps I shall defer this subject until I speak again. The Minister may provide an answer as to why such a small appropriation is proposed and what it encompasses. There must be some accounting for this drop of S3m when everyone in this country knows that we are still not doing the right thing by the

Aboriginals. Sub-division 4 of this Division relates to grants in aid. All of us received a brochure on the Elizabeth Farm Museum Trust. On 21st May of this year I asked the Minister to take up with the Government the question of giving this organisation a grant or subsidy. He said he would do so and he did so but nothing has happened. Why not? Surely this is one thing that belongs to the whole of Australia. It is the only place that has been a residence for 1 75 years and it is birthplace of our merino wool industry. Here is something that is truly Australian. I suppose the attitude is that because it is in New South Wales we should let the New South Wales Government look after it. Surely that is not the attitude that we should adopt. Here is something that really belongs to Australia but the Government cannot even find $100,000 for the purpose of preserving it. This appals me. 1 cannot understand why this attitude is taken. Perhaps we could have an answer to that later on.

Division 431 relates to assistance to the arts. Here 1 am rather confused. I heard Senator McClelland’s speech over the loudspeaker in my room. May we have some information about the proposed appropriation for national touring companies. 1 presume that these are theatre groups from Sydney that travel around Australia. A big increase in the appropriation is proposed. How many theatres are involved? Can the Minister tell us the loss on each tour that has been undertaken? ] should like to know what is the Special Projects Fund for which provision is made. T have not a clue lo that. What is the purpose of the provision of $300,000, which is almost double last year’s expenditure? It seems to me that instead of getting down to helping film companies we spend an awful lot of money on administration. An appropriation of $405,000 is proposed for federal co-ordinating and entrepreneurial organisations. What are they?

Senator Anderson:

– You had better take a pause. You have rattled off about seven requests.

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

– They are all under one sub-division. The Minister’s helpers can probably tell him about those. Provision is also made for international tours and cultural exchanges. To which countries are these tours to be made? I know that some have been to South East Asia. The proposed provision of $50,000 will not take people anywhere.

Senator Little:

– They may be going overseas from Melbourne to Hobart.

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

– That may be so. Coming to the matter of film activities, let me say that I am interested in the Willis report. Apparently the provision in items 10, 11 and 12 are the beginning. I note that an appropriation of $100,000 is proposed for the establishment of a training school interim council. The Willis report stated that it would cost only $300,000 to set up a school, yet we are to spend $100,000 on an interim council. For heavens’ sake, who is to get the money? What salaries are to be paid. We are told that a whole training school would cost only $300,000 yet an amount of $100,000 is apparently to be wasted to set up an interim council. This is just unbelievable. Probably the Minister will be able to rationalise this somehow or other when he replies. I refer now to Division 434, which relates to provisions for expenses of Ministers of State, Leaders of the Opposition and parliamentary parties and staffs. I have written to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and asked why the Leader of the Australia Party in this chamber has not been recognised in regard to the provision of a Press secretary and the use of cars. I have not yet had an answer.

Senator Young:

– He has not been elected by the people yet.

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

– We will come to this soon.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am thinking of forming my own party.

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

– If anyone can stand in this chamber and say that he has a national organisation which is putting up 30 candidates I shall be happy to support him. The Prime Minister’s attitude is surely the result of fear. He will not do as I have requested although a precedent has already been created. For a long time Senator Cole was the only person in this chamber representing a certain party.

Senator Byrne:

– I was.

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

– Yes, the honourable senator was Leader of the Queensland

Labor Party. In those days there were in the other place some members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, or the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist), as it was then called. Shortly afterwards Senator Cole was the only person in this chamber representing that organisation. There was a big difference. He had control of this chamber and so the Government had to bow to him. This is one of the points to which we object. Everything is done for party reasons and nothing for any other reason. The only reason that Senator Cole was recognised in the way that he was recognised was that the Government was scared stiff of him.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why did you become a party instead of preferring to remain an independent?

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

– If the honourable senator would like to meet me afterwards I shall explain it to him. If he would like me to take up the time of the Committee now I shall be happy to do so. He should know that I spoke over the air from six stations to the people of Tasmania. I told them that I felt I could no longer carry on as an Independent and needed support. I asked would they object to my forming a party in order to carry out the principles in which I believed.

Senator Cant:

– Did they reply on the radio?

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

– No. The honourable senator will see that everyone in Tasmania believed that I should do this, except members of the Parliament who have been so jealous of the whole proceedings.

Senator Wright:

– Haw, haw.

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

– The honourable senator says: ‘Haw, haw’ but at least I have not become egotistical by raising myself to be leader.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you not leader?

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

– Yes, but I do not become egotistical as have certain people who become Ministers who say nothing but I, I, I* and then ‘Haw, haw’ when they want to ejaculate. I point out that this is an injustice to the people whom I represent. We have many candidates standing for office and I cannot do the work that is expected of me. I have to go from one place to another and I am not even allowed a Commonwealth car. Yet it is no problem for the Government to send a car down to Thredbo when a skiing event is being held there.

Senator Young:

– Did the honourable senator go down there?

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

– I was there skiing.

Senator Young:

– That is unusual.

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

– Why? I ski every year. At least I am far more active than the honourable senator.

Senator Young:

– That is debatable.

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

– What is wrong with my going there? What is the point of the interjection? It is just plain stupidity. I happened to be down there before Parliament started. I am entitled to my holidays. While I was there a Commonwealth car was there for 2 days. But I suppose that is all right. Any time that we go to an airport we can see Commonwealth cars picking up second grade, third grade or fourth grade - whatever they are called in the Public Service - secretaries and officers who are going home or about their official duties. I have official duties also. But I am resented and given no help because Government supporters are frightened. If they were not frightened I would not have so many people coming to me all the time and asking who will receive the second preferences. So there is a reason for it. I maintain that I am treated unjustly just because at the moment I am the only one in this position, because I have no influence and because I do not now hold the balance of power. It is for this reason that nothing is done about my situation. If I held the balance of power the Government would give me a Press secretary and the use of a Commonwealth car. I shall come back to the questions that I raised earlier when I have received answers from the Minister.

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

(5.22] - Senator Turnbull has sought information on a whole series of items and we will try to the limit of our capacity to get answers for him. But at the beginning of my remarks I think it would be more appropriate to refer to matters raised by Senator McClelland who, in speaking to these estimates, directed his attention to the line relating to support for the performing arts. He directed almost the whole of his reference to the film industry. Lest we get the estimate out of context, I think it is fair to say initially that the estimate for assistance for the arts represents an increase of no less than 71% in one year. If we look at this estimate in the broad context of the Budget, the Commonwealth Government this year proposes to increase the appropriation from $1.6m to $2.85m. This, if I may say so, is a significant and dramatic increase.

I should like to refer to some points raised by Senator McClelland in relation to the film industry. Over a considerable period he has spoken in the Senate and has displayed a very real interest and knowledge of this industry. From time to time he has sought information from me as the representative in this place of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). If I may first make a general response, I think it is often not generally recognised that the Government gives considerable assistance to local film producers in several ways. Firstly, it does so by a general ;=.nd preferential tariff on imported films. These duties are imposed by the Customs Tariff and are aimed, in the main, at providing an effective level of protection against imported cinematograph film for showing on television or in public cinemas. Secondly, there is a prohibition on the importation of television advertising films. Thirdly, the Broadcasting and Television Act stipulates that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial stations should use, as far as possible, the services of Australians in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes. Fourthly, the Government has introduced provisions requiring commercial stations to show programmes credited as being Australian in origin for not less than 50% of total transmission time. From July 1969 stations have been expected to televise at least 18 hours of Australian programmes each month in the popular viewing hours between 7 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., in lieu of the 12 hours previously required.

It might be noted that the ABC’s annual expenditure on Australian-produced films is considerable, running as it does in excess of $300,000 per annum. Some films are purchased from speculative producers and others from independent producers working under contract. The ABC is always anxious to acquire locally produced films which meet the required standards and such films are usually paid for at a higher rate than would apply to comparable imported productions. In regard to film making in Australia, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Council for the Arts that an interim council be established to investigate and report on the form and location of a national film and television training school and has provided $100,000 for this purpose. The membership of the interim council, which will include a representative of the National Institute of Dramatic Arts, will be announced shortly. I believe the honourable senator asked me a specific question about that.

Senator McClelland:

– I asked whether any appointments have been made.

Senator ANDERSON:

– They have not been made yet. The Council for the Arts also has formulated plans to encourage the making and exhibiting of short experimental films and provision of $200,000 has been made in the Budget so that assistance in this direction will begin during the present financial year. The extent to which assistance can be provided does, of course, depend on the total level of the Government’s financial commitments and what the priorities are.

Reference was made to a council of which Dr Coombs was chairman and which had sought a sum of the order of $3m on a three point plan. I make the point that these three special items of $100,000 in Division 431 do not in any way prejudice a consideration of the plan. The $lm-p!us plan to assist the Australian film industry is still under consideration by the Government. The provision for this plan will be additional to expenditure on the three point plan, if and when a decision is made in relation to that. Senator McClelland has been quite consistent in his representations for the development of the film industry in Australia. Until such time as the Government has given further consideration to the plan which has been submitted I will be unable to add to what I have said.

May I allude to one point made by Senator Turnbull. The honourable senator asked how sums of $100,000 provided to set up an experimental film fund, the purchase of programme time, or the establishment of a training school interim council would be spent. I cannot give the honourable senator the background to these figures at this time, but any proposition which is put to the Government is not submitted on a single line basis. People do not come along and merely say that they want something. They say: ‘If we set. up an organisation, initially we would require to do certain things, to have certain accommodation and to appoint certain basic staff1, and so on. All this would need some scrutiny. I have not with me details of the scrutiny which has been made of the proposals, but I do not think the honourable senator should make what is almost a kangaroo court judgment. He merely asked ‘What will they do with Si 00,000?’ as though that resolved the matter, but I do not think even Senator Turnbull can dispose of it as simply as that. I suggest that before the Commonwealth appropriates any money it satisfies itself that if: will be used for the objectives which have been advanced.

Senator Mulvihill:

asked me a question about Chifley Square. 1 am informed that both terms- Chifley fountain and the Prime Minister’s fountain - were used in correspondence between the Government and a previous Sydney City Council. The Government docs not consider Chifley Square to be a memorial to Mr Chifley. The Square is in front of the Commonwealth Offices. If the honourable senator wants a more precise answer I will refer the matter back to the Prime Minister’s Department.

The honourable senator also spoke about the grants-in-aid. He referred particularly to the Australian Conservation Foundation. The estimate for this year is $50,000. in 1964-65 the Commonwealth made a grant of $2,000 to the Foundation to assist with its establishment. In 1966 approval was given for the Foundation to receive a grant of $60,000 payable in instalments of $20,000 per year’ for 3 years from 1966-67. This was intended to assist the Foundation to meet its administrative costs. Approval was also given for contributions to the Foundation to be treated as allowable income tax deductions. The Foundation had asked for $40,000 per annum for 3 years and the tax concession. In 1968-69 approval was given for a further grant to the Foundation of $50,000 a year for 5 years commencing in 1969-70. The grant is a continuing one which will appear over a 5-year period. The honourable senator also mentioned a Mr Wybrow. I think the suggestion was that, in a sense, this man was one of the founding fathers; he was in Australia in 1901. The honourable senator wondered whether an invitation could be extended to this man to come to see the national parliament. I will consider that proposal and see what can be done. Finally the honourable senator made a reference to the water polo team which found itself more or less completely out of the activity in the Mexico Olympics. I think the matter is a domestic one and not one on which I could comment in relation to these estimates. 1 shall deal now with some of the items raised by Senator Turnbull. He asked a series of questions about grants-in-aid. Perhaps I should deal with some of his questions about Assistance for the Arts. He referred to the national touring companies. The estimate for this year is $l.Im, as against an expenditure last year of $734,000. That is an increase of about $376,000. The Government will continue to support the maintenance of the following national touring companies which will bring the best baallet, opera and puppetry to all States and allow talented Australian artists to make a professional career in this country: the Australian Ballet, the Australian Opera, the Elizabethan Trust Orchestra and the Marionette Theatre of Australia. Public interest in the ballet and opera is increasing and therefore the Government will support the establishment of a second theatre orchestra to enable extended seasons to be provided by these companies throughout Australia.

The Special Projects Fund was another matter referred to by the honourable senator. Last year the expenditure was $168,500. The estimate this year is S300.000. That is an increase of $131,500. That item relates to the Special Projects Fund established last year. It offered help to a wide variety of smaller companies in the various States. It provides encouragement for playwrights, choreographers, composers and other creative workers. It is proposed that the Fund be extended considerably in the coming year.

The honourable senator inquired about the federal co-ordinating and entrepreneurial organisations. Last year the expenditure was $304,000-odd. The estimate this year is $405,000. Many bodies such as the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust and the Arts Council of Australia, the federal body, provide a valuable service in bringing a variety of theatre and artistic activities to Australians in metropolitan areas and in the country. The Government proposes to continue to provide support for these bodies, through the Australian Council, and in particular it is hopeful of seeing the work of the Arts Council in country areas expanded considerably.

The honourable senator referred also to international tours and cultural exchanges. The difference between the expenditure last year and the estimate for this year shows a slight decrease of $6,160. The provision is intended to assist overseas tours by Australian artists or groups and visits to Australia by overseas performers and companies. The Council has under consideration a number of requests for assistance and will be making recommendations during the year. The honourable senator dealt with the Elizabeth Farm Museum Trust. Financial assistance to the Elizabeth Farm Museum Trust is still under consideration. That is the information supplied to me. The proposal is currently being examined.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I will be very brief, following the comments made by both the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senator Murphy who suggested that we confine our remarks to the estimates. I do note with interest, referring to Assistance for the Arts, the Minister’s comment that the expenditure last year of $1.6m has risen to an estimated expenditure this year of $2.8m. I wish to refer specifically to the expenditure in relation to music and film activities. These activities are divided into four separate groups. In those four items we find a new expenditure completely of some S350.000. I think that shows clearly that the Government is very interested and keen to assist in further development of the Arts. The matter to which I would also like to refer is not listed in the estimates. I would like to raise it under the estimates for festivals. I wish to make reference to the Festival Hall in Adelaide.

As we all know, Adelaide is fast developing as and is becoming the cultural centre of Australia with its festivals of Arts, which are well known and recognised in Australia today and are also well known throughout the world. For the expenditure of some $6m the new Festival Hall is being built in Adelaide. Only last week the Federal Government announced that it would make a grant of some $200,000 for the construction of this Hall. 1 think that shows how much the Government recognises the necessity to assist in the development of the Arts throughout the country.

I deal now with the item, exhibitions of Australian works of art in Australia and overseas, and overseas exhibitions in Australia - contribution towards expenses. Last year the expenditure was some $13,000. The estimated expenditure for this year is $60,000. I should like that spelled out in a bit more detail. I refer now to item 05 which relates to the acquisition of a collection of artefacts to represent the indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea in the proposed National Gallery in Canberra. I do commend the Government for its work here for 1 do feel that, as a nation, we should make sure that we preserve the treasures resulting from the cultures, the arts and the skills of the people in that Territory.

I turn now to Division 444 - Office of Aboriginal Affairs. I ‘refer in particular to item 02 which relates to support for seminars. The expenditure on this item last year was $4,000. This year it is expected that $16,000 will be spent. What kind of seminars will these be, and where will they be held? Will they be seminars for the general education of Australians as well as the indigenous people of this country?

Item 03 relates to investigations and research. The expenditure last year was $46,851. The amount estimated to be expended this year is $85,000. This increase in itself demonstrates very clearly the amount of responsibility that the Government is accepting in the field of research. I should like to know basically what areas are covered by this item. 1 repeat that one does appreciate the increased responsibility taken by the Government towards investigation and research for the welfare of the Aboriginal people, and, for purposes of clarification, I. ask what aspects these investigations and research will cover.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 456 - Public Service Board. I should like to mention again a matter which 1 raised last year during the discussion of the estimates for the Department of Health, lt is the continuing injustice done to Commonwealth public servants who fail to meet the medical standards which have been arranged between the Public Service Board and the Department of Health. Last year I had occasion to make representations to the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) on behalf of two technicians in training who had mct with accidents, one in the course of his employment and one outside his employment.

In both cases the private doctors of the young men concerned said that they were capable of performing the duties of a technician, but the Commonwealth Medical Officer, who was required to judge their fitness on the standard set by the Public Service Board, said they were unfit to do the work. The result of this was that their services were terminated. One young man had received special recommendation as to his skill in the trade for which he was training from the authorities under whom he was training. The other young man also had similar recommendations as to efficiency. This young man, whose leg was affected by the accident, was considered by his own doctor as being capable of performing the duties required of him. But both were forced to get employment outside the Public Service. The reply I received from the Postmaster-General with respect to one young man, whose name I shall not mention, stated that the young man concerned appealed against the decision that he was not medically fit, but the Public Service Board, which is the final authority on all questions relating to medical standards for appointment to the Commonwealth Public Service, confirmed the previous decision that he did not meet the medical fitness requirements. As to the other young man who had been dismissed from his position, the Postmaster-General said:

However, he indicated that he had obtained an apprenticeship wilh the South Australian Woods and Forests Department in Mount Gambier and declined the offer of further employment in this Department.

He had been offered employment in the Department not at his trade, at which he was proficient but, because he was incapacitated, in some semi-skilled job. The incapacity from which he suffered was that one leg was half an inch shorter than the other as a result of the accident.

I have had two other somewhat similar cases recently. One was the case of a young man who suffered a mental breakdown and whose private doctor said that he could continue to perform his duties. The other case was that of a young man who suffered an accident during the course of his employment, lt seems strange to me that at the same lime as the Government is saying that certain medical standards have got to be set and the Public Service Board is claiming that its inspectors in the various States deliberate upon cases such as those to which I refer, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) and other senior Ministers are asking private employers to employ physically handicapped people. Both the young men about whom I speak - no doubt there are others - have been able to obtain employment outside the Public Service.

Senator Keeffe mentioned another instance of injustice along the lines about which I complain. The Minister will remember that Senator Keeffe referred to the case of an ex-serviceman who served 12 years in the Army, who had been in the occupation forces in Japan, who was a Korean war veteran and who finally obtained employment in the Repatriation Department. Prior to obtaining his employment he had obtained from the Department a pension for his war service. When appointed to the Department he discovered that he could not be appointed as a permanent officer because he did not meet the physical standards required by the Commonwealth Public Service Board, i submit that the Government should adopt modern medical standards in these cases. Instead of rejecting people because they have suffered some minor mental breakdown or some minor physical injury, or because they suffer from diabetes or some nervous complaint, the Government ought to modify its standards and do as is done by outside employers - accept such people as permanent officers.

Under Division 456 the Government is seeking an appropriation of $137,500 for recruitment, advertising and other expenses. While it advertises for people to join the Public Service the Government is at the same time asking capable young men to leave its employment because they do not come up to certain medical standards. When I raised this matter with the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) last year he wrote back stating that Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin had asked him to set out the circumstances relating to my complaint. Amongst other things, he said:

It is common knowledge that the particular disabilities to which reference has been made are also grounds for retirement or invalidity, if the condition deteriorates, lt would not be surprising if, in such cases, the Boards were to conclude that the only proper course is to progressively incorporate appropriate relaxations of previous standards, testing changes adopted against experience.

Further on he refers to a meeting held in 1967 at which the relaxation of these standards was discussed. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of the unions of which the young people about whom I am concerned were members, there has been no relaxation of standards. In the January issue of the journal ‘Tele-Technician’, the official organ of the Postal Telecommunication Technicians Association (Australia), there is published strong criticism of this attitude on the part of the Government. I shall not read it out because time will not permit of my doing so. At the present time the Public Service Board’s inspector in South Australia is giving consideration to two cases in which somewhat similar circumstances apply. It is high time that the Government agreed to confer with the appropriate departments with a view to modifying the present standards to make them more in line with modern accepted requirements. These young people who have become very efficient because of the training that they receive in the Department are able to get employment in other than Commonwealth departments.

Senator Anderson:

– Are you making a point about permanency or about employment?

Senator BISHOP:

– About both. A person may meet the standards required when he joins the Public Service. He then starts his training. He does not become a permanent officer until he is trained. But if he meets with an accident during the training or if he is injured in an accident outside of his employment, he is liable to be called up for a medical check. If the Commonwealth Medical Officer says: ‘According to the standards laid down by the Public Service Board, you are not fit for acceptance for permanent employment,’ he is disadvantaged.

What I am pointing out is that the trend in industry today is to accept people who are handicapped in many ways. Commonwealth Ministers including the Minister for Labour and National Service go out and ask industry to employ people who are handicapped. Through the Department of Social Services the Commonwealth helps to rehabilitate physically handicapped people with a view to fitting them for private employment. There are diabetes cases in addition to the ones I have mentioned. I put it to the Government that it is high time that these standards were lowered, extended or modernised. I am quite sure that members of the medical profession would support such a move. If this is not done, there is no future in the Service for these people who are very able and who have been trained. A lot of money has been spent in training them. Some of these people are offered cleaning jobs or sweeping up jobs. That is quite wrong. This is an important question. The trade unions that handle these people are concerned about it. As this matter has been raised before and there has been some suggestion of a review, I believe that the review should be made as quickly as possible so that justice can be done in the cases I have mentioned.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– At the outset I congratulate the Government on the amounts it is spending in the cultural field. Whilst I could recommend that, as Senator McClelland pointed out, more money be spent on the arts, the estimates show quite an advance by the Government in this field. One of the most important fields that the Government should be fostering is the youth of this country who are clamouring and demonstrating for more recognition and better rights. I notice that under Division 430 the appropriation for the National Youth Council of Australia last year was $12,000 and that amount was spent, but this year the appropriation is only $9,000. I can think of no better investment for the Government to make in the youth of this country than in fostering national youth councils. It surprises me to see that such a very small amount was spent last year - probably no more was spent in other years - and that this year the appropriation has been reduced by 25%. I would like some explanation of that from the Minister, because I believe that we should be doing quite a lot more in this field.

The next appropriation to which I refer is that for the Twenty-eighth International Congress of Orientalists, which is to be held in Australia in 1971. Last year the appropriation was $5,000 and that amount was spent. This year there is an appropriation of $30,000 for this purpose. Yet the congress is not to take place until 1971, which will be after the presentation of the next Budget. It may be that certain expenditures on preparations have to be made before the congress can be held. Some advance work may have to be carried out in Australia before the congress. That may be the answer. But it seems to me to be unusual to start in 1968-69 with an expenditure of $5,000 and then to increase it to $30,000 in 1 969-70. I am wondering what the congress in 1971 will cost if those are the sorts of appropriations that we are making at this time. 1 refer now to the appropriations for Minister of Stale. Leaders of the Opposition and parliamentary parties and staffs in Division 434. I have no quarrel with the expenditure with respect to Ministers of State and Leaders of the Opposition. But I would like to know what the term ‘parliamentary parties and staffs’ means in this context. Does it refer to the staffs that Ministers take with them? Even the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition take certain members of their staffs with them. Is that what the term means in this context? I am aware that the expenditure on parliamentary delegations is included under this division. Those delegations include a parliamentary delegation to South Africa, a parliamentary delegation to Europe, a parliamentary delegation to Canada and the United States of America and a parliamentary delegation to Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. That may be what is meant by ‘parliamentary parties’; I do not know.

I also note under this division - perhaps we will be given some explanation of this - that generally when international assemblies are attended by representatives of this Parliament there are equal numbers of members from both the Government parlies and the Opposition. But I notice that Senator Cormack attended a meeting of the Asian Parliamentarians Union in 1968; yet I can find no reference to a member of the Opposition attending that meeting. I ask whether this is something that is coming into the forms of government today - that the Government will be represented at these assemblies and the Opposition will not be represented at them at all. Was it a meeting which it was not necessary for a member of the Opposition to attend? Was it only necessary for a member of the Government parties to attend? 1 would like the Minister to give me some explanation of that, lt is not like an overseas visit such as a Minister, Leader of the Opposition or Deputy Leader of the Opposition would make in the course of a fact finding mission to see what is going on. This is a parliamentarians union meeting, which was attended by a representative of the Government parties without any representation of the Opposition.

There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. I notice that under Division 880 in Document B last year there was an appropriation of $3,000 for buildings, works, plant and equipment at Australia House and official residences in the United Kingdom; the expenditure was $2,881; and this year the appropriation is $28,300. In addition, under Division 436 in Document A last year there was an appropriation of $33,400 for rent and maintenance of official residences in the United Kingdom; $30,601 was spent; and this year the appropriation is $34,300. Do those figures refer to the maintenance of Australia House or only to the maintenance of residences? How many residences do we have attached to the High Commissioner’s Office in the United Kingdom? Overall there is an appropriation of about $60,000 for this purpose in the two documents.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator CANT:

– There is just one more item that I want to query with the Minister. I refer to the Department of the Cabinet Office. I notice that there was an appropriation of $236,600 for that Department last year and an expenditure in round figures of $165,000. Yet the appropriation for this year is $242,000, an increase of $77,000 on the expenditure last year which, as I have pointed out, was $72,000 less than the amount which was appropriated. It seems to me that there is something haywire in this appropriation. Expenditure last year on salaries and allowances was $105,808 and the appropriation this year is $175,000. That is an increase of $70,000 in salaries and allowances alone, not including overtime or the salary of the Secretary. This seems to me to be providing for a very large increase in staff. I would like some explanation of it. This seems to me to be a somewhat new department. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has rather changed the function of the Prime Minister’s Department and the Cabinet Office since he became Prime Minister. As honourable senators will know this has caused some consternation in the ranks of the Public Service. It would be interesting to know just how this is working out and whether this large increase in staff, which must be the reason for the large increase in the provision for salaries and allowances, is to fortify the Department in this controversy that is going on between other public servants and itself. I would like some explanation of why the appropriation last year was underspent to the extent of $72,000 and yet this year there is an appropriation of $77,000 over and above the expenditure for last year.

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

– A number of matters have been raised which it would be appropriate to deal with at this time. Senator Turnbull spoke in relation to the appropriation for Aboriginal advancement. I think the crux of his query was that whereas last year there was an appropriation of $10m this year the appropriation is shown as $7. 16m. This is for payment to the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account. The thing to remember is that a S5m trust fund was set up last year. I agree that from the way in which this is presented it looks as though there has been a reduction. This is not so. There was an appropriation of $5m to establish a capital enterprise fund and that was paid to a trust account. There was another $5 for welfare payments. Of the $5m trust account only $400,000 was firmly committed. Of some 200 applications received to establish business enterprises twenty have been approved to date. In relation to the second amount of S5m, a sum of $4m was spent. So there was a surplus out of the $10m. The sum of $7. 16m available for welfare in 1969-70 is an increase of $2. 2m over the figure for 1968-69.

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

– Surplus plus this year’s?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. That is the way it occurred. Senator Turnbull also spoke about his own problems and his own entitlements, and he referred to some Commonwealth vehicle which he discovered at Thredbo.

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

– I got an answer to that.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Before the dinner adjournment the honourable senator used it as part of his argument and I am about to give the answer which has already been given to him. The situation was that a Commonwealth Department of the Interior vehicle was in Thredbo during the week-end to which he referred. It was used as transport for Department of Immigration photographers and their equipment to the snowfields to cover the international skiing events which were taking place at that time. I am sure that this was for the purpose of taking film to publicise Australia.

Senator Young raised a number of matters to which I should refer. He referred to the acquisition and collection of artefacts to represent the indigenous people of Papua and New Guinea in the proposed national gallery at Canberra. This expenditure on this item went from $16,000 last year to an appropriation of $20,000 for this year. Incidentally, last year this appropriation was short spent. All I can say is that during 1968-69 a number of valuable artefacts were acquired during two field expeditions. In addition artefacts now unobtainable in Papua and New Guinea were acquired from various collectors. It is intended to continue the project, commenced last year, of collecting these artefacts from Papua and

New Guinea which will become an important part of the collections of the proposed national gallery.

The honourable senator then referred lo the contribution towards expenses of exhibitions of Australian works of art in Australia and overseas exhibitions in Australia. This is a significant appropriation in the sense that the honourable senator made a point of the increase from §14,000 last year to §60,000 this year. This provision is required to meet the cost of exhibitions of Australian art overseas and in Australia and for exhibitions from overseas to be circulated in Australian State galleries. The increased provision for 1969-70 is required to meet the costs of a comprehensive exhibition of Australian art to tour five South East Asian countries. The countries arc named. The honourable senator also referred to the appropriation for support for seminars. An increased provision of 56,000 is made. Provision was made in 1968-69 to pay a subsidy of $6,000 for a seminar to be conducted by the University of Sydney, but payment was not effected before the end of the financial year. A sum of $2,000 is required for a seminar to be conducted; $4,000 for an adult education seminar by the Australian National University; and $4,000 for special courses on management for Aboriginals receiving assistance under the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises.

Senator Young also showed interest in the appropriation for investigation and research, which shows an increase from S50.000 to $85,000. The capacity of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs to advise realistically on policy depends on the capacity of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to furnish it with the requisite data and assessments. The scope of the Council’s inquiries is expanding and it is necessary for some of the research, particularly that of a highly technical nature, to be conducted by firms of consultants, universities and 01 he,s. The increase sought reflects the expansion of the area of the Council’s work, and provision has been made for various research projects which are under way or are due to be undertaken in the immediate future.

Reference was also made lo the Festival Hall in South Australia. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has stated that the Commonwealth Government is to donate $200,000 of the amount of $300,000 sought to be raised by public appeal. This advice has been conveyed to the Premier of South Australia. The Commonwealth has said that it will meet two-thirds of the amount sought to be raised. Senator Bishop referred to the recruitment of staff. He pointed out that an appropriation for funds for recruitment of staff is a requirement in many departments. The Public Service Board, for a variety of reasons, rejects certain applicants on health grounds, and for the same reason denies permanency to other applicants. I cannot add very much to the point made by the honourable senator. Each case would depend on the particular requirements of the Public Service. Because the question of superannuation is involved with the question of the health of applicants in the normal field of Public Service recruitment it would seem to me to bc axiomatic that a certain standard must be laid down. Nevertheless, 1 believe that there is an opportunity for special people to bc empployed in special departments. In my own Department we have made a deliberate and conscious effort to employ certain people on special work for which they are competent. I appreciate the honourable senator’s point that there appears to be inconsistency, but in truth I do not believe this is so. The Public Service Board is responsible for recruitment in the Public Service, lt must lay down an all over criterion. I think the honourable senator was referring to special cases which would have lo be treated on a special basis.

Senator Cant referred to the appropriation in Division 430 for the National Youth Council. He pointed out that the appropriation this year of $9,000 is less than last year’s appropriation of $12,000. A grant of $5,000 was made to the Council in i960 to help to meet the costs of establishing the organisation. Approval was given for the payment of $2,000 in 1961 -62 and $7,000 in 1962-63. The annual grant was increased to $9,000 in 1963-64 and to $12,000 in 1967-68 for a period of 2 years to allow the Council to extend its activities and to attract more support from private bodies. The Council has expressed satisfaction with the results of the special additional aid and is agreeable to the amount reverting to $9,000 a year.

Reference was made by Senator Cant to the appropriation in Division 430 for the Twenty-eighth International Congress of Orientalists. The appropriation has jumped from $5,000 last year to S30,000 this year, which is the point made by Senator Cant. The Commonwealth has agreed to make a grant of $50,000 towards the cost of the Twenty-eighth Congress to be held in Canberra in January 1971. An additional payment of $5,000 was made in May and provision has been made for further payments during 1969-70 totalling $30,000. So it is clear that the appropriation of $30,000 represents part of the requirement of $50,000. I have no doubt that there are good and sufficient, reasons why the money is required at this time. There is a ceiling on this expenditure.

Another query raised by Senator Cant related to the appropriation for rent and maintenance of official residences. There are eight residences in London, seven of which are occupied respectively by the High Commissioner, the Deputy High Commissioner, the Official Secretary, the senior External Affairs representative, the Special Commercial Advisor, the Head of the Joint Services Staff, and the Financial Counsellor. The item provides for the rent, rates and normal maintenance of the residences. The major components of the appropriation arc rent and rates $5,49.9; wages $7,522; general maintenance of buildings and furnishings $5,252; internal and external painting $3,900; and works $7,909. The provision for new works includes central heating for the chauffeur’s cottage at the High Commissioner’s residence and for the Commercial Advisor’s residence, and the construction of a toilet in the residence of the Head of the Joint Services Staff.

Senator Cant also referred to the appropriation of $175,000 for salaries and allowances in the estimates of the Department of the Cabinet Office. This appropriation has been estimated to provide for the salaries and allowances payable to an average of 33 officers and employees to carry out the administrative and operational functions of the Cabinet Office for the ensuing year. An amount of $105,808 was expended during 1968-69 in providing salaries for 24 officers, a good many of whom were recruited during that financial year and thus were not on the payroll for the full 12 months. It is hoped that during the current financial year it will be possible to increase the average strength of the Cabinet Office staff by 9. This strength would still be short of the current establishment of 38 positions approved by the Executive Council.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, Senator Cant addressed himself to the appropriations in respect of the Prime Minister’s Department dealing with administrative expenses. He raised the matter of a line entry under Division 434 which reads: Senator M. C. Cormack - Asian Parliamentarians Union - 1968”. I must say that I find myself slightly surprised to discover that J am represented by a line in the estimates. As this deals with matters which are the concern of the Parliament. 1 suggested to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that perhaps it was proper that 1 should explain to the Committee how it happens that my name appears in a line of the estimates for the Prime Ministers Department. If the Committee is agreeable, 1 will take 2 or 3 minutes to explain what it is all about.

The Committee will recall that some lime ago it was agreed that the functions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which had been in existence since 1953, should be altered so that all sides of the Parliament and both Houses were represented on the Committee. From that lime, it became the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I was the first Chairman of that Committee. In the course of the examination of various matters it was suggested by a member of the Committee

Senator Ormonde:

– Which side of it or which House?

Senator CORMACK:

– From the House of Representatives, lt was suggested that if there was to be any representation of any parliamentary committee or by any parliamentarian at the Asian Parliamentarians Union meeting, that representation should be drawn from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Under instruction from the Committee I wrote to the Government conveying this information. Subsequently, an invitation arrived from the secretariat of the Asian Parliamentarians Union asking the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia whether it would send a representative to the council meeting of the Union which was held early last year in Bangkok. In response to this invitation, the Government decided that the Parliament should not be represented at the Asian Parliamentarians Union for various sound reasons, in my opinion, but agreed that because of the importance that near Asia represents to Australia the Parliament should be represented by an observer. I was requested by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to go to Bangkok as an observer and to attend the council meeting.

Later in the year, a plenary meeting of the Asian Parliamentarians Union was to be held. When this meeting came round, the Prime Minister again designated me, as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to go to Manila as an observer. I suggested - I hope members of the Opposition will readily agree with me in this - that in continuance of the policy that I had adopted regarding the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Vice Chairman of the Committee should always be drawn from the Opposition, a representative from the Opposition also should attend the Council meeting and the plenary meeting of the Asian Parliamentarians Union in the role of observer. The reply from the Government to that suggestion was that as Australia was not a participant in the Asian Parliamentarians Union and as only an observer was required to go and to report back, one representative only of the Parliament should be sent.

Members of the Parliament who are members of the Foreign Affairs Committee will acknowledge that I. have reported to the Foreign Affairs Committee on the matters that transpired at those two conferences. Probably these reports also have been deposited in the Department of External Affairs and in the Prime Minister’s Department with copies going also to Mr Speaker and to Mr President. I conclude by making this observation. I have no desire to travel in Asia. I regarded my attendance on both occasions at these meetings as a job. In the first instance, I went directly from Australia to Bangkok and returned directly to Australia. In the second instance, I went directly to Manila from

Australia and 1 returned directly from Manila to Australia. As I believe that public funds always should be carefully husbanded by a public man, I returned to the Treasury half of the expenses that were advanced to me to make these visits.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– Questions concerning the items that I had noted as ones on which I would request information have already been asked by other honourable senators with the exception of one matter. I will deal with that. I refer to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the statement of Lieutenant-Commander Cabban and matters incidental thereto. An amount of $32,000 has been appropriated for the financial year 1969-70 under this item whereas $8,176 was the expenditure last financial year. I was under the impression that this matter had been concluded before 30th June of this year. I wonder why an appropriation of $32,000 has been requested for the financial year 1969-70?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 desire to address a few remarks in relation to the Commonwealth Literary Fund scholarships. This year, $1.47,000 is appropriated for the Literary Fund. The expenditure last financial year was $110,000. I raise the question whether this increase should be agreed to before this appropriation has been looked at and until we have some idea of the method of the distribution of these scholarships. The booklet that I have here was issued by the Commonwealth Literary Fund and I note on reading it that the Fund was inaugurated in 1908 by the Deakin Ministry. According to this publication, the purpose of the Fund is to provide fellowships to enable writers to concentrate on producing works of creative literature. A work may have a historical or other factual clements. The emphasis should not be on these elements but. on imaginative interpretation and style. The maximum value of a fellowship for someone who is successful in obtaining one ls $6,000 for 1 year. The value and currency of each fellowship awarded are determined by a committee. So, that committee could award a fellowship worth a lot less than $6,000 per annum.

Looking at the names of persons to whom fellowships have been awarded, we find that the author Hal Porter has received four scholarships from this committee in different years and has nearly become a full-time employee of the Commonwealth Literary Fund. This would seem to be his source of income. Thomas Kenneally has received two scholarships in 2 successive years. There are a number of other authors who have received two scholarships or a scholarship. As I have said, these are awarded for literary effort but they never seem to result in the publication or printing of a book. Therefore, what value does the awarding of such scholarships have? In contradiction of that question, I wish to cite a particular case. It is the case of Mr Ward McNally an author, who has been applying for a scholarship for the last 6 years or 7 years. His applications have always been ejected, while continuing scholarships nave been awarded to other persons.

Let me outline to the Committee his achievements. In 1965, he wrote a book entitled ‘Australia: The Challenging Land’. This book received warm praise from Punch’, the ‘Scotsman’, the ‘Advertiser’, and many other journals. In the following year, 1966, he wrote ‘New Zealand: The Whichway Country’. This book was published in London and, a few months later, it went in to an American edition under the imprint of A. S. Barnes and Co. Incorporated of New York. The book was highly praised in London, New York, St Louis and Canada. In the same year, he published the book ‘Smithy: The Kingsford-Smith Story’. This was published in London. It later went into an American edition under the A. S. Barnes and Co. Incorporated banner. This book was serialised by the Australian’ and received warm reviews, lt went into three hardback impressions and soon came out as a paperback.

In 1968, he wrote ‘Cry of a Man Running’ which was his own autobiography of how he came from a broken home, training farms in New Zealand and Borstal and prison camps to a measure of respectability and a place in the community as a useful citizen and parent. The book has won lavish half-page reviews in New Zealand and also good reviews in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’, the Adelaide ‘Sunday Mail’ and the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. In 1968 he wrote ‘Australia: The Waking Giant’. This is a 70.000 word examination of Australia today. It carries 77 pictures, some in colour, and comes out in New York under the A. S. Barnes and Co. Incorporated banner next month.

Senator Prowse:

– Is this a commercial?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My friend from Western Australia has no sympathy for the underdog who is fighting for recognition as a writer. Mr Thomas Yoseloff, Managing Director of A. S. Barnes and Co. Inc., has said that he regards the book on Australia as easily the best about our country that he has yet read. To avoid any more commercials, let me say that Ward McNally has had success in writing. When he applied for a scholarship he was informed by Sir Archibald Grenfell Price, Chairman of the Board, that his book ‘Smithy: The Kingsford-Smith Story’, which was an autobiography of Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith, was not acceptable as there was a mistake in it. The author readily admits the mistake and claims that there were three mistakes in the book which never would have occurred had he had a scholarship and the opportunity to spend more time on consideration of the book. At the time he received the correspondence from Sir Archibald he had before him notification to the effect that this book was published in serial form in the ‘Australian’ and that he had received praise for the book from all those who were closely associated with Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith, including the widow of Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith. I am sorry that for the moment I am unable to find the names of those who gave high praise to the book.

This man has achieved something by reason of his literary ability. Miss Kylie Tennant, a member of the Advisory Board, admitted that she had not read the book but she was one of those who advised the Committee on who should be awarded the prize. I would question whether other members of the Board had read the book.

This man is battling. His wife is out working to keep their children and he is doing part time work. So he cannot give to the book the attention that it warrants. His book Cry of a Man Running’ which has had reasonable sales, tells his own life story - that he was the product of a broken home in New Zealand and that for 12 years he spent most of his time in gaol for robbery, battery, assault and escaping from custody. He was on the point of being declared an habitual criminal. He stowed away on a boat that was coming to Australia. When he reached Melbourne his first job was as security officer with an oil company. He gave the name of Ward McNally, which was the name of a Catholic priest in New Zealand who had befriended him and possibly was the only person who had spoken a kind word to him during the whole of his life. Ward McNally has been overlooked by the Board and cannot get any assistance to use the talent which he has. While in gaol he used his talent in the field of journalism. He has developed that talent since then.

After coming to Australia he spent 3 years as editor of the ‘Centralian Advocate’, a newspaper circulating in the Alice Springs area. I do not know how long he was in Alice Springs but while there he received three newspaper industry awards for improving the news content and layout of the newspaper. He is a man of undoubted skill. In April 1967 he was admitted as a Fellow to the Order of the Knights of the International Mark Twain Society which is the greatest acknowledgment that can be given to American authors. This man has the necessary talent and writing ability to advertise Australia, to put Australia on the map. His contributions will be accepted by a publishing company but he cannot get the necessary assistance to enable him to devote the time that is required to his writing. He has now reached the stags where he wonders why his children ask: You apply every year, Dad, but others are getting four and five prizes. What handicap have you? What is in your writings that the Board will not recognise?’ I think that consideration should be given to this man’s case.

Possibly the Parliament cannot express an opinion on McNally’s literary contributions but it can ask whether it is right that one author who has received four scholarships still has not produced anything. Surely that man is not entitled to a scholarship. Is it right that scholarships should be awarded to people whose writings never see the light of publication? Certain scholarships are being used in that “way. In McNally’s case his books are available. They are on sale in Australia. Is there no hope for this man, who has a bad background but who has rehabilitated himself, to get anything out of the Fund? Is some distinction drawn on the standing of the individual who receives a prize? I have raised the case of Ward McNally in the hope that some better consideration will be given to him when he submits future applications for a scholarship.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I shall direct my remarks to the allocation of $7,160,000 for payment to the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account, but before doing so I should like to comment on my location in the chamber. In this corner of the chamber where I sit it is rather difficult to attract the attention of the Chair. During question time 1 gain all the exercise I need by jumping up and down for at least half the period before I am recognised. That is no reflection on the Chair; it is a reflection on the position in which 1 sit. I find it objectionable to have to jump to my feet and call out Madam Chair’ or ‘Mr President’ like a young schoolboy who wants to go somewhere, f suggest that there should be a re-arrangement of seating in the chamber. It could be done quite easily by moving the four senators in this corner further to the left in the direction that we are pleased to go. This could be achieved by moving the members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and the member of the Australia Party to the Government side where they truly belong. Some consideration should be given to my suggestion.

I turn now to the matter to which I referred earlier. I too am surprised at the reduction in appropriation for Aboriginal Advancement from $10m last year to $7,160,000 this year. I am not quite satisfied with the explanation that the Minister has given. Let me refer to page 219 of the Auditor-General’s report which contains a table of receipts and expenditure. It will be seen that the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account finished the year’s operations with a balance of $1,341,470. I would say that any department with such a vital area of responsibility which finishes up with such a surplus ought to take a look at the level of its activity. It ought to make certain that the moneys it is given are spent. Not only do we have to look at this figure and express concern but also we have to look at the appropriation for the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises of the amount of $4,650,000. If I heard the

Minister correctly he said that of this amount $400,000 has been allocated and twenty enterprises have been assisted.

Senator Anderson:

– Two hundred applications have been received and 20 have been approved to date.

Senator GEORGES:

– How much moneywas expended?

Senator Anderson:

– An amount of $400,000.

Senator GEORGES:

– This was out of $4,650,000 which was allocated - and rightly so - for the assistance of Aboriginals to enable them to undertake enterprises of their own, to enter into business or into some function in which they could activate and justify themselves. This figure is far, far loo low. I suggestto the Department that it is being over-cautious.

Senator Greenwood:

– How long has it been in operation?

Senator GEORGES:

– Twelve months.

Senator Greenwood:

– Not 12 months.

Senator Anderson:

– About 6 months.

Senator GEORGES:

– I remember discussing it during the Estimates debate last year and I remember asking a question as to the amount granted. I think I congratulated Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin upon a grant which was made in relation to an Aboriginal copper project. I asked a question about the conditions. My concern was that any loans made for Aboriginal enterprises should carry a small, nominal interest. The Minister replied that she was pleased to say that she had just been informed that the money for the Yuendumu copper project was interest free. I thought: That is fair enough. That is the way to encourage Aboriginal enterprises. We make this money available and do not charge any interest, because if our intention is honourable an interest charge would be iniquitous’. But I made a few inquiries on behalf of another enterprise, Mona Mona Co-operative Society Ltd at Kuranda in north Queensland. During my investigations when seeking support for this worthy project, I found that the Department now has a policy of charging 5% interest on moneys advanced. This is a complete departure from the policy that the Minister indicated to me, that is, that the advances would be interest free. They are not. There is a 5% interest charge, which is only 2i% less than the bank charges on normal business enterprises of the ordinary community. I find this hard to take - a charge of 5% interest on moneys advanced to Aboriginals to commence, lo develop business enterprises. Somewhere along the line there has been a change of policy without due consideration and without the knowledge of the Senate.

I suggest that the Department is being over-cautious, firstly, because it has seen fit to charge 5% interest on these loans and, secondly, because it scrutinises these applications far loo carefully. The approach has become a bank approach. I know that some of the conditions are fair. Repayments are not to commence for 18 months or something of that sort. But I think that we have slipped away from the intention, firstly in charging interest, and secondly in making too careful a scrutiny to make certain that these enterprises will be successful. If the Department is to approach the matter so carefully I am not surprised that it managed to allocate only $400,000 in 12 months.

Senator Greenwood:

– Not 12 months.

Senator GEORGES:

– Then in 9 months.

Senator Anderson:

-In 6 months.

Senator GEORGES:

– Then in 6 months. An amount of $400,000 is expended although $4,600,000 is allocated to satisfy a need which exists and which this Government has recognised. The Government in applying this provision has applied many other things.It has made a narrow approach, a too careful approach, a nonhumanitarian approach. I should have thought that most of this money would have been taken up by now but it has not been. 1 suggest lo the Department and the Government that they should look again at this Trust Fund. First, they should consider the abolition of any interest charge. Secondly,They should take a punt as far as the Aboriginals are concerned and see whether they can be assisted without saying:If we lend $7,000 to the Mona Mona Co-operative Society Ltd in North Queensland, will the cattle fatten, will the dingoes take the young calves, will they perhaps lose a couple, and do they know what they are doing?’ This is a straight business approach to a capitalist enterprise and it was not intended.

Senator Branson:

– It is taxpayers’ money.

Senator GEORGES:

– I agree that it is taxpayers’ money.

Senator Toohey:

– So is the money for the Fill aircraft.

Senator Branson:

– What has that to do with Aboriginals?

Senator GEORGES:

– It can be considered as a parallel because the Government is not so careful about the expenditure of $350m of taxpayers’ money for defence purposes. In this direction when we try to assist the Aboriginals we are using taxpayers’ money. When we consider the handouts we have made to Aboriginals over the years amounting to many millions of dollars, surely we should extend the same approach in relation to this particular Fund. We should show some tolerance and extend some generosity. Wc should assist the Aboriginals and give them a chance to show that they can do something for themselves if they are given the trust and the money they require to acquire assets to establish a business.

I want lo move from that point to the matter of $350,000 which was given to the Queensland Government for the establishment of a pipeline from the Jardine River to the Bamaga settlement.

Senator Anderson:

– With the greatest respect, I am dealing with the Estimates. I am not involved in a full scale debate on Aboriginal affairs.

Senator GEORGES:

– I was brushed off on another matter in a previous debate on the Estimates. Following that, I noticed how other senators were allowed to range fairly widely. This does concern the administration of the Department. During the Estimates debate last year we were told about this amount of $350,000 which was to be given to the State Government for the establishment of a pipeline from the Jardine River to Bamaga. I asked a question concerning the rates of pay for Aboriginals working on this pipeline, because on a visit to Bamaga I found that an Aboriginal driver of a bulldozer was paid about one-third of the rate that he should have been paid. What were virtually coolie wages were paid to Aboriginals for work equal to that done by white men. Aboriginals were being paid a small amount of money. In reply to a question the Minister indicated that the negotiations for this loan were still proceeding. I want to know how it is that 12 months later - not 9 months, because we discussed this matter during the Estimates debate - negotiations in relation to this loan of $350,000 are still proceeding. I want to know what is the cause of the delay. Can the Minister explain why we were not able to get any information at all and why, if work was being carried out by the State Government with money provided by the Commonwealth, proper award rates were not paid to Aboriginals? I think that this ought to be explained. It is of no use to say that I am ranging wide. I am commenting on the large sums of money that we are spending in the administration of this Department. I should like to mention also the answer to a question I received on the treatment of malnutrition in Aboriginal children.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot allow the honourable senator to debate such matters. He must relate what he is saying to the Estimates. The honourable senator is speaking about the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, but I cannot allow him to range as wide as he is now doing.

Senator Gair:

– He is on a walkabout.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. May I say that this is a new department which has been given the responsibility for an expenditure of $10m. Its administrative costs have increased. I suggest that it is fair to place expenditure of that order under scrutiny. The Government, which has accepted the responsibility for Aboriginals that it was given by the people of Australia at a referendum, has made money available for this purpose but has fallen down on the job of applying the money that has been provided. It has fallen down in accepting completely responsibility for what is happening to Aboriginals in various parts of Australia. For instance, we no longer hear of the Gurindji tribe and we do not know what progress is being made there. We should be told because the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is concerned with money that ls spent on administration in this area. I want to know whether a report has been prepared on a breakthrough in the treatment of malnutrition in Aboriginal children. If the report has been prepared and the department has knowledge of it, why has it not been released?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I. return to Division 434 and the attendance of Senator Cormack at the Asian Parliamentarians Union conference in 1968. T asked the Minister about this item of expenditure; I did not ask Senator Cormack for an answer. I think it was an impertinence on Senator Cormack’s part to answer instead of the Minister, unless he has ambitions to replace him permanently. At no time did J question Senator Cormack’s attendance at the Asian Parliamentarians Union conference. At no time did I question the amount of money that was spent or the amount of money that he alleges he brought back unspent. I did not question that in any way. The question I raised was why the Government should be represented at the Asian Parliamentarians Union conference, even as an observer, when the Opposition was not represented. Whether the Government likes it or not we, the Opposition today, are the alternative government of this country. We are entitled to know as much about what is going on in Asia as the Government knows. At any time that the Government sends delegations to the Asian Parliamentarians Union, whether as full delegates or as observers, the Opposition also is entitled to be represented. To Senator Cormack’s credit he informed us that he made representations for a member of the Opposition to go but that his representations were rejected by the Prime Minister.

I am nol critical of the expenditure of $2,660 last year on Senator Cormack’s visit to this area, but the report that Senator Cormack brought back was supplied only to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Department of External Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Department. “No report was made to the Senate or to the Parliament of what he observed when he was at the Asian Parliamentarians Union Conference. The Minister will be aware that it took several years before the Australian Labor Party was prepared to join the Foreign Affairs Committee. If we are to be treated in this manner, I will be one who will be asking the Australian Labor Party to retire from the Foreign Affairs Committee. If we are not to be accorded full representation in all the affairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee there is not very much sense in our belonging to it. I should like to know from the Minister - not from Senator Cormack - why the Government sees fit to make provision for an observer to go to this Asian Parliamentarians Union conference but does not make provision for a member of the Opposition to be in attendance to observe the meeting so that the Opposition will be as well informed as the Government is.

Senator TURNBULL (TasmaniaLeader of Australia Party) (8.56] - I refer again to Division 43.1 which relates to assistance for the arts. I am still confused. Once upon a time we had the Elizabethan Theatre Trust, the opera and the ballet, but today we have support for the performing arts. There is no mention of the Council for the Arts. 1 should like to know what were the losses by the touring companies, because there have been some rather heavy losses in the past. During the suspension of the sitting for dinner I tried to get this information from the Parliamentary Library, but the only report of the Elizabethan Trust that the Library says it has is the one for 1967. J know that the 1968 report has been distributed, but I cannot find it and neither can the Library. The report of the Elizabethan Trust that 1 had showed that it had a profit in May. Do not the Trust’s accounts, like those for other organisations, run from 30th June? Where can I get these accounts so that J can make a comparison of the amounts the individual touring companies lost?

If the Trust is compelled to submit a report, why is there not a report from the Council for the Arts, which is really the government body in this sphere? I am not trying to reduce the amount to be appropriated for this purpose but I want information. Apparently we cannot get information. We should be able to know what has happened. I do not want to say any more on that subject as I have spoken on it before. Perhaps the Minister when replying might be able to tell me something about the Elizabeth Farm House at Parramatta, which I raised with him last May.

Senator Anderson:

– I said that it was under consideration. That is all the information that 1 have.

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

– -But it has been under consideration since May. I suppose the Minister knows that the Cook Bicentenary Celebrations are to be held in February next year.

Senator Anderson:

– I know.

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

– They want to get this programme organised and completed. It seems incredible that a government cannot make up its mind about that and yet is able to make all these other grants to other people. Apparently it cannot even think about doing this.

Senator Gair:

– It is concentrating on the Russian Ballet.

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

– We notice all these international tours and cultural exchanges, probably with the Moscow Circus and other Russian enterprises. One other matter to which I refer is the expenditure for annual allowances for ex-members of Parliament and others or their dependants. Who are the others? I notice a decrease in the estimate for this purpose for this year.

Senator Branson:

– Some are deceased.

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

– I presume that there have been some deaths among the exmembers and others, but I want to know the purpose of this appropriation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 wish to refer to a matter which I mentioned earlier in relation to the appropriation of $147,000 for the Commonwealth Literary Fund for payment to the Commonwealth Literary Fund Trust Account. I presented a plea on behalf of Mr Ward McNally, the author. I referred to correspondence he received about his application for a Literary Fund scholarship. He received notification from Sir Archibald Grenfell Price that his biography of the late Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith contained one mistake. He admitted that and said that it would not have been there if he had been granted a scholarship which would have given him time to work on the book. The author admitted making one mistake or three mistakes in the book. Despite those mistakes the book was highly praised by those who knew Smithy.

When I spoke about this matter earlier I could not find the reference I needed to complete the story. To make the story com plete, I conclude by saying 1 .hat at the time Mr McNally wrote to Sir Archibald he had correspondence from Captain Fred Haig and Mr Beau Sheil, both ex-flying associates of Smithy, who had written to tell him how much they enjoyed the book and how faithfully he had presented the word picture of the man. He also had a letter from Mrs Mary Tully, the former Lady Kingsford-. Smith. She wrote from Ontario to tell him how she enjoyed the story of her late husband. She wrote:

This book was by far the best and most truthful account of Charles’ life I have ever read.

In spite of this praise, the author did not receive assistance from the Literary Fund.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– My remarks will be brief, having regard to the fact that earlier I spoke on the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department. I again refer to the appropriation of $100,000 under the heading ‘Film Activities - Purchase of Programme Time’. 1 wonder what this item actually refers to, bearing in mind that the Experimental Film Fund is merely being set up at this stage. Throughout this financial year, is it intended that $100,000 worth of commercial television time will be purchased by the Prime Minister’s Department for the purpose of showing on commercial television the films made as a result of experiments conducted by the Film Fund? If nol, to what specific item does the $100,000 refer?

I now direct the Minister’s attention to the appropriation of $3,582,300 for the Public Service Board. I point out to the Minister that on 13th August, well over a month ago, I placed on the notice paper a question relating to a policy decision of the Board and its effect on the Public Service. As yet I have received no reply to the question. lt. was quite a simple question. Having regard to the facilities available to the Crown, I would have thought that the question could well have been answered within 2 or 3 days or within a week at the most. It is nearly 5 weeks since the question was placed on the notice paper. It is question No. 1359. I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

Did the Prime Minister state, on 4th March 1969, that he had asked the Commonwealth Public Service Board to consider whether it should notify all members of the Public Service that ils practice is that even when an officer is under notice of dismissal the Board would accept the officer’s resignation, should it be tendered?

Has the Public Service Board so notified Commonwealth public servants; if not, why has notification not been given? 1 ask the Minister whether, with the help of the departmental officers alongside him, he is in a position to speak for and on behalf of the Prime Minister. While speaking on the estimates of the Public Service Board, 1 draw the Minister’s attention to the attitude adopted by the Public Service Board to one particular officer. A permanent officer of the Public Service was charged with a criminal offence under section 62 of the Public Service Act. He appeared before a magistrate. The magistrate heard the case for the prosecution and decided that there was no case for the accused to answer.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is this a wellknown case?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– 1 would not have thought it was a well-known case. The officer was charged with being knowingly concerned in the commission of stealing offences by a fellow member of the staff of the Postmaster-General’s Department. The matter has been taken up verbally with the Prime Minister. I assume it has been brought to the notice of the Public Service Board. The man was charged under section 62 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. He was brought before a magistrate and charged under the Crimes Act with being knowingly concerned in the commission of stealing offences by a fellow member of the staff of one government department. The case was heard by the magistrate. The case was presented by the prosecution. After hearing the case for the prosecution the magistrate determined that there was no case for the accused to answer. He was discharged by the magistrate. He was charged immediately by the Department under section 55 of the Public Service Act, tried by the Department and found guilty. He appealed to the Public Service Appeals Tribunal. I am advised by the Prime Minister, who I assume would have been advised by the Public Service Board, that the Appeal Board hearing the appeal is required by section 57 of the Public Service Act to make a thorough investigation without regard to legal forms and solemnities and to direct itself by the best evidence which it can procure or which is led before it, whether the evidence is such as the law would require or admit in other cases or not. To me this appears to be very harsh treatment of a public servant who was tried by a magistrate who, after having heard the evidence presented by the prosecution, decided that there was no case for the accused to answer. Immediately he was discharged he was charged by the Department under another section of the Public Service Act, found guilty by the Department, and sacked by the Department. He appealed to the Appeal Board of the Public Service Board and then was informed that under section 57 of the Public Service Act the Appeal Board necessarily does not have to comply with the legal rules in open hearings but may make a thorough investigation without regard’ to legal forms and solemnities.

Senator Byrne:

– Can the honourable senator say whether the charge brought by the Public Service was the same charge as that on which he was discharged?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The charge brought by the Public Service in the second instance was very much similar to but not identical with the one on which he was discharged.

Senator Byrne:

– What was the charge?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The charge on which he appeared before the magistrate was that he was knowingly concerned in the commission of stealing offences by a fellow member of the staff of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. After being discharged by the magistrate he was charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act with improper conduct in that he was a party to offences committed by the other officer, involving wilful alteration of entries respecting certain bulk postage dockets. Whilst the second charge is not identical with the first charge, it is somewhat similar to it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The same pattern.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The same circumstances surround the charges. Under the Public Service Act, a department or the Public Service Board, if it so chooses, can have two bites at a cherry in order to punish an officer of the department. Frankly, I think it is a sad state of affairs. Subsection 5 of section 62 of the Public Service Act reads:

This section shall not prevent an office! from being dealt with under some other provision of this Act. but an officer shall not be punished under this Act twice in respect of the same offence or matter.

Obviously the way to get around this is merely to change the verbiage of the charge. If the Board or a department wants to do so, it can see to it that there is no escape merely by saying: ‘We believe in our own hearts, despite the fact that you have been acquitted, that you are guilty of the offence and therefore we are going to sack you.’ I plead with the Government, and 1 plead with the Public Service Board to have a look at these sections of the Act because I feel that they are iniquitous, that they are unjust, that they discriminate against public servants and that they make the public servants second class citizens. 1 ask the Government to see to it that there is an early review of the Act.

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

Senator Wilkinson referred to the item in Division 430 which relates to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the statement of Lieutenant-Commander Cabban and matters incidental thereto. He was under the impression that these matters had all been terminated. The fact is that there is an appropriation for an estimated expenditure of $32,000 this year. In 1967 a Royal Commission was established to inquire into allegations made by Lieutenant-Commander Cabban and matters incidental thereto. Provision has been made to cover an outstanding claim from one of the solicitors who appeared at the Royal Commission and for a payment in lieu of overtime due to the estate of the late secretary of the Commission. The expenditure in 1968-69 covered solicitor’s expenses.

Senator Cavanagh referred to Division 43 1 and spoke of the provision for payment to the Commonwealth Literary Fund Trust Account. The function of the Commonwealth Literary Fund is to assist Australian writers and to encourage an interest in Australian literature. This is done by the awarding of fellowships to writers. Senator Cavanagh spoke with some feeling on this subject. Assistance is also granted by way of contributions towards the cost of publication of Australian books and journals of high literary merit, the sponsorship of public lectures on Australian literature and the awarding of Commonwealth Literary Fund pensions to writers in recognition of their contribution to Australian literature. The increased provision for 1969-70 is required to meet the cost of increasing the number of fellowships from six to ten. Grants to literary magazines have also been increased from $12,745 to $20,000. The cost of publication of books has increased considerably and additional provision has been made to cover this item.

Senator Cavanagh set out to make a case for an author whose pen name is Ward McNally. I have some reticence about entering into a discussion of the matter. I accept the point that he has made and the views he has expressed. He was entitled to express those views. Basically, the position is that fellowships are awarded on literary merit and not on need. Quite obviously, Senator Cavanagh built his case on the question of need. All applications are carefully examined. No doubt the case of this particular author would be carefully examined by the advisory committee of the Commonwealth Literary Fund. 1 would be prepared to accept, as I am sure we must all be, that it is all a matter of judgment. The judgment in this case was that the author should not receive the fellowship that he quite naturally hoped to get and which, if we are to judge from his advocacy, Senator Cavanagh hoped that he would get.

Senator Cavanagh also referred to specific cases in which a fellowship has been granted on more than one occasion to the one applicant. Here again we must come back to the fundamental objective which the Fund is seeking to achieve. It is seeking to encourage special literary merit. I should think that it would be not only logical but possible that a particular author could well qualify, on the basis of merit, not on one but on a number of occasions for a fellowship.

Senator Gair:

– He complained that the Fund granted fellowships without reading the book.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I took it from Senator Cavanagh’s remarks that he was suggesting that in the case of one particular author - I think he mentioned Miss Kylie Tennant - the advisory committee had not in fact read the book.

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

– Who are the members of the panel?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I was coming to that. On this committee there are representatives of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and of the Country Party - indeed, there is an advisory board comprised of experts in literary matters. I am not critical of Senator Cavanagh for raising the point that he has raised, but I think that it must be admitted that in all these things somebody has to make a judgment. In this case the judgment has been that there are other works of literary worth which merit the fellowship more than do those of the author for whom Senator Cavanagh has put the case this evening.

I come now to the contribution by Senator Georges. First I should like to say that, since he submitted his contribution tonight from the corner of the chamber, then heaven help us if he moves to the centre, because he really did cover a tremendously wide canvas. In fact, he launched into a full scale debate on Aboriginal affairs, All I can promise to do for him - and I will do it faithfully - is to see that his contribution is picked up and a very close analysis made of the points that he raised. He went on a very wide sweep. He referred to allowances made to the Aboriginal settlement on the Jardine River in Queensland.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Does not that come under the Office of Aboriginal Affairs?

Senator ANDERSON:

– lt comes under the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, and the honourable senator was entitled to make the contribution that he did, but he could never hope that I could possibly respond to all the points raised in the canvas that he covered.

Senator Gair:

– He is advantaged by that, is he not?

Senator ANDERSON:

– He probably is. All I can say to him is that I will seek to get all the information I can on the whole series of questions that he has raised. Quite obviously that information would not be available to me as I deal with the estimates here tonight. The honourable senator referred to question No. 1225 addressed to Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, which was put on notice on 14th May. It related to the Aboriginal settlement on the Jardine River. I gather that a reply to that question has been given.

Senator Georges:

– lt was that negotiations are still going on.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. Senator McClelland dealt with the Public Service Board. He too asked questions that I am not competent to answer tonight. Indeed, a considerable amount of research will be required to obtain the information that he seeks and in order to be able to give the whole background to the particular matter that he raised.

Senator McClelland:

– I raised it now in preference to speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate.

Senator ANDERSON:

– That is fair enough. I shall endeavour to get those answers which I am unable to supply now at such short notice. Senator Turnbull asked about the losses sustained by the Australian Elizabethan Trust. That information also is not available to me tonight. But I think that inevitably it must be made available. I will try to obtain it for him. The honourable senator also referred to the annual allowances paid to ex-members of Parliament or their dependants. Under that item an ex gratia payment was made. I am quite prepared to make a statement on it to any honourable senator, but I do not want to make it publicly, if I can avoid doing so. If any honourable senator wants to come and get the information from me, he is entitled to do so.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I would not like to allow this estimates debate to go past without referring to Division 459, which is the appropriation for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator Greenwood:

– I did not think you would.

Senator GEORGES:

– If Senator Greenwood is prepared to allow an appropriation of $3,053,000 to be passed without some scrutiny, I assure him that I am not prepared to do so. I had a look at the Auditor-General’s Report. I thought there might be some information on this item there. But is seems to me that this amount of money is not under the scrutiny of the

Auditor-General. Apparently it never has been. 1 regard this as an alarming state of affairs. 1 do not say that we should know just how the Security Service works, but we should know how many people are employed in it and there should be some break-up of the expenditure, especially as the appropriation has increased from about $lm in 1960 to $3,053,000 this year. Even allowing for inflation, that increase seems to indicate that we are less secure at the moment than we were in 1 960.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are more secure, but we take more looking after.

Senator GEORGES:

– I think the honourable senator has a point there. The doubling of this appropriation without any scrutiny whatsoever is something whichI, being a citizen of the democratic state of Australia-

Senator Greenwood:

– The doubling over what period? The appropriation has been increased by only about$200,000, has it not?

Senator GEORGES:

– lt has been increased by about $240,000 since last year; but, as I said, since 1960 it has gone from about $lm to $3,053,000 without any explanation whatsoever. The AuditorGeneral has no access to this expenditure, and it seems to me that neither has the Prime Minisier. It seems that this is a separate organisation altogether: that the money is provided at the request of the Security Service; and that it is spent without account. I regard this as most unreasonable and dangerous. I believe that the Government should take steps to bring the Security Service under ministerial responsibility.

Senator Greenwood:

– lt is responsibleto a Minister now.

Senator Cormack:

– To the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator GEORGES:

– I would be prepared to accept the Minister’s assurance that the Security Service is responsible to the Attorney-General and makes an accounting to the Attorney-General for its expenditure. I do not think it does. T think it has drifted away from the original intention. The Security Service was established to look after national security. I believe that there is a danger because of this nebulous arrangement, with this Organisation responsible to no-one. We could arrive at a dangerous situation in which this Organisation is used with a political intent and not to supervise national security. So I make my protest here and now. 1 know that whenever we ask questions on security the Government says: ‘We do not answer any questions on security’.

Senator Sim:

– Neither did Mr Chifley.

Senator GEORGES:

– Just wait a minute. Mr Chifley established the Security Service. Let me read from the Hansard report of the Estimates debate in the other place on 5th October 1961. Mr Ward, the then member for East Sydney, stated:

  1. . the Security Service was established by a Labor Government.

We accept that. He continued:

That is so. I was a member of the Government that established the Security Service and 1 well remember the circumstances under which it was established. The Security Service was established following the visit to Australia of a very important British security official, who complained that the Americans were refusing to give information of a secret character to the British until Australia tightened her security organisation. The Americans believed that any information given to Britain would be transmitted lo Australia, and unless certain precautionary measures were taken they were nol prepared lo let that happen. Accordingly, the Prime Minisier of the day-

Mr Chifley . . decided to meet the request of the British and a security organisation was established. However, the Labor Government of the day clearly recognised the great dangers to the individual liberty of Australian citizens inherent in the establishment of such an organisation.

I say here and now that the present Government does not appreciate those inherent dangers. Mr Ward went on to say:

The Government at thattime restricted the organisation’s activities to matters involving national security. If the Security Service today were to confine its activities to matters affecting national security, no member of this Parliament would raise any objection to it.

Neither would we do so today.

Senator Webster:

– Who wrote this?

Senator GEORGES:

– I gave the source earlier. This is part of a speech by Mr Ward, the former member for East Sydney. He said:

The Labor Government placed the Security Service under the control of Mr Justice Reed of South Australia. We did that because we recognised the dangers inherent in such an organisation. But since the Organisation has passed from the control of Mr Justice Reed it has developed under this Government into a semi-military organisation under the control of Brigadier Spry.

That still holds today. Mr Ward continued:

The Security Service today-

He was speaking of 1961, but this still holds today -

  1. . does not confine its activities to matters directly affecting national security, lt is acting as a political police force for this Government.

I would not be as harsh as that, but there is ground for such an accusation.

Senator Cormack:

– What is the ground - an allegation by you?

Senator GEORGES:

– There have been various debates in this chamber on the activities of the Security Service. If Senator Cormack is prepared to accept an organisation which makes no accounting to this Parliament, I say that he has given up his principles and his belief in democracy, because in a true democracy such a situation should not exist.

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

– I wish to reply on only two matters. I hope that we can then pass these estimates. We have had them before us for a reasonable time. Senator Georges dealt with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. There is an increase of $246,000 in the appropriation for the Organisation. The provision is prepared and included by the Department of the Treasury and all expenditure is brought to account by that Department. That is the only information I have: so it is the only information I can offer. It is true that this Organisation was set up during the life of the previous government. T can give no further information. As honourable senators know, I do not answer questions in relation to security. I can give only the information that is available to me, and that is what I have done.

Senator Cant invited me to reply to his question about the conference of the Asian Parliamentarians Union, which Senator Cormack was designated by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to attend as an observer. I can only say that the Prime Minister designated him to attend as an observer and that no doubt he went because he was the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. All parties are represented on the Foreign Affairs Committee including, of course, the Opposition. The Committee would have been fully informed by Senator Cormack on his return of his experience there because he went by virtue of his office as Chairman of that Committee. I observed that Senator Cormack made a statement that the Speaker had been informed of his trip, his experience and his observations. I do not accept the point that the Opposition is unaware of Asian affairs. Indeed, as we know, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) in another place go to Asia from time to time, and it is very appropriate that they should.

Senator O’Byrne:

– As also does the Minister.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, as do the Ministers. We send a team of parliamentarians into Asia each year. Senator Cant made the point that a representative from the official Opposition should attend the conference of the Asian Parliamentarians Union. It is a point, and I will certainly have it conveyed to the Minister.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to take up the time of the Senate unduly, but I just want to reply to the Minister’s remarks about the Commonwealth Literary Fund and to clear up the position as I see it. It is this Parliament which is asked to vote the money for this Fund despite the fact that there is an organisation administering it. When there is some doubt as to whether the Fund is administered properly or whether there should be some alteration in the administration to have the allocations made by some other method, it is this Parliament which has to voice an opinion. All that I am asking is for the Minister to have a look into the administration of this Fund. It could well be that the articles establishing the Fund need some alteration. If the Minister could look into the question. If it becomes apparent that there are awards made which are not achieving the results which the Fund was established to achieve and if nothing is done by the Executive, obviously this Parliament at some time must refuse an appropriation until alteration is made. The purpose of the Fund is to develop Australian writers with literary merit, but for how long are we to develop them? They may dic of old age before they reach the desired apex. Is it just that we should give four fellowships to promote someone as a paid employee of the Fund on $6,000 a year for a period of 4 years when he obviously has not developed sufficiently to stand on his own two feet?

We find that a cadet at Duntroon is permitted to fail in one year, but if he fails a second time he has to leave. 1 would say that that is a fair proposition. If the assistance the Commonwealth Literary Fund gives to a writer in one year will not develop him, it may well be that the cost of trying to develop that writer would become so excessive that it would be preferable to exclude him and to pay the fellowship to someone else who may develop. As the Minister said, possibly in the opinion of the Advisory Board Ward McNally, whom I mentioned, had never achieved the appealing literary capabilities that would attract selection for a fellowship. What is the Fund seeking? Are the members of the Advisory Board the sole arbiters of what is literary merit, the merit which this Fund seeks to develop? 1 was accused of commercialism because I said that this man’s efforts had been well received by publishers who were willing to take the risk of publication. He can still get his books published at the present time. He realises that, because of his inability to work full time on it, his work is not first class. To what heights might this individual rise if he were permitted to work on nothing other than the preparation of a book or some Australian study for one year? We know that the books which he writes, without continuous concentration on his work, are worthy of publication. What needs looking into is this report that Kylie Tennant, in a letter she wrote to the author, admitted that his submission to the Literary Fund for consideration had not been seen by her. She was a member of the Advisory Board. If this is going on should there not be some inquiry into the question? With the greatest respect and, despite what the Minister said, although I am not asking for interference with the Board I think that departmentally we should have a look into the operations of this Fund to see whether it is working in the way it was intended to work and whether there are any alterations we should make in the distribution of the fellowships and the control of the Fund that would have more beneficial effects in the production and development of Australian writers than does the present administration.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– 1 was interested in a question asked and the reply given to it by the Minister concerning the Commission of Inquiry into the statement of Lieutenant Commander Cabban and matters incidental thereto. 1 looked up the earlier documents and I found that in the year 1967-68 the substantial sum paid was $320,785, that last year it was $8,600 and that there is proposed to be paid in this current year a sum of $32,000. My recollection is that the Commission of Inquiry was established in the middle of the year 1967 and the report was presented in February or March 1968. lt seems strange that by some mischance, accident or inadvertence it is not until the financial year 1969-70 that an amount of $32,000 is to be paid. I mention these facts because 1 would like the Minister to elaborate further on the mischance under which this amount is not to be paid until this current year. There is, I think, some principle involved in this though I do not want to take it too far.

Senator Anderson:

– I think the principle is that they should render their accounts.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Not only should they render their accounts at the time when all the accounts are to be paid. If the accounts are to be left for some 2, 3 or 4 years after the occasion on which the expenditure was incurred, then it raises the point as to how far the Parliament ought to regard a bill so rendered as being payable. Having said that, I would be grateful for what information the Minister can give. I want to say one or two things in response to what Senator Georges has said. Senator Georges has shown, not only on this occasion but on other occasions, what he calls a fear and apprehension of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation which to me borders on the obsessive. The line which appears in the appropriation this year indicates that the amount to be spent on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is $3,053,000. I understand that ever since this Organisation was given statutory authority the appropriation for it has been shown in the same manner.

It is quite apparent to me, and 1 would have thought to all members of this chamber who take a rational view of the objectives and the functioning of an organisation such as this, that if it is to be effective its method of operation must basically be carried out in secret. Senator Georges has suggested, with a naivety which to me is surprising, that the Parliament ought to know what the assets of the Organisation are. By that I assume is meant that we ought to know what equipment and other material it has to carry out its work, and also what people are employed and the salaries they are paid. One wonders how the functions of the Security Intelligence Organisation are to be effectively carried out if such matters are made public. I cannot understand how Senator Georges could believe that his question would aid the functioning of the Organisation.

Senator Prowse:

– Does he want to aid it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not believe he does. I hope it will never be forgotten that a matter which started out earlier this year and later became known as the Hoffmann affair was commenced by several members of the Opposition.

Senator Anderson:

– I really must rise to a point of order. I have to do it.

Senator Georges:

– Against your own supporters?

Senator Anderson:

– I do that, too. We must deal with the Estimates on a proper basis. It is an impossible proposition to start in this debate to deal again with a matter that occupied the Senate for weeks and weeks. I suggest Mr Temporary Chairman that the honourable senator be asked to confine himself to the Estimates.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cormack:

Senator Greenwood, the point raised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate is well taken. I would be grateful if you would confine yourself to the appropriation for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I have nothing further to say.

Proposed expenditures and proposed provision noted.

Department of Trade and Industry

Proposed expenditure, $32,130,000.

Proposed provision. $’430,000.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I propose to address myself as briefly as possible to the matters I have in mind, in the knowledge that my comments may be regarded as superficial. The depth of the administration of this Department is such that it would take a very long time to examine all its aspects. I appreciate the point just made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) and I shall endeavour to confine my remarks to a mere superficial examination of the Department’s administration. I propose to refer to Division 520 - Administrative, to item 01 which relates to the appropriations for salaries and allowances, trade promotion visits and payments to industries in respect of reduced returns in Australian currency arising from the devaluation of Sterling and other currencies. Before I deal with those details I direct the attention of honourable senators to page 242 of the Auditor-General’s report for 1968-69 where he states:

Administrative - The major factors contributing to the increase of $1,667,621 were increased salaries ($399,604) resulting mainly from additional staff; increased expenditure ($184,167) on export promotion; payments of $862,489 to industry as compensation for reduced returns resulting from devaluation of sterling and other currencies. . . .

I would like the Minister to give an indication of the nature of the increases in staff. I ask that question because I wish to refer to this subject again later. I do not wish the matter to be explored in depth. I seek only a brief examination of the situation. [ believe that people generally have formed the opinion that the affairs of Australia are not properly planned in the Department of Trade and Industry. This impression may have stemmed from internal disputes amongst members of the Cabinet, but I would not be sufficiently objective if I canvassed that subject. Recently the shipbuilding industry asked the Government to lay down a programme of shipbuilding. It amazes me that after so many years it is necessary for the shipbuilding industry to ask the Government to organise and plan a programme. I regard shipbuilding as almost a fourth arm of the Services. If we do not plan properly we will not have built the ships that we require for our normal trade and for the protection of our shores.

Our coastlines are quite extensive and we do not have enough small ships to protect our shores. It is a standing disgrace that the required planning has not already taken place. The shipbuilding industry is in a most difficult position. It is faced with chaotic conditions in Brisbane unless action is taken within the next 12 months. A similar situation exists in Maryborough and other Queensland centres and it is opportune for the Government to heed the call of the shipbuilding industry and plan for its future.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! I am afraid that I must seriously consider whether I should allow you to continue, Senator Milliner, to discuss the subject of shipbuilding, because that is the responsibility of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I find it difficult to see how you can relate your comments to the administration of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Senator MILLINER:

– In deference to your views, Mr Chairman, I will discontinue expressing my point of view, although 1 believe it is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to plan for our trading operations.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable senator will have an opportunity to express his point of view when the Senate is debating the estimates of the Department of Shipping and Transport.

Senator MILLINER:

– I turn to the appropriation for trade promotion visits in Division 520. I believe that trade promotion visits are vital to the welfare of Australia and I am surprised to find that the appropriation for this purpose is only $150,000. I wonder how Japan and other countries would budget for trade promotion visits. 1 believe that the only way to promote our trade in other countries is for our representatives to make official visits so that our wares can be sold. I appreciate that various sections of industry promote visits to other countries, but it is obvious that they are not doing as well as they should, as I shall later demonstrate by reference to a government document. I suggest to the Minister that the appropriation is insufficient for trade promotion work.

The appropriation for payments to industries in respect of reduced returns in Australian currency arising from the devaluation of Sterling and other currencies is $1,200,000. In 1968-69 only $862,489 was expended out of an appropriation of $2m. I remember clearly that some time ago I asked the Minister whether all industries had been properly recompensed for the results of devaluation. The answer was in the affirmative. The Estimates show that a sum of $1,200,000 is to be set aside for that purpose. I believe that it is time that a proper evaluation of this situation was taken. I could tell of other people in industry who have been injured because of changed circumstances throughout the world. We have not had to subsidise them. I have no great criticism of the principle of assisting industry generally but I believe that there must be a point in time surely where we must question an expenditure of $1,200,000 in this direction. 1 just question whether these people are doing sufficient to assist themselves.

I refer to the publication ‘Overseas Trading’ - a Government document - volume 21, No. 18 of 12th September 1969. This document makes reference to the Netherlands and gives the imports of significance to Australia in thousands of dollars. These figures are to be found at page 415 of the document. We see in some instances quite substantial increases in imports by the Netherlands from Australia. But, in other instances, we find quite a dramatic drop in imports by the Netherlands from Australia. Under the heading ‘Food and live animals’ we find that exports from Australia to the Netherlands in 1967 totalled $593,000. In 1968, this figure had been reduced to $489,000. Surely some explanation must be forthcoming from industry generally and from the Government as to why this happened.

This is the point that I wish to make in relation to the Department of Trade and industry: When the Government sees that this is happening and notes that decreases are taking place in our exports, does it set about to find out the reasons for these decreases? Does it discuss with industry the reasons for the decline? Does it try to rectify these matters? It appears to me that such is not the case. It also appears to me that the Government does not give sufficient guidance to industry as to where its products may be sold. In addition to this, Australian industry itself is culpable. 1 say this because on page 415 of ‘Overseas Trading’ it is stated:

Australian firms should also check whether their products are suitable for the market. Measurements must be in the metric system . . .

The metric system has been approved by the Senate for some time but, as far as we are aware, nothing has been done by the Government in relation to the introduction of the metric system of weights and measures although the matter has been raised on several occasions.

The next paragraph on the same page of this document reads:

An advantage for Australian exporters is the compactness of the Netherlands; most trade negotiations can be completed in cither of the two big commercial centres. Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

The Government is saying these things, but does it in turn point these things out to industry generally? lt is not good enough merely to put out a publication and to state these things. I believe that there must be some further endeavour to make Australian industries aware of the advantages in this direction.

On page 417 of this document, we read the fact that:

Imports into Oregon and Washington from Australia last year were worth only $36m. Yet. those two States, with a combined population almost half as big as Australia’s, engage in international trade worth more than $3,000m a year.

Again I ask: ls industry being encouraged to export to Oregon and Washington? lt is insufficient merely to put this information in a publication of this nature. 1 believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to make industry aware of the opportunities in these fields. 1 turn now to page 430 of this document where are listed Australia’s trade commissioner posts overseas. Quite a number are shown here. I would like the Minister to give some explanation of the reason why Australia has no trade commissioner posts in Brazilia, Egypt, Fiji, Nigeria or the USSR. These are avenues in which. I believe, trade commissioner posts should be established. Their establishment would be of advantage to Australia generally. Again I refer to the development of Australia and to what I believe should be the path of the

Department of Trade and Industry in this direction. Only recently, an industrial estate was opened in Townsville. I wonder what the activities of the Department have been in trying to influence industry to go and to operate in that industrial estate. 1 question whether some sections of the Department of Trade and Industry know that such an industrial estate has recently become available. I will not dwell on this point.

Senator Anderson:

Senator, 1 did not hear to what area you were referring?

Senator MILLINER:

– J was referring to the Bohle Industrial Estate in Townsville, Queensland. I will let the Minister have the brochure on it if he so desires.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honourable senator’s lime has expired.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to intervene to make a number of observations in relation to the contribution by Senator Milliner in relation to the debate on the estimates for the Department of Trade and Industry. The honourable senator spoke of the movement of staff. We find in Division 520 - Administrative that in 1968-69 the actual staff of the Department was 1,080. The staff as shown for 1969-70 is 1,038. A document accompanying the Budget papers is entitled Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure*. I refer the honourable senator to pages 144 and 145 of that document which I think would lend themselves more to examination by him rather than to explanation by me as to the construction of the staff of the Department of Trade and Industry which is under review at. the moment. lt is necessary to understand that whilst the Department of Trade and Industry is the medium for the promotion of trade commissioner posts overseas, in the normal circumstances all these matters are ones which come from the Public Service Board. What has to be established is a requirement for such variations of staff as may take place. Senator Milliner also made reference to trade promotion visits. This item relates to an appropriation to provide for visits to Australia by selected prominent officials and businessmen. An increase of S44.9R8 over the amount spent in 1968-69 will permit an increase in the number of invitations issued to potential visitors for the direct purpose of maintaining and improving our export performance as well as meeting the costs of visits deferred from 1968- 69. There were, in 1968-69, 65 effective visits involving 148 visitors.

The honourable senator also made reference to the item relating to assistance to exporters of manufactured goods. This item provides financial assistance to exporters of manufactured goods whose overseas sales were affected by the devaluation of sterling and certain other occurrences in November 1967 so that they may retain or restore their export sales to predevaluation levels. Compensation is payable on the following basis in respect of exports to each devaluation-affected market: For the export period from 19th November 1967 to 30th June 1968 compensation is at the rate of 100% of the necessary price reductions, whereas from 1st July 1968 to 31st December 1968 the rate is 75% of the necessary price reductions. From 1st July 1969 to 30th June 1969 it is 50% of the necessary price reductions and from 1st July 1969 to 31st December 1969 it is at the rate of 25% of the necessary price reductions. The rate of compensation is on a sliding scale. The provision also covers reductions, on account of devaluation, in the contract prices of services performed by Australian companies overseas provided those services are directly ancillary to, or directly associated with, the export of Australian manufactures. Claims amounting to $1.2m are expected to be received during

1969- 70.

Senator Milliner went on to ask whether we are being sufficiently aggressive - I use that word in the classical sense of being keen and thrusting forward - in seeking to promote trade with many other countries in the interests of the Australian economy. I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry has set a very high standard in this regard. Of course the honourable senator could ask why we have not a trade post in certain countries but reference to statistics will show that we have increased progressively the number of trade posts. However, until a trade post is established in a certain country the activities there are carried by the trade commissioner in a contiguous country, as is done in the Depart ment of External Affairs. In that field the situation could arise in which a consul would have responsibility not only for his own area but for an adjoining area as well.

Looking at the history of trade posts in a broad sweep it will be seen that we have increased the number of them significantly. To give some idea of the increase I shall take the period from 1949 to 1968. In the Trade Commissioner Service in 1949 we had 32 officers in 15 posts in 13 countries whereas in 1968 we had 88 officers in 46 posts in 35 countries. I know that I have taken a fairly lengthy period, but you just cannot say: ‘We will establish a trade post in this country’. You must have some basis for it. In many instances a trade agreement with a certain country may emerge and a post will be established there, or a post may be established in a country in the hope eventually of getting a trade agreement with that country. I have here a list of the posts which have been established since 1949 but I will not read it because it is fairly meaningless in terms of names.

I think that Senator Milliner was quoting from one of the bi-weekly publications of the Department of Trade and Industry when he asked whether industry was being encouraged to export to Oregon and Washington. We have a trade commissioner at Vancouver who has been located there in an attempt to exploit the possibilities. I suppose if the honourable senator named any situation I would be able in time to say where the touchpoint was for that particular area. He also referred to Townsville. I must admit that I did not “grasp the full significance of his point. As I understand the position, Townsville is becoming a tremendously important place. The backing to it is increasing continually. I did not take on board the significance of where we were falling short in our activities.

Senator Milliner:

– In encouraging industry to go there.

Senator ANDERSON:

– In that sense the matter is outside the ambit of the Department of Trade and Industry. I should think it would come within the ambit of a State instrumentality or the decentralisation portfolio or some similar portfolio in the State. I would not have thought that it would be a function of the Department of Trade and Industry to direct trade activities in a State unless there was a desire or a need to establish a particular industry which had a special significance to the area. 1 could understand it if the honourable senator referred to Gladstone because there is an alumina plant in the area and it is so nationally important thai we should take advantage of the contiguous industries which may back it up. However I do not know of any special significance about Townsville. If there is and I have missed it I know that the honourable senator will make the point apparent to me.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

– I refer to that portion of Division No. 520 - Administrative - which relates to the subsidy for the South American shipping service. My attention has been drawn to this because in recent months I have seen considerable correspondence in the newspapers about trade to South America with particular reference to the great potential for a reasonable amount of trade with the countries of that continent. However such trade is inhibited mainly by two factors. Firstly, there is the language difficulty. The language spoken there is mainly Spanish and 1 do not know how the Department can overcome the difficulty. The other more important difficulty which is being emphasised is the inadequate shipping service. Last year a sum of $210,000 was appropriated of which $180,000 was spent. This year the appropriation is only $150,000.

The Auditor-General’s report directs attention to the fact that a shipping subsidy is paid on a service which operates, I think, only every 2 months to the west coast of South America. Those who wish to trade with countries on the west coast regard the shipping service as completely inadequate. On the east coast there are many ports at which Australian ships do not call. What is the reason for this drop of $50,000, which is fairly small? Tn view of the fact that Australia is looking for further outlets for its exports, 1 think that, this is an area which could be developed with considerable advantage.

Turning to trade missions which are referred to on page 244 of the AuditorGeneral’s report, it will be seen that of the $59,128 spent last year in this field a sum of only $1,532 was spent on a chemical industries survey mission to South America. Will the Minister look at this aspect in an endeavour to encourage increased shipping to South America and increased trade generally in an area which I believe could be very important to Australia, particularly for secondary industry?

Senator BYRNE (Queensland) [10.91- My participation in the debate, which is strictly of an interrogatory character, is directed to Division No. 522 which relates to the Tariff Board, and Division No. 526 which relates to the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board. The appropriation for the Tariff Board provides for an increase of almost 25% in expenditure on salaries and payments in the nature of salary compared with expenditure last financial year. Does mis represent merely an increase in the salaries of existing stall’ or does it indicate a fairly substantial increase in staff reflecting an extension of the activities of the Board? J should be obliged if the Minister would comment on that substantial increase in the vole. My query in relation to Division 526 concerns what could perhaps be the greatest single percentage increase in the Budget in a proposed appropriation over expenditure, at least in a matter of this moment. 1 refer to expenditure under the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act which last year was $5,300,000, from an appropriation of exactly the same amount. The proposed appropriation this year is $10,800,000, which is an increase of more than 100%. I should be obliged to the Minister if he would indicate exactly the nature of the activities undertaken within the ambit of the statute and what is proposed in view of the doubling of the provision proposed to be made this year, lt may not be possible for the Minister to give the cause ad hoc in specific detail, but I should be obliged if he would, either tonight or at a later stage, comment on this very big vote and the reason for the increase in it.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I refer to the provision for export promotion in Division 520. I might be forgiven if I refer to the statement delivered by Senator Anderson last night on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in relation to overseas investment I have not yet closely examined that document but I cannot remember anything in it connected with export franchise. When I was in Peru last year I was approached by our Trade Commissioner there to see whether we could persuade General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd to export Holden motor cars to Peru. It seemed to him that a car that was specifically manufactured for Australian conditions would be admirably suited for use in the country areas of Peru and also in the main city of Lima which has very narrow streets and little room for parking areas. The information 1 was able to gather was that the General Motors Corporation in the United Stales of America preferred to export Chevrolets - big cars - to South America from the United States rather than to export Holdens from Australia. If a motor car that is manufactured in Australia is suitable for that area and if the only hold up to ils export to Peru and other parts of South America is an export franchise imposed by the parent company, I suggest that the Government take steps to see that Australia’s export earnings or opportunities for export earnings are not reduced by such an export franchise.

The staple diet in Peru is rolled oats. One of the few joint industries that Australia has overseas is a rolled oats industry in Lima. Oats are imported from Australia and the mill in Lima is used to roll the oats which are then distributed throughout the country. When f was there at about this time last year the mill was closed down because Australia was unable to provide oats for the mill. If we value our overseas earnings - and there are opportunities for overseas earnings particularly in South America - we should be making greater endeavours to ensure that we do not cut off sources of supply. I have some idea of the trouble that rural industries are going through. I suppose that in some parts of Australia oats will be required for stock food. Nevertheless, there are other cereals that could be used for stock food and we should not use oats to the detriment of our export earnings.

I should like to say a few words about the Tariff Board under Division 522. I am firmly of the opinion that the Tariff Board is not equipped to carry out the functions that this Parliament expects it to carry out. I pass no judgment on the personnel of the Board. I believe that they are conscientious, hard-working officers with a great deal of expertise in this particular field, but as Australian industries grow and home consumption markets are small these industries require protection until they are able to get on their feet. They do not always require the protection that the Tariff Board gives them. In my opinion the Board is illequipped to carry out all of the functions that we ask it to carry out. This is borne out by the length of lime it takes for the Board to hear an application that is made to it. Sometimes 3 or 4 years pass after a reference is made to the Board before it can get around to interviewing the representatives of an industry and in that time the circumstances of the industry may have completely altered. The Government did try early in the 1960s to resolve this position by the appointment of the Special Advisory Authority which, within the ambit of its operations, has performed a useful task. It is in effect an emergency Tariff Board. It is required to make a quick examination of an industry and within 28 days advise the Minister whether an emergency tariff should or should not be applied.

Generally the opportunities for examination of the industry are too short for the Authority to make any sort of thorough examination. Invariably it recommends a tariff or some other protection for the industry. I have no quarrel with this except that because of the inadequacy of the Tariff Board itself the recommendations of the Special Advisory Authority sometimes have to operate for up to 3 years before the Board can get around to examining an industry in detail. Whilst the ideas of the Government in setting up the Special Advisory Authority were good, in the sense that it was trying to cope with rapidly growing industries and the proper manning of the Tariff Board, at the same time satisfying industry and the citizens of Australia, the system has broken down because of delays. I believe that there should be an inquiry into the Tariff Board. I do not suggest that we need an inquiry into the personnel or the expertise of the personnel or anything of that nature but that an inquiry should be held into whether the Tariff Board is equipped or staffed sufficiently to be able to carry out the duties that we ask it to perform for us.

The Tariff Board does a very good job when it gets round to it, but I believe that even in present circumstances the Board has so many references on its plate that it is trying to get rid of them as quickly as possible and does not give each reference the full inquiry that it should receive. Perhaps we should have four or five tariff boards operating. That is a matter that could be reported upon if there were an inquiry. Certainly 1 believe that at present the Tariff Board and the Special Advisory Authority are overloaded and are not performing the task that we expect them to perform. In the present set up it is nol humanly possible for them to do so.

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

Senator Bull referred to the subsidy for the South American shipping service and pointed out that a reduction in the subsidy is proposed for this year. The purpose of this item is lo provide financial assistance by way of subsidy to the Kawasaki Steamship Co. of Kobe in connection with the establishment of a shipping service between Australia and South America. Provision is made for an estimated six voyages at a maximum loss subsidy of $25,000 per voyage during 1969-70. lt is true that there is a reduction in the subsidy, but I understand that the reason for the reduction is that the service has been running for 3 years and the theory is that as the voyages become more profitable the subsidy will be reduced correspondingly. lt is not intended that it should be a fixed subsidy over a period. The subsidy was introduced to encourage the establishment of a shipping service and as that service becomes more successful the subsidy will be reduced.

Senator Byrne, like Senator Cant, referred to the Tariff Board. The item referred to by the honourable senators provides for salaries and allowances for 8 Board members, 4 Second Division officers, 96 Third Division officers, 33 Fourth Division officers and casual and part time staff. The increase of $176,975 is attributed to an expected net recruitment of 12 staff during 1969-70 and increased salary rates for Third Division officers effective as from 17th July 1969 under Determination 178. This ties in with the point made by Senator Cant when he said that he believed that the Tariff Board was not sufficiently equipped to cope with the volume of references sent to it. He said that perhaps we need more tariff boards because they have so many references and, on the face of it, the Board appears to take a considerable time to make a report to the Government. The answer is to some extent reflected in the figures that I have just cited. The Tariff Board requires people, from members of the Board down to the technical advisers, who are very skilled in a particularised type of work. It is not easy for the Board to get the people that it requires. There has been difficulty even in getting members for the Tariff Board and there have been times when the establishment of the Board has been short. I agree with Senator Cant that the perfect solution would be to have more Board members so that we could have separate boards looking at separate industries and a more speedy turnround of references, but in the event that has not been possible.

The honourable senator referred also to the Special Advisory Authority which, as I recall it, is set up under Sir Frank Meere. His charter as the Special Advisory Authority is to give emergency assistance where injury from imports is felt by an industry or a section of industry. Having taken, evidence and given a decision, he is obliged within 30 days to report to the Tariff Board, which in turn makes a more careful study of problems of the industry for which emergency tariffs have been provided. As I understand the situation he may act only in respect of an emergency. Once he has increased the rate of duty he is obliged to report to the Tariff Board and the matter becomes the subject of a reference to the Board, which makes its decision. Senator Cant suggested that there is a considerable time lag between the reference going to the Tariff Board and a final decision being made. I take note of the point that he has made. All I can say is that his comments in this regard will be directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen).

Senator Cant referred also to export promotion, which is dealt with in Division 520. He referred particularly to the Overseas Trade Promotion Committee and export promotion. This item provides for the promotion and publicity overseas of Australian products and services and the dissemination to Australian exporters of informal ion on overseas markets. Provision for the Overseas Trade Promotion Committee is $ 1.245m and for export promotion “52.455m, a total of S3. 7m. That is a modest increase on the provision for last year. The particular boards participating in the OTPC arrangements are the Australian Apple and Pear Board, the Australian Canned Fruits Board, the Australian Dairy Produce Board, the Australian Dried Fruits Board, the Australian Egg Board, the Australian Honey Board, the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wine Board. In 1969-70 the campaign outside the United Kingdom which commenced in 1968-69 will be further expanded and diversified. This follows visits to these markets earlier in 1969 by all the statutory marketing board chairmen, who form the membership of the Overseas Trade Promotion Committee. I can only say to the honourable member that I cannot give much further information in relation to this item beyond saying that I think we all would agree that their campaigning has been very fruitful for Australia. 1 understand that Senator Cant was advocating that these organisations should go even further afield than they are now going. I have taken note of his comments in this regard.

The honourable senator referred also to export franchise restrictions. All that 1 can say to him on this point is that as a matter of general policy the Government is opposed to the imposition of restrictive export franchises on Australian firms by overseas organisations with which they are financially or technically linked. The Government believes that the problems of restrictive franchise arrangements can best be overcome by persuasion and negotiation rather than by coercion. Having made known its principles, it leaves it to the good sense and business judgment of the individual firms to decide how quickly and to what extent they should seek a relaxation of their restrictions. Here again Senator Cant put his finger on a matter of considerable importance. Judgments have to be made as to the best way to try to break this restrictive practice business. The Government believes that at this point of time the best way to attempt to do it is by persuasion rather than by some form of legislation which may bring about a reaction different from that intended by the Government. A judgment has to be made. The honourable senator’s comments were to the issue involved.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I direct to the Minister questions relating to the appropriation for the Industrial Design Council of Australia grant. The Minister has referred to the Council already. Last year the expenditure was §130,000. This year in the appropriations we have an estimated expenditure of $140,000. I wish to couple that figure with the figure for the Inventors Association of Australia grant. Last year the appropriation was $6,000 and the expenditure was $6,000. For 1969-70 there is no appropriation. I can see that the grant to the Inventors Association has ceased. I ask why this is. Coupled with that inquiry I ask the reason for the increase of $10,000 in the grant to the Industrial Design Council of Australia. Perhaps one could assume that these two grants have been combined in a joint effort.

I wish to refer to the appropriation of $8,000 for the Australia to Europe Shippers Association contribution. I would like to couple this inquiry with an inquiry in relation to the Federal Exporters Overseas Transport Committee contribution. For some years that contribution stood at about the $10,000 mark. As we all know, the FEOTC has gone out of existence. Its place has been taken by the Australia to Europe Shippers Association. I question why the contribution has fallen from $10,000 to $8,000. I ask this because shipping now, as much as ever, is of vital concern to Australia in respect of its internal costs and external returns. The Shippers Association plays a very important part not only in the negotiation of freights but also in the scheduling of voyages to make sure that exporters forecast as accurately as possible to avoid vacant storage, which is a very costly factor to be associated with freight. With the still great volume of work to be done and with the importance of the work still to be done, I question why there has been a reduction. It is due possibly to a lesser number in the Association than were on the Committee.

I refer to the compensation for pyrites producers. This matter is one of great importance. In my home State and in other places, when sulphur was very scarce throughout the world, the Government encouraged the development of these pyrite areas with subsidies or compensation to assist sulphur production.It is pleasing to note that compensation has been paid up to this time. Now it has been stopped. My understanding was that the compensation was to continue for this year. I question the Minister about this.

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

– In relation to Senator Young’s question about the Federal Exporters Oversea Transport Committee contribution, I wish to inform him that the Commonwealth’s contributions to that body ceased in 1968-69. The Committee has been replaced by the Australia to Europe Shippers Association. I gather that the appropriation includes an amount to cover a contribution to that Association. The organisation requested $8,000 for administrative costs.

In relation to the inquiry about compensation for pyrites producers, I wish to inform Senator Young that the amount paid in 1968-69 was a lump sum compensation which the Government agreed to pay to offset losses incurred by Norseman gold mines in the realisation and scrapping of assets used in the production of pyrites.

The honourable senator also asked a question about the fnventors Association of Australia grant. The grant in1968-69 was to assist the Association in maintaining a small office in Sydney to serve as a national point of contact for its members and for dissemination of information and publicity. A grant for 1969-70 will be sought by the Association later in this financial year.

Senator Young made reference to the Industrial Design Council. It is a company limited by guarantee and having no share capital. The principal objective of the Council is to establish, maintain and promote high standards of design, particularly of manufactured goods, and to foster the appreciation of good design in the community at large. A contribution of $140,000 has been proposed for 1969-70, comprising a base grant of $45,000 and a matching grant of $95,000 on a $1 for $1 basis for all contributions made to the Council’s funds from sources other than the Commonwealth.

Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $71,499,000.

Proposed provision, $9,301,500.

Advance to the Treasurer

Proposed expenditure, $20,000,000.

Proposed provision, $20,000,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to obtain information on one point only. I raise my query in relation to administrative expenses. I wish to quote the case of a man who suffered an injury while a member of one of the defence forces. He was a member of the Citizen Military Force. I am quoting the Buck man case.

Mr Buckman, a former bank clerk, resides at St Marys in New South Wales. During the hitter stages of a 90-day bivouac he sustained a back injury. Subsequently he underwent orthopaedic surgery. The Department of the Army met all his costs. To summarise my remarks - and this is the point on which I want information on - the way in which the matter became one for Treasury and not for the Department of the Army, I understand, is that Mr Buckman has had intermittent employment because the operation was not a complete success.

I have had discussions with representatives of the Department of the Army and of the Treasury. I want to be quite fair and state that Treasury officers have informed me by telephone that they are a little curbed or restricted by the limitations of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. I have been informed that on each occasion Mr Buckman loses time from work the Department probably will compensate him for time off and medical costs. He is a young man of about 23 or 24 years of age. If this back injury will preclude him from being an active member of the work force and if it means that he will suffer physical disability that will limit his promotion in whatever field of employment he chooses, he would prefer a lump sum compensation payment. The impasse seems to be that the Department of the Army is saying that any time until he reaches 60 years of age, presumably, it will pay him for any time lost but there is no provision for a lump sum payment to a man who passed out of the armed forces and returned permanently to civilian life. The limitations are imposed by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. I simply ask the Minister whether he can give me any further information as to whether this interpretation is correct. Mr Buckman. at 23, is faced with the prospect of receiving a hand out each time he is off work until he is 60 years of age. He would prefer some lump sum payment by way of compensation to assist him to make a new way of life. I leave it at that.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 1 refer to Division 540, sub-division 2, item 09, Professional consultants - Fees and expenses. The amount sought to be appropriated here seems to me to be quite small. The appropriation last year was $2,450 and the expenditure $1,857. The amount to be appropriated this year is $2,200. T am wondering what sort of consultants would be obtainable for this type of money. Surely if the Treasury required to consult people outside the Treasury it would be for a job bigger than would call for this sort of expenditure. It bamboozles me to know what an item of this nature means in the estimates for the Department of the Treasury.

I refer now to Cafeteria (Treasury) Trust Account - working advance, in item 12 of the same sub-division. No appropriation is sought this year for this item. The appropriation under this heading last year was $1,000 and the amount expended was $1,000. What is the Cafeteria (Treasury) Trust Account? I do not know what this means at all, and I should like some explanation from the Minister.

In item 04 of the same sub-division I note that there was an appropriation last year of $83,800 for office services. The amount expended was $83,035. The appropriation sought this year is $139,000. This represents an increase of $56,000. I should like to know the reason for such a large increase in such a small item as office services.

I refer now to item 05 of sub-division 3. This relates to pensions to former officers and dependants under special circumstances. What are the special circumstances in which we pay pensions to former officers? The appropriation for this item last year was $4,350 and the amount expended $4,323. The appropriation sought for this year is $6,200.

Item 02 of sub-division 3 relates to interest on investment of trustee moneys (for payment to the head of the trust fund or trust account concerned). The appropriation for this item last year was $3,000 and the amount expended $2,639. The appropriation sought for this year is $91,400. This represents an increase of $88,761. I should like to know what the interest on investment of trustee moneys is, for which this huge increase of $88,761 is sought.

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

– I shall deal first with item 02 of sub-division 3 of Division 540 - Interest on investment of trustee moneys (for payment to the head of trust fund or trust account concerned). The increase in the appropriation sought is §88,761. This item provides for the payment of interest allowed to the heads of endowment funds in the Department of the Navy, endowment funds in the Department of Health, the Repatriation Canteens Trust Account and the War Service Homes Insurance Trust Account. Funds must be appropriated for this purpose by Parliament as there is no provision under the specific Acts to enable the payment of interest on these trust funds and trust accounts. The increase of $88,761 is attributable to payment of interest on the War Service Homes Insurance Trust Account, provision for which has been made for the first time in 1969-70.

As to item 05 of sub-division 3 - Pension to former officers and dependants under special circumstances, the appropriation sought represents an increase of $1,877 over the amount expended last year. This item provides for act of grace pension payments under special circumstances to former Commonwealth officers and their dependants. The appropriation of $6,200 for 1969-70 provides for act of grace payments of $3,777 to Sir Leslie Martin, former Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission, $547 to Lady Francis Carver, widow of former Commonwealth Statistician, Sir Stanley Carver, and $1,820 to Mr A. H. Wicks, a former Second Commissioner of Taxation, making a total expenditure of $6,144.

The honourable senator asked about item 04 of sub-division 2 of Division 540. This relates to office services, the appropriation for which represents an increase of $55,965 over the amount expended last year. This item covers payments for light and power charges and supplies of fuel, electric light globes, fluorescent tubes and radiator elements, water supply and sanitary charges, office cleaning, including materials used, light and caretaker services, minor works, repairs and maintenance, including materials used. The increase of$55,965 is due chiefly to Treasury’s occupancy of new office accommodation in Melbourne early in 1969-70. The cost of office services in the building formerly occupied by the Melbourne Sub-Treasury was met by another department. Provision has been made for the expenditure in 1969-70 of $10,410 in Canberra, $35,000 in Sydney, $62,400 in Melbourne, $50 in Brisbane, $29,900 in Adelaide, $200 in Perth, $240 in Hobart. $300 in Darwin and $500 in Geneva, making a total of $139,000. There will be no expenditure on this item this year in London or New York.

The honourable senator then referred to item 12 of this sub-division of Division 540. This relates to Cafeteria (Treasury) Trust Account - Working Advance. The appropriation for this item last year was $1,000. No appropriation is sought for this year.

This item provided the working capital advanced to cover the purchase of initial trading stock and to meet estimated operating expenses during the initial stages following the establishment of a cafeteria food service in the Taxation Branch Melbourne office in 1969.

The first matter to which the honourable senator referred was item 09 in sub-division 2 of Division 540 which relates to professional consultants - fees and expenses. I take on board the points raised by the honourable senator. The amount sought is a very modest sum in all the circumstances. The appropriation for this year is $2,200 compared with an expenditure of $1,857 last year. This item covers fees and expenses of specialist consultants and/ or advisory bodies engaged by the Treasury in connection with major projects. Provision has been made for payment of $2,200 to a former Treasury officer who is engaged on matters concerning the Controller of Enemy Property. So, that last sentence makes it clear that it is a special allocation to a particular officer in relation to a job concerning the Controller of Enemy Property.

I now incorporate in Hansard information sought earlier by honourable senators:

This item provided the working capital advance to cover the purchase of initial trading stock and tomeet estimated operating expenses during the initial stages following the establishment of a cafeteria food service in the Taxation Branch, Melbourne Office, in 1969. No provision is required in 1969-70. This item covers payments for: Light, and power charges and supplies of fuel, electric light globes, fluorescent tubes and radiator elements; Water supply and sanitary charges; Office cleaning, including materials used; Light and caretaker services; *Minor works,* repairs and maintenance, including materials used; The increase of $55,965 is due chiefly to Treasury's occupancy of new office accommodation in Melbourne early in 1969-70. The cost of office services in the building formerly occupied by the Melbourne Sub-Treasury was met by another Department. This Item provides for Act of Grace pension payment, under special circumstances, to former Commonwealth officers and their dependants. This item provides for the payment of interest allowed to the following heads of Trust Fund or Trust Account: Endowment Funds - Navy Endowment Funds - Health Repatriation Canteens Trust Account War Service Homes Insurance Trust Account. Funds must be appropriated by Parliament, as there is no provision under the specific acts to enable the payment of interest on these Trust Fund/Trust Accounts. The increase of $88,761 is attributable to payment of interest on the War Service Homes Insurance Trust Account, provision for which has been made for the first time in 1969-70. {: #subdebate-41-0-s65 .speaker-K1R} ##### Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia -- I draw attention to the appropriation of $12m for salaries and allowances in the Bureau of Census and Statistics under Division 552. Compared with the figure for the previous year, this appropriation represents an increase of more than 20%. I am aware that increasing importance is attached to the functions of the Bureau, but has the staff been increased to such an extent that this sort of provision should be made? I understand that increasing computerisation has been available to enable more effective utilisation of manpower in the Bureau. It seems rather unusual that an increase of this magnitude should occur in this year's estimates. I would like to hear the Minister's explanation on that point. {: #subdebate-41-0-s66 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- I direct the Minister's attention to the appropriation for the Bureau of Census and Statistics in Division 552. Can the Minister inform me, if not tonight then tomorrow, to what extent the Treasury is permitting the Bureau to send its officers overseas for training in new statistical methods? What I am interested in is the development in other countries of methods of control based on money supply as distinct from fiscal activities. 1 believe that we saw the beginning of this in this year's Budget in the form of attempts by the Australian authorities to keep the economy in balance by control of the money supply rather than trying to do it exclusively, as in past years, by taxation. This is an extremely important development. At the time of the Budget debate we receive a paper which was issued by **Mr Archer,** the Commonwealth Statistician, and which indicated his activities in generating new series of indices in order to obtain accurate information. But, if one has to learn the new method of control, which I believe is best expressed by the Chicago school of Friedman, it is very necessary to be up with the method of obtaining information, because without accurate information readily and reliably supplied one does not have the indicators with which to work. I believe that the Bureau of Census and Statistics is very important within the Treasury and the Australian economy. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform me, at his convenience, whether the Bureau is permitted to send its officers - both the highly qualified and more experienced men and the young people who are coming on - overseas for experience in these new methods of evaluating and collecting data. {: #subdebate-41-0-s67 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP -- The Bureau of Census and Statistics is a modern, progressive organisation which constantly keeps abreast of the latest and most sophisticated statistical techniques. To enable its officers to keep up-to-date with modern techniques the Bureau's established policy is to send its highly qualified, experienced officers to important international conferences, seminars, meetings of expert groups, etc, to participate in discussions wilh leading world experts on all aspects of statistics and statistical techniques. In addition, as the opportunity permits, the Bureau arranges for some of its qualified officers to work for limited periods in the statistical agencies of the advanced countries of the Western world to gain experience and observe developments in techniques used in particular fields of statistics. The Bureau also encourages its newly recruited staff who have attained high academic qualifications to undertake post graduate studies relevant to their statistical work in the Bureau at recognised overseas universities. {: #subdebate-41-0-s68 .speaker-K3W} ##### Senator CANT:
Western Australia -- I invite the Minister's attention to the appropriation for the Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board in Division 542. Last year the appropriation was $210,800 and the expenditure was $198,203. Despite the underexpenditure, this year there is an appropriation of $219,000, which represents an increase of about $21,000 on last year's expenditure. This sort of thing goes right through the Estimates. There are many cases in which an appropriation is underspent in one year and there is a greater appropriation in the next year. I do not say this only in regard to the Treasury. When we go through the Estimates we find that this happens in many departments. I refer now to the appropriation for postage, telegrams and telephone services in the Taxation Branch under Division 546. Last year there was an appropriation of $1,125,900 and an expenditure of $1,106,835. This year there is an appropriation of $1,174,100, which represents an increase of about $67,000 on the expenditure last year. For payments to the Postmaster-General's Department and State governments for services rendered, under the same division last year there was an appropriation of $651,800 and an expenditure of $651,689. This year the appropriation is $795,900, which represents an increase of about $144,000 on last year's expenditure. I also raise a question in regard to the appropriation for the remission of taxes and fines under special circumstances, again under the same division. I point out to honourable senators that I have never received any of these remissions under special circumstances. 1 would like to know under what circumstances people receive these remissions. I would like to get under the umbrella. Last year the appropriation for salaries and allowances in the Superannuation Branch under Division 550 was $1,036,000 and the expenditure was $1,024,474. This year the appropriation is $1,177,000, which represents an increase of about $152,000. I appreciate that we are in a period of inflation and that there are wage cases before the Public Service Board and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. So it can be expected that there will be increases in wage rates. That is probably the reason for the increased appropriation this year. If the Minister could let me know something about that, I would be pleased. I refer now to Division 560, which provides $20m as an Advance to the Treasurer to enable the Treasurer: (a)to make advances that will he recovered during the financial year, in respect of expenditure that is expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government; and {: type="a" start="b"} 0. to make moneys available for expenditure, being expenditure forthe ordinary annual services of the Government - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. particulars of which will afterwards he submitted to the Parliament; or 1. pending the issue of a warrant ofthe Governor-General specifically applicable to the expenditure. The words that intrigue me are 'particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament'. Here we are appropriating $20m as an Advance to the Treasurer, and we will be supplied with the particulars of this expenditure afterwards. When will we know on what the $20m will be spent? Are we giving a blank cheque for this expenditure? The matter goes further than that. That is what appears in Document A. The Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1969-70 stales under the Advance to the Treasurer: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. to make advances that will be recovered during the financial year; and 1. to make moneys available for expenditure, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted tothe Parliament . . . Consideration interrupted. {: #subdebate-41-0-s69 .speaker-KAW} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relatingto the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question: >That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question, resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. {: .speaker-K3W} ##### Senator CANT: -IfI could get some explanation of this 1 would be grateful. {: #subdebate-41-0-s70 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP -- **Senator Prowse** asked me a question in relation to the provision for salaries and allowances in Division 552. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard details of that expenditure: This item covers: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the payment of salaries to permanent officers and temporary and casual employees of theBureau of Census and Statistics; 1. the payment of allowances (e.g. for the performance of duty of a higher class) to these officers and employees; and 2. payment in lieu of furlough to officers and employees on retirement leave. The increase of $2,1 1 1,916 is attributable to: **Senator Cant** has asked me for particulars relating to eight other items. I have before me comprehensive explanations of these items. As the written explanations are in precisely the same form as the oral answers I would give, with the concurrence of honourable senators I shall incorporate the information in Hansard: This item provides for the reimbursement to the Postmaster-General's Department of the salaries, wages and expenses of staff engaged on Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board activities. The Department of the Treasury has from the inception of the Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board in 1918, been required under the constitution of that body to provide the Chairman of the Board and also to provide secretarial assistance to the Board. This represents the link between the CSSTB and the Department of the Treasury. The Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board was instituted to control the purchase and supply of stores for Commonwealth Departments. The work is carried out by officers of the Postmaster-General's Department which is reimbursed the cost of salaries, etc. Provision is also made for miscellaneous expenditure such as advertising and the testing of samples. The increase of $20,797 reflects the current growth of the Board's activities and the cost of recent Third Division salary increases. This Item covers the payment of postage on notices of assessment, correspondence, etc., and rental and charges for telephones and a telex system. The estimate for each component in this Item shows an increase over the previous year and reflects the growth in the business of the Taxation Branch. In addition, the costs for the telex system and for communications to the regional offices are reflected in the estimated increase. This Item covens the payment of commission to the Postmaster-General's Department in respect of t ie sale of tax stamps and A.C.T. duty stamps by Post Offices and payments to State Government Departments for services rendered. The increase Tor this Item is due mainlyto increased commission payable to the Postmaster-General's Department onthe sale of tax stamps and partly due to an expected increase in the number of persons employed uinder the tax stamps scheme resulting in an increase in the purchase of tax stamps by employers. This Item covers the remission of taxes and fines which, although legally payable, it is not desired for reasons of equity or policy to require payment. Special Treasury remission of taxes on allowances received by Government officials and servicemen stationed overseas to cover higher living costs in the areas in which they are located make up the bulk of the expenditure under this Item. Provision has been made for an increase in the number of cases in which remissions will be granted and it is also expected there will be a slight increase in the average amount of remission. This item covers: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The payment of salaries to permanent officers and temporary and casual employees of the Superannuation Branch: 1. the payment of allowances (e.g. for the *performance* of duty of a higher class) to these officers and employees; and The increase in 1969-70 can be attributed to: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Expenditure in 1968-69 is shown throughout the Estimates under the heads to which it has been charged. This appropriation serves the following purposes: - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. To make advances which will be recovered within the financial year. (Examples are expenditure overseas on behalf of Commonwealth authorities and advances to paymasters for counter cash advances). 1. To make moneys available to meet expenditure, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. After the finalisation of the Estimates figures, various expenditures arise which must be met from the Treasurer's Advance. Some of this expenditure is covered by the Appropriation Bill No. 3 which is put before the Parliament about April. The remainder is included in the statement entitled - 'Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act.' The procedure for Parliamentary examination of this expenditure is that the statement is tabled in the House of Representatives and referred for consideration of the Committee of the Whole House. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts then examines the expenditure and issues a Report, which is tabled at the time when the debate on the Statement is resumed. After the statement has been agreed to by the House of Representatives it is submitted for the approval of the Senate. {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. To meet expenditure for which there is a Parliamentary appropriation but for which a GovernorGeneral's Warrant has not been obtained. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Expenditure in1968-69 is shown throughout the Estimates under the heads of expenditure to which it has been charged. Funds arc provided under this Division to enable the Treasurer to make advances, which will be recovered within the financial year 1969-70, and to make moneys available to meet expenditure, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament, or pending the issue of a warrant of the Governor-General specifically applicable to the expenditure. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- What is the meaning of the expression 'which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament'? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- We are dealing with the Advance to the Treasurer. This is a situation that has always arisen. The details of this expenditure cannot be given at this point of time. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- What is the meaning of the words 'will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament'? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- After the end of the financial year. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- It is really a financial statement by the Treasurer? {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- Yes. It will be presented as a financial statement later. There is nothing unusual about it. Proposed expenditures and proposed provisions noted. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 999 {:#debate-42} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Motor Vehicle Insurance Motion (by **Senator Anderson)** proposed: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I want to raise briefly with the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents the Minister for Immigration, a matter which I would like her to take up before the debate on the estimates for the Department of Immigration. It deals with a complaint made to me by a section of the Lebanese community in Sydney on behalf of a **Mr Fourd** Abi Arrage of Croydon concerning the activities of the Motor Marine and General Insurance Co. of Sydney. It concerns an insurance agent, a **Mr S.** A. Blake of18 Coolaroo Road, Lane Cove, in New South Wales, who has been soliciting business from the Lebanese community in Sydney. He claimed that the insurance policies he was selling would not involve any $20 or $50 payment in the event of the person who obtained a policy from him being involved in an accident. A number of these people have had minor motor accidents, the Motor Marine and General Insurance Co. has claimed that it was all a mistake, and the people concerned have had to pay the first $50. I am not complaining directly about the insurance company but what I am concerned about is that when the matter was brought up it repudiated **Mr Blake's** claim but did nothing to prevent him from soliciting further insurance business amongst the Lebanese community in Sydney. I am simply content at this point to state that **Mr Abi** Arrage has a policy No. 05460 which was issued on 22nd July 1969.I hope that the Department will take the matter up with the appropriate people in Sydney to have an inquiry made into this situation. As **Senator Bishop** knows only too well, many of us remember that in the 1950s when migrants first started coming to this country certain insurance people were getting on migrant ships atFremantle and deliberately distorting certain situations. The position has changed since. I want to be perfectly clear about it. Reputable insurance companies in Sydney like the National Road and Motorists Association and the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales have had excellent results, but this other firm has condoned this misrepresentation. It has taken no action against **Mr Blake.** I think it is exploitation of a particular group in the Sydney metropolitan area.I feel confident that if the Department of Immigration institutes inquiries we might get a higher concept of ethics in some of these people who are hawking insurance and are using a dubious kind of spiel to sell insurance. I will leave it at that. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP -- I present the following papers: >Report of Inquiry into Salaries of Lecturersand Senior Lecturers in Collegesof Advanced Education (the Sweeney report); and > >Report of the Inquiry into Academic Awards in Advanced Education (the Wiltshire report). I draw the attention of honourable senators to the statement made by the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** in relation to these two reports in another place today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjournedat 11.8 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 September 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690917_senate_26_s42/>.