Senate
20 October 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1291

QUESTION

MELBOURNE BRIDGE DISASTER

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question Ls directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the Government give urgent consideration to paying a $1 for $1 grant to assist the funds now being raised for the dependants of those killed in perhaps Australia’s worst industrial disaster, the West Gate Bridge collapse? Will the Minister agree that such a gesture, especially if the payments are to be additional to those which might be received by way of mitigation, might help to provide better security for the children .mci widows of those killed? 1 again ask the Government to consider the establishment of a permanent national organisation which would move quickly when disasters such as this occurred or when the other kinds of calamities which are recurring events in Australia occurred.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

As I have said in the past, the normal procedure in relation to a disaster is that, where it is conceded that it is a national disaster which is beyond the normal resources or expectation of resources of a State, upon representations being made to the Commonwealth by the Premier of the State, the Prime Minister in collaboration with the Treasurer gives consideration to that matter. With Senator Murphy and others, am very sad and distressed at the disaster that occurred. Payment to the dependants is a responsibility of Victoria. Nevertheless, since the question was posed by the Leader of the Opposition, I will have it referred in the normal way to the Prime Minister’s Department.

page 1291

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES HOBART

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Works. In view of the importance to the city of Hobart of the new Commonwealth Offices, both for the people who will work there and for those who will have dealings there, can the Minister give any information as to the size and type of building to be erected in the first part of the complex, how many will be employed there, what will be the total cost and any other useful information concerning the building?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Senate will recall that yesterday Senator Branson presented the report of the Public Works Committee relating to the construction of the first stage of the Commonwealth Offices at Hobart. The proposed building will rise to a height of 13 storeys, apart from basement and cafeteria. The number of officers proposed to be accommodated therein is about 1,500, according to my recollection, and the estimated cost of the building, including lifts and hydraulic, electrical and mechanical services, is set down at present at $4.6m.

page 1291

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In view of the Prime Minister’s reported statement at the weekend that Australia’s immigration policy is morally unjust and the possible harm to Australia which may result from criticism of his statement, I ask: Will the Minister consult with the Minister for Immigration on the possibility of conducting an intensive publicity campaign overseas, particularly in those countries whose immigration laws ure more rigid than Australia’s but whose criticism of Australia is the strongest, on Australia’s immigration laws?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I had difficulty in hearing the commencement of the honourable senator’s question. T believe it concerned publicity overseas by the Department of Immigration. Am J correct in saying that?

Senator Drury:

– My question related to the reported statement of the Prime Minister that Australia’s immigration laws are morally unjust.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have not seen the full text of the statement to which the honourable senator refers. I have only seen Press comments on it. I could not comment on them. I assure the honourable senator that the Department of Immigration does a great deal in regard to publicising overseas Australia’s immigration policies.

page 1292

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the further fall in the last few days in the price of wool both at auction and on the futures exchange? Will the Minister give further consideration to the plight of so many wool growers and the serious decline in Australia’s balance of payments and determine whether any additional assistance cun be given to the wool industry to arrest the decline in prices?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I am aware of the decline in wool prices. [ think this is of concern to everyone in Australia, particularly the wool producers and the people who live in rural areas. I believe that the situation at present places more emphasis on the need for the establishment of an Australian Wool Commission. J’ have already pointed out to the Senate that because of the difficulty of preparing legislation for the establishment of such a Commission in time for its presentation to the Parliament this session the Minister for Primary Industry is examining the possibility of having an interim arrangement whereby the reserve price mechanism can be introduced as early as possible. The Minister for Primary Industry is examining this matter at present. I hope that something will result from his examination.

page 1292

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– 1 desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Why are national service trainees not accepted for the Royal Australian Navy? In view of the increasing shortage of manpower in the Navy will the Government offer national service recruits the alternative of service in the Navy?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The matter raised by the honourable senator in his question comes within the responsibility of the Minister for the Navy. I would not answer the first part of his question without first having consulted with the Minister for the Navy. The second part of the honourable senator’s question will be considered at the same time.

page 1292

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

I do not know whether the honourable senator’s question is directed to a matter of policy, but if it is I would suggest to him that it is not appropriate for me to answer questions concerning matters of policy at question time nor is it proper to reflect upon the decisions of other governments, I appreciate that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is expressing a view by way of asking a question. Perhaps I should leave it at that.

page 1292

QUESTION

PHANTOM AIRCRAFT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I am sure that the Minister for Air and everyone else will be sorry to hear of the accident which befell a Royal Australian Air Force F-4E Phantom jet aircraft at the Amberley Air Force Base yesterday. Does the Minister have a statement to make on this unfortunate occurrence? What arc the arrangements for the replacement of the leased aircraft? ls it true that the RAAF could face an expenditure of $2.3m for a replacement aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is true that in an incident at the Amberley air base yesterday damage was clone to a F-4E aircraft. Preliminary investigations reveal that there may have been a malfunction in one of the aircraft’s systems which led the pilot to decide to land using the arrestor braking system. I point out to the Senate that a cross wind of some 20 knots was blowing at the time. The question of whether the system worked satisfactorily is subject to investigation at the present time. A court of inquiry is sitting to examine this and other possible causes of the incident. I expect a report to be handed to me in the near future - perhaps tomorrow or the next day. Under the leasing agreement we pay for all damage which happens to a plane during an accident. At this stage what the cost will be I cannot say because I understand that the damage to this aircraft is repairable.

page 1293

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What is the position regarding Commonwealth assistance to a State for drought relief? Is this assistance in the form of an interest free grant, or is it a repayable loan bearing an interest factor? Do any State Governments charge farmers interest on drought relief and finance which has been provided by interest free non-repayable grants from the Commonwealth Government? *

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yesterday Senator Laucke asked me a general question about this matter. He had asked questions previously. It may be that Senator Young has asked questions previously. Indeed, today on a broader canvass Senator Murphy asked me a question about this matter of relief. Dealing with the particularity of the question, I. did seek some supplementary information yesterday following question time. In one respect I have an answer which I will give. The Government’s position regarding assistance to State governments for drought or any other natural disaster relief has been made clear on a number of recent occasions and is summarised in a White Paper ‘Commonwealth Payments to or for the States 1970- 71’ in chapter 3 at page 43. This paper will give the story on much the lines that I have given it here before but with particularity as to certain States and amounts.

The general position is that where it is considered that the cost of drought relief would place an undue burden on a State’s finances the Commonwealth is normally prepared to assist the State governments in financing expenditure on certain relief measures. Recently Commonwealth assistance has been offered on the basis that the States concerned meet expenditure up to a certain amount from their own resources - this was the point I made - with the Comonwealth meeting the full cost in excess of that amount. In determining the amount to be met by individual States account is taken of the difference in resources available to each State. The aim is to ensure that each State is accorded equal treatment. For example, New South Wales is meeting the first $4m of expenditure on drought relief in 1970-71 - that was a point 1 brought out yesterday - plus certain other expenditure of a similar nature. South Australia is meeting the first Slim of drought relief expenditure in 1970-71 and Queensland is meeting $2m of drought relief expenditure in that State for 1970-71.

Co m monwea1 1 h reimbursements - th is comes to the issue which the honourable senator is now asking about - under all drought relief arrangements take the form of loans where the States themselves make loans. Other reimbursements take the form of grants. The Commonwealth loans to the States are interest free and repayable - that would be in relation to the capital sum - over a period of 8 years following a 2-year repayment holiday. The administration of drought relief schemes, including the terms and conditions of drought loans to farmers, is entirely a matter for the State governments concerned. The Commonwealth has agreed, however, that “ to cover administrative costs and losses there would be no objection to the States charging interest on the loans. It is understood that the States normally charge a concessional rate of interest not exceeding 3 per cent.

page 1293

QUESTION

PHANTOM AIRCRAFT

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– My question, which follows on that asked by Senator O’Byrne, is directed to the Minister for Air. 1 understand that the Government is leasing 24 Phantom jets from the United States Air Force at a cost of $34m for a period of 2 years. How many of the 24 aircraft has Australia received? In view of the unfortunate accident that has occurred - I am pleased with the Minister’s prompt action in asking for an immediate inquiry - will he at least prevent any more such planes from coming to this country until the officials of the Royal Australian Air Force are satisfied that the cause of this accident could not be of a nature that bears on the airworthiness of the aircraft still to arrive?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The position is as the honourable senator stated in the early part of his question, that is, that under the present lease arrangements Australia i.s leasing 24 aircraft from the United States Government. All 24 aircraft are stationed at Amberley. Immediately following this accident an inquiry was instituted to ascertain its causes. The remaining P4E aircraft have been taken off flying until we know the cause of the accident.

page 1294

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Minister for Civil Aviation aware of the great number of protests by residents received from five local councils and from the Federal member for Chifley, Mr John Armitage, in relation to the possibility of Sydney’s second airport being located near Richmond? Is any account taken by the Minister or the civil aviation authorities of such protests ali of which have pointed out the problems and difficulties that an additional airport would create in this thickly populated area? If the Minister is interested in the well-being of people and is anxious not to create inconvenience in densely populated areas, wit: he, as has been requested, meet a deputation from this district to explain their reasons for opposing a second airport in the area around the Richmond RAAF base?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The trouble with domestic and international airports in capital cities is that everybody wants them but nobody wants to be near them. Approximately 7i million people fly as airline passengers in Australia each year, and about 33 million of these pass through Sydney. How Sydney can avoid having an international airport and a domestic airport in a situation like this, I do not know. There is no problem about my seeing the people of Penrith, Richmond and Windsor; it is purely a matter of finding the time. As soon as the Senate rises for the next recess I intend to make arrangements to meet them.

page 1294

QUESTION

GROOTE EYLANDT

Senator YOUNG:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, refers to the new higher primary school being built by the Commonwealth Government at a cost of $515,000 on Groote Eylandt. Can the Minister say what level of education the students can attain at this school?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I announced last week that a contract had been let for the construction of this school. The school will make provision for an infants’, two primary and two secondary school classrooms. It will have a science laboratory, a library, craft rooms and an assembly room. It will provide for both primary and secondary scholars. At first it is proposed that secondary school facilities should be made available up to the third year level and, depending upon demand, facilities will then be extended probably to the fourth year level.

page 1294

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Civil Aviation relates to an accident yesterday between a helicopter and an air ambulance which resulted in 5 people being killed. In view of a statement that neither pilot had reported into Moorabbin airport control can the Minister say, in a preliminary way. whether the accident was due to the non-observance of aviation regulations? Has he examined the report given to him by Mr Robey who identifies aircraft accidents as being due partly to a lack of uniform standards of flying training in Australia? What special attention has his Department paid to that aspect in view of the recurring accidents in the light aircraft field?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Dealing first with that part of the question which relates to Mr Robey’s comments, I point out that we are examining them and the general suggestions that he has made. As 1 said at. the time, they seemed to bring no new material to the area. Nonetheless we were grateful for them. As far as we can tell, looking at the general trend and not the isolated case, there is no worsening in the incidence of. light aircraft accidents despite the fact that there have been a few of them lately, not only in Australia but also in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. We are concerned and are presently looking at the total picture.

As to the first part of the question, 1 received last night a very lengthy statement and an addition was made to it this morning. Substantially I can say that these 2 aircraft, the helicopter and the Beechcraft, were not in what is called controlled air space. They should not have collided. The best judgment that one can make is that the pilots did not catch sight of each other in a situation in which pilots would oe expected to be keeping a constant watch for other aircraft in the air. f do not wau to go beyond that at this stage because the matter is too long and detailed. However I am prepared to show to Senator Bishop the general substance of the report of the inquiry which has been conducted so far if he would like to see it.

page 1295

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry agree that collusion between wool buyers now purchasing under the so-called free auction system has been the cause of the sharp drop in wool prices in recent weeks? Will he agree also that, this collusion is designed deliberately to scare wool growers and the Government into dropping the proposed wool marketing scheme which is based on a statutory selling authority?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– 1 would not agree with the remarks made by the honourable senator although I know that the suggestion he has made has been put forward on occasions, not. only in recent times but also over a very long period. I well recall my own days in the wool industry when such a suggestion was put forward on a number of occasions by several growers. Over recent months competition in the sale room probably has not been as intense as it might have been. Perhaps some buyers have waited for other buyers to purchase their quota and then have come in to make their own purchases. This is all the more reason why the Australian Wool Commission should be set up so that these and similar problems in the marketing situation can be ironed out.

page 1295

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been directed to the statistics now published in relation to the rate of inflation in Australia in the September quarter which show a rise of only 2.4 per cent per annum in the consumer price index? Does this show the success of the measures taken by the Commonwealth Government to curb inflation? Does this do great credit to the Government’s fiscal policies at a time when the inflation rate in the United States and New Zealand is approximately 6 per cent per annum and is a matter of very great concern to both of those countries?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator’s question is quite interesting against the background of an exchange of questions and answers that the Leader of the Opposition and f had yesterday on this question of fiscal policy. As honourable senators will recall, yesterday I pointed out that the policy of the Government in relation to the use of the interest rate was a matter of fiscal policy which had regard to the overall economy. It so happens that fortuitously there appeared in the Press this morning some figures which have been provided by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics and which relate to the rate of increase in the consumer price index. This is a classic example which demonstrates that the policies of the Government in relation to the problem of inflation have been very effective. As Senator Rae points out, the Press report today says that the rate of increase in retail prices slowed in the September quarter just ended and that the increase for the 6 State capitals was 0.6 per cent. Of course, that is the same as saying, as Senator Rae did, that the increase was at the rate of 2.4 per cent per annum.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about in Sydney?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

This is the national Parliament. It operates in a national way in the interests of the good government of all the people of Australia. This is the argument that I am putting. lt is quite obvious that the figure will fluctuate. It does not remain the same. There are peaks and troughs in every field. But over the whole of Australia the increase in the consumer price index in the September quarter was 0.6 per cent. As Senator Rae points out very properly, that is a complete vindication of the fiscal policy of the Government in relation to what it was necessary to do in order to have a stabilising effect on the Australian economy. In fact, we are receiving the reward from it, as is demonstrated by the government statistical figures.

page 1295

QUESTION

TAXATION DEDUCTIONS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is supplementary to the one that has just been asked. Is the Minister aware of the fact that continuing inflation, as evidenced in the dramatic rise in the cost of living in all States excluding South Australia during the last quarter, is causing a serious erosion of the take-home earnings of all wage and salary earners? I ask the Minister whether, to assist the housewife in stretching the weekly housekeeping allowance, he will give consideration to a system of taxation relief by way of an annual depreciation allowance on major household appliances and furniture? Could such a scale be fixed on the same basis as that allowed to assist the businessman when he claims taxation relief by way of depreciation on office furniture and appliances?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I will send Senator Keeffe a copy of my speech on the Budget, in which I was able to demonstrate that, whilst there was a movement in the consumer price index, there was an almost 100 per cent greater increase in the average weekly income of people in the corresponding period.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is not what I am asking for.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator is getting the answer that T want to give him.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is right; but it is not an answer to the question.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

If the honourable senator wants to ask a loaded question, I can give a loaded answer. The fact of the matter is that he asked me a question about the consumer price index, and it is obvious that he does not like the answer I am giving. The fact remains that, whilst there was a movement in the consumer price index, in the corresponding period there was a significant movement in the average weekly income of people.

Senator Keeffe:

Mr President, I rise to order. In fact, the Minister is not answering the question I asked. Instead, he is making a policy statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No point of order is involved here. I have always ruled that a Minister may reply to a question as he wishes to reply.

Senator Murphy:

Mr President, I should like to speak on this matter because it is a subject that has often been raised.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you speaking to the point of order?

Senator Murphy:

– I want to speak to the ruling that you have given, Mr President, if I may, because it is of general application. There are rules which confine the asking of questions. 1 suggest that although it is true that a Minister may answer in his own words or he may choose not to answer all or part of a question, surely, simply because a question is asked, a Minister is not then enabled to give a completely irrelevant reply or one which departs from the rules which govern questions. As a matter of logic the rules must apply also to the answer. In other words, if the Minister chooses to answer a question it must be a responsive answer; it cannot be an answer which is wholly or partly unrelated to what has been asked of him. Otherwise it would make nonsense of question time. This is now question time; it is not a time for irrelevancy or a departure from the rules.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Speaking to the point of order, Mr President, I would draw your attention to the fact that you have ruled on it already, but in any event-

Senator Kennelly:

Mr President-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I am speaking to the point of order.

Senator Kennelly:

– But 1 want to raise a point of order.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I am already speaking to a point of order. Will you hear me on the point of order, Mr President?

Senator Kennelly:

– I want to take a point or order on what the Minister is now saying.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I have not spoken yet.

Senator Kennelly:

– The point is that Mr President has ruled already on the point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is getting out of hand. A point of order was taken by Senator Keeffe and I ruled that there was no substance to the point of order. That disposed of that matter. Senator Murphy then rose, I think quite irregularly, but I allowed him to make a statement on this question. I was rather interested to hear Senator Murphy on this matter because the very low level that questions are reaching has been worrying me for a long time. Questions are long, rambling and very difficult to answer. The Senate has gone down hill in this regard in the last 12 months. If honourable senators would apply themselves to the preparation of their questions they would get very much better replies than they are now receiving. I am not referring now to the preparation of the question asked by Senator Keeffe.I ask. honourable senators to apply themselves to the preparation of questions because these long, rambling questions which are full of information, although probably quite interesting, are not questions.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Having listened to you, Mr President, I have nothing more to say.

page 1297

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have pleasure in drawingthe attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Senate gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Cambodia led by the President of the Cambodian Senate, Senator Ong Sim. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to members of the delegation a warm welcome. With the concurrence of honourable senators I propose to invite Senator Ong Sim to take a seat on the floor of the Senate.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear! (Senator Ong Sim thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.)

page 1297

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY

SenatorWHE ELDON - Can the Leader of the Government assure the Senate that, in the event of the gold subsidy not being increased, urgent action will be taken by the Federal Government to protect the interests of those people who are employed in Kalgoorlie in the gold mining industry and whose employment depends on the gold mining industry to ensure that these people will be found alternative employment and accommodation as soon as possible and that their position generally will not be adversely affected by the collapse of the gold mining industry which could well follow from a refusal to increase the subsidy?

page 1297

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen the latest figures published by the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service which indicate that on the average in country areas there are 2 employment vacancies for very 5 people available to fill those positions? Is the Minister also aware that wool prices are the lowest they have been for over 25 years, and that wool is now selling at a small return to the producer of about 32c per lb? In view of these matters, and in view of the fact that the latest cost of living index figures indicate that inflation has increased at the rate of 0.6 per cent on the average throughout Australia, which also must mean higher prices and costs-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Apparently you did not hear what I said a few minutes ago, Senator McClelland. You are giving a lot of information now.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am asking the Minister whether he is aware of these matters.

The PRESIDENT:

– It sounds as though you are giving information. Ask your question.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am asking the Minister whether he has had these matters drawn to his attention. In view of the fact that the latest cost of living index figures indicate that inflation has increased at the rate of 0.6 per cent, will the Minister agree that very substantial and immediate action has to be taken to overcome the crises that have been occurring in recent months and which are causing a rapid acceleration of living costs in rural areas?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI have seen the figures referred to by the honourable senator. In fact, I have in front of me the article in which they are cited. However, I do not draw and the article does not draw the same conclusions as Senator McClelland chooses to draw. It is a fact that the incidence of unemployment in Australia is shown as 0.9 per cent, a figure which is almost identical to that of 12 months ago. It is also true that there are pockets of unemployment in rural areas, in contrast to obvious overemployment in other areas. This situation is brought about by problems in the rural industries, particularly the wool industry. The honourable senator referred to the cost of living and the rate of inflation. As I tried to say earlier, the latest figure is lower than previous figures, and represents over the whole year a significant drop in cost rises.

Senator Murphy:

– What was the figure for the quarter ended September last year?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The figure for Sydney is 0.9 per cent as against 1.4 per cent, 1.6 per cent and 1.1 per cent in the previous 3 quarters. This figure has to be looked at in relation to our productivity and the adjustment of average weekly earnings. I will send to Senator McClelland a copy of my speech in which f pointed out that there were significantly higher increases in average weekly earnings than in the cost of living.

page 1298

QUESTION

FI 1.1 AIRCRAFT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– Yesterday the Minister for Air stated in answering a question relating to the cost of the FI 1 1 aircraft to the United Slates Government and the cost to the Australian Government: T think the honourable senator knows that there is a ceiling price of $US5.95m for our aircraft.’ Is the Minister relying on the ministerial statement entitled ‘Royal Australian Air Force Strike Bomber Capability’ delivered by him on 12th May 1970 for the answer he gave? If so. how does he arrive at the figure of $US5.95m for each aircraft exclusive of spares, other associated equipment and services?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I was not relying on any information other than the price that has been given to the Australian Government by the United States Government. The final cost has to be worked out but the cost for the basic aircraft will not exceed $5.95m. There are other costs for the spares that have been ordered and have not been paid for and some of the modifications sought by the Royal Australian Air Force which are not provided for in the basic aircraft supplied to the American Air Force.

page 1298

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation make a statement to ally the fears of members of the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association that proposed alterations to the licensing system in Australia will put them in bondage to their bosses?

Senator COTTON:
LP

- Senator Mulvihill referred to the situation of the Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association and some suggestion that they are going to go into bondage to their employers. 1 have had with me for a little while some information on this matter which 1 think might clear it up for him. Changes to the system of licensing aircraft maintenance engineers are under consideration at present. The review being conducted follows an assessment ot the application of the existing licensing system to the newer and more complex aircraft which are coming into use in Australia. Modern practices proposed, and in some cases currently being used by the large international and domestic operators overseas, are being taken into account.

The major airlines and the two major employee organisations affected by the Department’s licensing system have been notified of the broad proposals which might eventuate from the review. At present these are being translated into draft air navigation orders which will be circulated to interested parties for consideration and constructive comment. Any action taken as a result of this review will bc to recognise and cope with the complexity of maintenance control of the most modern aircraft. The safely of aircraft will not be compromised in any way in the process. I might also add that if the engineers feel that they have any problem then, as in the past, my door is always open to all employees in the airline industry.

page 1298

QUESTION

DRIED VINE FRUITS

Senator DRURY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Australian Dried Fruits Association made a formal request to the Government that negotiations for a stabilisation plan for the dried vine fruits industry be re-opened? If so, can the Minister inform the Senate whether the negotiations have been reopened? What stage have the discussions reached?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I understand that the industry has made tentative approaches to the Minister for Primary Industry or his Department in regard to a stabilisation scheme. I understand that the matter is being considered by the industry and the Department. 1 cannot give the honourable senator any further information. T shall seek it and let him have it later.

page 1299

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is a fact that in Government policy speeches prior to the last House of Representatives election it was stated by Government leaders that it would be an objective of the Government to assist rural municipalities financially. Can the Minister point to any move on the part of the Commonwealth Government to bring about this situation? Does the present depressed economic situation in many rural areas suggest that it would be wise for the Commonwealth to act promptly to make financial aid available where it is wanted?

Senator Kennelly:

– I raise a point of order. I have studied the Standing Orders. They state that questions seeking a statement of Government policy shall not be asked. The honourable senator has asked whether a certain statement was made at the last election in relation to Government policy, ls the question asked by my friend Senator Webster, of Victoria, in order?

Senator Webster:

– Speaking to the point of order, I think that the honourable senator who raised it is about as accurate as he was last evening when speaking about fuel for tractors.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Kennelly is quite right in stating that questions on policy should nol be asked, but. who am J to decide what is policy? Therefore I let the question go through to the Minister.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

To answer the question outside the perimeter of policy, 1 am aware of certain circumstances in which this Government has given special assistance to local government authorities. ask that the question be put on notice so that I can provide a more comprehensive reply.

page 1299

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator POYSER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the 46c increase in the cost of living, will the Minister recommend to Cabinet that a supplementary Budget be presented to increase pension rates by at least SI a week to allow for increases flowing from the Budget and this present cost of living increase?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

We are currently in the Budget session and therefore it would be quite in-appropriate for me to suggest that we should vary the Budget on a matter related to policy at this time.

page 1299

QUESTION

WORKERS COMPENSATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. As a lead to Slate parliaments, will the Government introduce proper employees compensation legislation giving just awards to the dependants of a workman killed or injured in an industrial accident to ensure that the dependants do not suffer financially as a result of the death or the loss of earning capacity of the breadwinner and to ensure that dependants are not made dependent on charity when a catastrophe occurs?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Cavanagh suggested that the Commonwealth should take some initiative in relation to its compensation legislation to act as a guide to the States in their responsibility. I know that the honourable senator’s intention in raising this question was with all the best good will in the world, but 1 am not aware of the extent of the law in the various States. I know the New South Wales law fairly well, but I do not know the law in the other States. 1 have a good general idea of the Commonwealth law. I will reflect on the question, process it and have it referred in the light of the way in which the honourable senator posed it at this time.

page 1299

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is asked pursuant to the question asked by Senator Webster about the Federal Government’s contribution to local government. Do I take it from the answer given by the Leader of the Government thai he intended to convey that the Commonwealth had made direct grants to local government or that he intended to convey that the grants to local government were through the agency of the State government concerned? If the former is the case, would he be good enough to supply me with instances where the Federal Government has made direct grants to assist local government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt was not my intention to convey that the Commonwealth made direct grants to local government authorities because under the 3-tier system, about which Senator Devitt would know, the normal procedure is to give assistance through the State government concerned with directions or some understanding about where the money ultimately will be spent. I had in mind a number of cases where I know assistance had been given in certain areas. It was directed to the State for the purpose of giving assistance to local government areas which had problems brought about by drought conditions.

page 1300

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WEBSTER:

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation advise the Senate which aerodrome in Australia handles the most air traffic? Is it a fact that the Department of Civil Aviation is responsible for the control of air traffic at the Moorabbin airport in Victoria? Is it a fact that air space in close proximity to Moorabbin airport is not controlled by any authority? Does the Department of Civil Aviation not feel that all air space in proximity to such a busy aerodrome should be controlled?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is without doubt the busiest airport in Australia as far as both domestic and international flights are concerned.

Senator Keeffe:

– And the noisiest.

Senator COTTON:

– This may be the honourable senator’s view. Full details of the various air movements at all aerodromes which handle more than, I think, 5,000 movements are available. I will provide a copy of them to the honourable senator. It is true that air traffic control procedures operate at Moorabbin up to a certain distance. It is equally true that detailed air traffic control procedures do not extend over the total air space in Australia but only in the precise form around aerodromes and in a diminishing form further away from them. This is one of the things which is being looked at in the investigation which is now taking place into the accident at Moorabbin. The accident did in fact take place outside of the present area of control. Consideration will be given to whether the area of control should be enlarged. These matters are under continuous review in the Department of Civil Aviation having regard to the increasing number of air movements at various aerodromes.

page 1300

QUESTION

PHANTOM AIRCRAFT

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Air, is supplementary to other questions which have been asked on the crash yesterday of a Phantom F4E fighter bomber at Amberley. I ask: Why were Press and television reporters and photographers excluded from the scene of the tragic crash?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is the prerogative of the commander of the base. If he thought that it was in the interests of the inquiry which was to be conducted that reporters and photographers should be excluded from the base he had every right to exclude them.

page 1300

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Semite, lt is supplementary to other questions which have been asked concerning grants to local government authorities. If the Commonwealth Government considers making finance available to local government authorities, particularly those in rural areas, per medium of the State governments will it also consider making it a proviso that grunts will be made available to such authorities only if they in turn desist from raising the rates on rural properties at a time when the primary producers are in great difficulties?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI hope that the answer which I gave to an earlier question will not be interpreted to mean, as Senator Buttfield has interpreted it. that the Commonwealth Government is in fact making grants in this manner. I was referring to the procedure which is followed when assistance is made available to local government authorities through the State governments in certain circumstances. 1 had in mind a particular instance in Queensland when it was done in that way. This particular part of Quensland had suffered extensive droughts over a number of seasons. Just because it is decided, on the application of a State government, to give special assistance to a local government authority, 1 do not think that ties can be placed on what is done in the manner that the honourable senator has attempted to do. I should have thought that, on the contrary, it would have been the responsibility of the State government which was seeking to get special assistance for a local government authority in ils State to ensure that the terms and conditions under which it wanted the local government authority to apply any special assistance granted lo it were desirable.

page 1301

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate or, if it is more appropriate, the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, ls either Minister aware that an official statement has been made that waste from the Jervis Bay nuclear power station will be buried in a remote area of the Northern Territory? ls either Minister also aware that unofficial sources have indicated that the burial area of the nuclear waste will be in a remote part of north Queensland? Will either Minister inform the Parliament as a matter of urgency of the exact area chosen for the disposal by burial of such nuclear waste?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think I should answer the question as I represent the Minister for National Development in this chamber. I have not seen the official statement to which the honourable senator referred. Therefore, I cannot help him at this point of time. 1 will have an immediate inquiry made to ascertain the facts.

page 1301

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Can the Minister state now or will he ascertain and inform the Senate whether the question of State government acceptance of the principles of the trade practices legislation is still on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General for further discussion? Can the Minister indicate whether any progress is being made in getting governments other than the Tasmanian and South Australian Governments to refer power to enable the Commonwealth legislation to be more effective?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– -It will be recalled that this matter was the subject of a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 2 occasions in recent weeks. As recently as yesterday I told the honourable senator that I would consult with the Attorney-General and see what the present state of conversations between him and the State Attorneys-General was. 1 had that interview with the Attorney-General last night. All I can tell honourable senators is that this sort of interchange of viewpoint is one which is rather disposed to take an indefinite time. We are not in a position to expect that a definite announcement can be made before the Senate rises.

page 1301

QUESTION

BRISBANE AIRPORT

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate whether new runways are planned for Brisbane Airport? If the answer is yes, when is construction of these new runways likely to commence?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The future of Brisbane Airport is presently under discussion. As the Senate well knows approval was given last year to acquire some more land in the Pinkenba area. This is now taking place. We will be engaged with the Queensland Government in looking al the whole situation of the airport’s future and, in particular, at the roads which serve it. [ cannot say more at this point of time except that honourable senators have my assurance that I have a great interest in looking at the future of Brisbane and its airport development.

page 1301

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen today’s Press reports that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America has told President Nixon that it doubts whether the Saigon regime can survive without the presence of a big American military force? Did the CIA also say that a resurgence of Vietcong strength could be expected as America pulls out? Does the Government believe that Australian troops should be forced to hang on for so long that they may have to fight a rearguard action to escape the inevitable? Does not this lend even greater urgency to withdrawing all Australian troops now?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator asks me a series of questions some of which are matters of policy which are not answered at question lime. Others cut across the known and accepted policy of the Government in relation to our involvement in Vietnam. Nevertheless in fairness to the honourable senator if he wants a reply ( think he should put the question on notice.I will have it processed and give a reply to him.

page 1302

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

page 1302

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 519)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Why are schools, persons and hostels in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia legally able to collect child endowment payments, by a gentleman’s agreement with the Departmentof Social Services, but thisarrangement operates only where the mother is an Aboriginal.
  2. In many cases is child endowment still paid to persons, other than the mother, even though the child is actually in the care of the mother.
  3. Which section of the Social Services Act is applied to deprive a mother of child endowment payments under these circumstances.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. The Social Services Act provides for the payment of child endowment to a person having custody, care and control of a child or to an approved institution (see section 95 of the Act). This applies to both Aboriginals and nonAboriginals alike.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to (2).

page 1302

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 580)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Did Vesteys Limited, owners of Wave Hill Station in the Northern Territory, recently announce that they may give back some of their vast tracts of land to local Aboriginals.
  2. If Vesteys are prepared to recognise Aboriginal land rights, will the Government now reverse its decision of 1968 when it refused to grant 500 square miles of the 6,158 square mile Wave Hill leasehold to Gurindji and Walbiri Aboriginals.
  3. Does the Government recognise the justice of Aboriginals’ claims for land rights or does it subscribe to the belief that they are essentially second class citizens.
Senator COTTON:
LP

-The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) No.
  2. The Commonwealth’s position is set out in the statement of the Minister for the Interior in the House of Representatives on 3rd September 1970- see pages 967 to 971 of Hansard.

page 1302

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 598)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Is it a fact that many Aboriginals employed by the Aboriginal Welfare Department in the North- em Territory are classified as trainees and are thus in receipt of a low wage? If so, is it also a fact that a bulldozer driver at Roper River, who has been driving bulldozers for approximately 6 years, is still classified as a trainee.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Aboriginals who are not employed on Government settlements under the Public Service Act and Regulations are given the opportunity to participate in work training programmes. Those receiving training are paid weekly amounts which vary from a minimum of $25 to a maximum of $40 per week depending on the nature of the work performed. The training programmes are designed to develop proper work attitudes, including punctuality and regular attendance on duty, as well as imparting skills which will enable people to obtain employment under award conditions.

The Church Missionary Society conducted a mission station at Roper River until October 1968 when the Government assumed responsibility at the Mission’s request. Under Mission management two Aboriginals operated the bulldozer. One, who was assessed by the Mission as competent, transferred to other duties approximately 20 months before administration of the area was passed to the Government. The other Aboriginal was not assessed as fully competent.

Under Government administration the bulldozer has been operated by four Aboriginals at various times. These people receive training allowances.

page 1303

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 623)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

When disputes take place on WaveHill station are instructions issued to the local store manager not to sell food to Aboriginals who are allegedly on strike.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

I am informed that no such instructions are issued,

page 1303

QUESTION

Q A NT AS CADET PILOTS

(Question No. 630)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Are there any Qantas cadet pilots presently employed in the general aviation industry while awaiting full time flying duties as second officers with Qantas.
  2. Arethe salaries of such pilots, while work ing in general aviation, subsidised by Qantas? If so, what financial arrangements are made between general aviation firms and Qantas.
  3. Does the Minister approve of the practice of general aviation being allowed to use Qantas cadet pilots awaiting appointment as second officers with Qantas.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. There are at present Qantas pilots who are graduates of the Qantas cadet pilot training scheme employed in the general aviation industry. They are not awaiting full time flying duties with Qantas, but are flying in general aviation as an extension of their initial training. This further training is to enable them to further their experience prior to taking their place in the crew of a Qantas overseas operation.
  2. The salaries are not subsidised by Qantas. Upto 3 months of their 15 months period in the general aviation industry is allowed for further training with the general aviation operator to allow the Qantas trainee to become proficient in his general aviation role. During this time, the training casts and the living allowance for the pilot are met by Qantas. This, of course, allows the Qantas training to be spread to some extent through the general aviation industry and so be of benefit to a broader section of the industry. Immediately this further training is completed, the general aviation operator is fully responsible for paying to the new productive pilot a salary equivalent to that he would pay to a similarly qualified pilot in the normal arrangement between employer and employee.
  3. The temporary employment of pilots trained under the Qantas cadet scheme benefits the general aviation industry, as well as Qantas, and it assists in ensuring a high standard of safety in charter and aerial work operations. In view of these undoubted advantages, no objection can be raised to tin’s practice of enabling the pilots concerned to gain on the job experience prior to undergoing further training on Qantas aircraft.

page 1303

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 645)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the women’s toilets at the Welfare Centre near Wattie Creek have been damaged and unusable for a period of more than 4 months; if so, when will repairs to the toilets be effected.
  2. Was the Wattie Creek settlement subjected to close scrutiny by Health Department officers approximately 1 week ago.
  3. Why was the same close examination not carried out by Health officers at the Welfare Centre, where toilet facilities are obviously well below the standard of those at Wattie Creek.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The women’s toilets at the Wave Hill residential centre have been out of order for several weeks. Requisitions have been issued for the necessary materials to repair these units: the work will be carried out as soon as the materials are available. In the meantime arrangements have been made for the women to use other toilet facilities at the centre.
  2. A Health Department team inspected Wattie Creek on 28th August.
  3. Inspections of facilities in connection with matters of public health are the responsibility of the Department of Health. There are however, three toilet blocks at the Wave Hill residential centre. These are constructed to meet Health Department requirements and include water closets and septic tanks. These toilet facilities are far superior to the facilities at Wattie Creek which consist of two cesspits.

page 1304

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 648)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is it a fact that Europeans who are assisting Aborigines to establish a settlement at Wattie Creek have been forbidden the use of the local telephone and have not been permitted to purchase goods at the store.
  2. Is the store operated by the Aborigines’ Social Club.
  3. Was the ban on both facilities ordered by the Minister or departmental officers based at Darwin.
  4. How long will the ban on the use of the store and telephone remain.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (3) and (4). The Government has installed a radio telephone in the residence of the OfficerinCharge of the Wave Hill Residential Centre. This is an official and not a public telephone. Because of the number of requests which were made from Europeans visiting Wattie Creek for the use of the telephone, the Northern Territory Administration directed that the Officer-in-Charge should make the telephone available to European visitors to Wattie Creek only in emergencies. Telegrams are however accepted from private persons for despatch without restrictions.

The store at the Wave hill residential centre was established for the convenience of local residents. It is stocked to meet local needs and cannot meet sudden demands placed on it by the influx of a large number of Europeans visiting Wattie Creek. The Social Club, which is a private body, decided that the store would be restricted to Aborigines and other residents of the area. The Club did offer to purchase bulk supplies for the convenience of Europeans visiting Wattie Creek.

The restrictions on the use of the telephone will remain for the foreseeable future.

  1. The store is operated by the Wave Hill Social Club whose membership includes both Aborigines and Commonwealth officers. The store is staffed by officials on a voluntary basis.

page 1304

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 653)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Will the Department of Social Services carry out an investigation with a view to having the annual completion of the property form (better known as the pink form) for pensioners abolished.
  2. If the abolition should not be possible, will a more simplified form be made available.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. It is not feasible to abolish the completion of Form ‘R’ the Income and Property Statement, because of the necessity to review the circumstances of all Age. Invalid and Widow pensioners from lime to time. The review serves both to prevent the incorrect expenditure of Commonwealth funds and to ensure that pensioners are receiving their maximum entitlements. Steps have recently been taken to reduce the frequency of issue of the review forms and the majority of pensioners will be called upon to complete a form only every fourth year, instead of annually.
  2. Some of the questions asked on the form do not concern all pensioners. However, because of the progressive relaxation of the means test, it is necessary to ask these questions of an increasing number. To attempt to provide different review forms to cater for the various groups in the pensioner population would increase the complexity of the review and add to the burden of the administrative costs.

You may be assured that my Department continuously has in view the objective of keeping its forms as simple as possible.

page 1304

QUESTION

STANDARDISATION OF RAIL GAUGES

(Question No. 674)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minis ter for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Will the Minister have a feasibility study made of the proposal made in a letter appearing in the Northern Daily Leader of 20th August suggesting that by the standardisation of the railway gauge between Wollangarra and Warwick and by the standardisation being then extended to Brisbane and Toowoomba there would be a direct rail link between Brisbane and Perth, by-passing Sydney so far as passengers and freight are concerned between Brisbane and Perth.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The policy of the Government is that it will give sympathetic consideration to rail standardisation proposals submitted by State Governments, provided it can be demonstrated that they will return tangible benefits commensurate with the costs. Such consideration would of course take into account relative priorities among other proposed works of a developmental nature.

The railways mentioned are the. responsibility of the Queensland Government and if that Government wishes to put forward proposals they will receive consideration. However, the initiative rests with the Slate Government and detailed consideration of the proposals would be impossible without the support and participation of that Government.

page 1305

QUESTION

TOURIST PUBLICITY

(Question No. 676)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, upon notice:

  1. What was the total amount spent abroad last year by the Australian Tourist Commission in the promotion of Australia.
  2. How much was spent in Australia last year by the Australian Tourist Commission in the production of films or television programmes which have been used abroad to promote Australia.
  3. What are the names of suchfilms, the cost of the production of each, their length, in time, the number of Australian script writers employed on each and the places where each film has been shown.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

page 1305

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

(Question No. 698)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

When does the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner intend to undertake a clean-up cam paign to remove some of the rolling slock and general equipment which abounds along the Kalgoorlie-Port Augusta railway line.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

It is estimated that no more than a total of 300 tons of scrap equipment, including 4 derelict vehicles, is located along the entire length of the Trans-Australian Railway. Disposal of this equipment would present some problems but the matter will be investigated and, if justified, action will be taken.

page 1306

QUESTION

RAILWAYS: INDIAN PACIFIC

(Question No. 699)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Can arrangements be made in the scheduling of the Indian-Pacific train for several 10-minute set down for passengers to have brief close-up views of the soil, rocks, flowers and vegetation of the Nullabor Plains in lieu of the present policy of keeping all carriage doors locked, except at Cook where no worthwhile vegetation exists for inspection.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for

Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Much of the journey occurs during the hours of darkness. In addition, single line working and the necessity to arrange crossings with opposing goods and passenger trains reduces the possibility of scheduling regular stopping places. This matter will, however, be given consideration when timetables are next being reviewed.

page 1306

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

(Question No. 728)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Who authorises the payment of child endowment to a person other than the mother, when the child is temporarily in the care of another person, but where an authority for the collection of child endowment has not been signed by the child’s mother or legal guardian.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

The Social Services Act provides for the grant of child andowment to persons having the custody, care and control of children and to approved institutions of which children are inmates. The mother of a child is eligible for endowment only if the child isin her custody, care and control and is not an inmate of an endowed institution. Any question about the entitlement of a claimant to child endowment, e.g. involving the custody, care and control of a child, would be resolved by a duly authorised officer of the Department of Social Services after examination of all the circumstances.

Section 100 of the Social Services Act provides that where the Director-General is satisfied that, for any reason, it is desirable that payment of the whole or portion of an endowment should be made to a person, institution or authority on behalf of the endowee, the Director-General may authorise payment accordingly. In practice the authority provided by this section would be authorised by the Director-General’s delegate, and there would be very few instances where payment of endowment is made to a person other than the endowee.

page 1306

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION

(Question No. 644)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Has the petroleum exploration welt in the adjacent area of the Northern Territory (Petrel No.1) yet been brought under control; if not, when is it going to be controlled, and when is this waste of Australian resources going to stop.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

As the honourable senator was informed on 5th May 1970 in reply to an earlier question he addressed to me, a relief well to control the blowout was spudded in earlier this year. The drill pipe became stuck at the 11,000/12,000 feet level and when efforts to recover the pipe failed the company blocked the hole and made a side-track alongside it.

Reports indicate that drilling had reached a measured depth of 12,946 feet on 9th October. At a measured depth of 13,400 feet drilling will commence into the gas reservoir and killing operalions will begin. Because of the many unknown factors involvedin a highly delicate operation of this nature it is not passible to give an exact time when the blow-out will be controled.

Government inspectors who have been in close liaison with the company since the blow-out occurred are satisfied that the company has maintained a responsible attitude and has pursued its attempts to control the blow-out with due diligence.

page 1306

QUESTION

TAXATION BRANCH

(Question No. 647)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the

Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does the Taxation Department prefer to promote officers with accountancy qualifications over unqualified persons.
  2. What is the basis of selection in cases where unqualified people are promoted in preference to qualified officers.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

Promotions in the Commonwealth Taxation Office are made in accordance with the Public Service Act and Regulations.

Under the relevant provisions, the Public Ser vice Board is authorised to make determinations prescribing qualifications needed as a prerequisite for promotion or transfer to particular positions. In relation to the Commonwealth Taxation Office, the Board has determined that promotions or transfers to certain positions, mainly in the assessing, investigation, appeals and advising areas, shall be limited to officers who -

  1. have completed an appropriate course of training in accountancy; or
  2. have completed appropriate subjects of a course in accountancy or law at a recognised educational institution; or
  3. have other appropriate qualifications; or
  4. were on the 31st day of December 1966 or at any previous time, the nominal occupants of certain specified offices.

Subject to the qualification requirements, the Public Service Act requires that in selecting an officer for promotion, consideration is given first to relative efficiency and in the event of equality of efficiency of two or more officers, then to the relative seniority of officers available for promotion to the vacancy.

page 1307

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

page 1307

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962-1966, I present the Seventh Annual Report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1307

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-1969, I present the annual report on the operations of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1307

VIP FLIGHTS

Ministerial Statement

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · West ern Australia · CP

– On 30th September last Senator Murphy asked me whether I would table details of VIP flights from 6th March 1969 until the present time.

Senator Murphy:

– Is that the last date for which we have the details?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes. I now lay on the table the details and ask for leave to make a statement.

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

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Following my answer in the Senate on 30th September 1970, when I advised honourable senators of the general rules relating to the use of Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft for VIP and VIP party travel purposes, I was asked to provide details relating to the use of VIP aircraft over the period since the date when this information was last provided. This I now do in the form of a separate document which I now table. This document, which contains information similar to that previously provided, sets out VIP flight details by the RAAF for the period from 6th March 1969 to 30th September 1970. Also included are those VIP flights which were authorised by me where Department of Civil Aviation aircraft were used to meet the particular commitment. The document which I now table embraces all details of approved applications for VIP travel and has been reconciled against the relevant flight manifests.

page 1307

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 26th August 1970, Senator Milliner asked me the following question:

Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Professor Zelman Cowen, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, that it is disturbing to see one man or woman standing in front of 250 students for 53 minutes at a lecture?. Accepting that such a statement from an authority like Professor Cowen is factual, I ask whether the condition referred to by him is typical of other Australian universities or whether it is in the University of Queensland alone that such unsatisfactory lecturing procedures obtain. Does the Minister agree with Professor Cowen’s statement that such a state of affairs is disturbing? Will he investigate avenues to overcome the seriousness of lecturing at universities under such conditions?

The Minister for Education and Science has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Given a well-designed lecture theatre, many lectures can be given just as effectively to a large audience as to a small.

No doubt there are many views on the desirable maximum size for a class attending a lecture but 1 am assured that few would share the Vice-Chancellor’s view that 250 is undesirably large in, for example, a first year subject. Few would think it desirable to duplicate lectures in such a subject in order to bring the size of the audience to. a lower figure than 250. Many would think it acceptable to deliver such lectures to audiences larger than 250.

If the length of time - 55 minutes - for a lecture contributes to the Vice-Chancellor’s feeling of unease, I can only comment that I know of no one else who would consider 55 minutes too long for a normal lecture.

To sum up, it would be - quite common for lectures lasting 55 minutes to be delivered in a wide range of subjects to audiences of 250 and 1 do not accept the validity of the generalisation attributed to the Vice-Chancellor.

page 1308

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I should like to make a brief statement to the Senate. There is some doubt in my mind as to the relevant standing order relating to the silting of the Estimates Committees this morning and that relating to the Estimates Committees which, as noted on the notice paper and the paper listing the order of business, are to meet this afternoon at 4 o’clock. Secondly, the senators who are members of the Select Committee and are able to take part in its deliberations, if leave is granted, are not required to be in attendance on the Estimates Committees which propose to sit this afternoon. Thirdly, I have 2 witnesses from Sydney, the examination of whom has not been completed. Senators surplus to requirements of the Estimates . Committees, as it were, meeting at 4 o’clock this afternoon, if leave is granted will be able to continue their examination of the witnesses, who may then be permitted to return to Sydney. I ask leave of the Senate for this Committee to sit.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I would conceive the intention of the Senate, whether as set out in Standing Orders or otherwise, to be directed against the sitting of a committee while the Senate is sitting, either as the Senate or as the Committee of the Whole, and not that the Select Committee of which Senator -Sir Magnus Cormack is Chairman and to which he has just referred should be debarred from sitting merely because other committees and not the Committee of the Whole were sitting. Probably that is the general understanding of the position.

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

(3.52) - f agree with the view that Senator Murphy has expressed in response to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack’s request. Certain elements influence this matter, particularly when a joint committee wishes to sit while the House is sitting. There is a grey area which I would hope to sort out in the next 24 hours. I think it is quite appropriate that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack’s Committee should sit this afternoon, as would bc the case with any other committee which has work to do, has a quorum, and is not involved with the Estimates Committees. Meanwhile, I will have discussions on a couple of aspects of the matter which may cut across what we generally agree upon today.

Senator Cavanagh:

– 1 rise to order, ls it appropriate for the Senate to gram leave to Senator Sir Magus Cormack’s Committee to meet, or should we have a motion so that the advisability of the move can be debated?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I do not believe that a resolution of the Senate is required. I think Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and his Committee would be entitled to sit this afternoon if they so desired.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order. Mr President, would you give a ruling on the provisions of the Standing Orders in respect of the new committees that have been set up? Provision is made specifically that some committees may not sit while the Senate is sitting unless permitted by a resolution of the Senate. Different arrangements may have been made for the new committees and I would like to have your ruling, Sir.

The PRESIDENT:

– They cannot sit during the sittings of the Senate without permission. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has moved a motion.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I thought Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was merely seeking leave. If a motion has been moved, I wish to speak to it. I do not know that at this stage I want to oppose the motion, because I do not know all the circumstances. If we are to separate the operations of the Senate, I think I should point out that it was intended that all honourable senators would participate in the sittings <of the Estimates Committees, just as if they were sittings of the Senate. Not every senator is a member of an Estimates committee and not everyone is obliged to attend meetings of the committees. Nevertheless it was anticipated that if the committee system were to work they would go along to such meetings. Therefore I think it is somewhat improper to call a meeting of another Senate committee when the three Estimates committees are sifting.

The proposers of the committee system hoped that there would be a full attendance of honourable senators at committee meetings and that they would participate in the committee work. Something has happened to upset that arrangement. I accept the statement by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that the Senate Select. Committee on Securities and Exchange has available 2 witnesses from Sydney. In view of the circumstances 1 do not raise strong objections on this occasion. However I wonder about the arrangements made. Was there some knowledge that the approval sought would be granted at the time that the arrangements were made for the 2 witnesses to attend? 1 would not like to establish a precedent whereby select committees should sit at the same time as regular Estimates committees of the Senate are meeting. If Senate Estimates committees are to replace sittings of the Senate then perhaps we can arrange the membership of those committees in such a way that honourable senators may be usefully employed in other committees so that we can have an abundance of committees sitting at the same time. 1 think the proposal is improper, but in view of the circumstances I will not oppose it on this occasion. I have mentioned the dangerous precedent that is being set. I hope that consideration will be given to this matter and that some definite rules will be laid down.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 want to make 1 or 2 short observations on this motion. I too am not prepared to oppose the proposition put forward by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack in view of the circumstances he enunciated this afternoon. I believe it is in the interests of the Senate and of the community to take the evidence of these witnesses who have come to Canberra today if this can be arranged. Apparently it can be done.

I have supported the committee system to date. ( think the committees have been of tremendous value. However I am fearful that if we continue in the manner in which we have been proceeding, culminating in the situation that has arisen today, the system will break down because of the multiplicity of committees sitting at the one time. For a number of days a large number of public servants have been hanging around the lobbies of Parliament House waiting for their estimates to be dealt with, and a great deal of public money is involved in this sort of activity. This morning, in addition to the 3 Estimates Committees which were sitting, apparently there also was a sitting of the Public Accounts Committee, a sitting of the Public Works Committee, and a sitting of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange of which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is the Chairman. I am told that in addition there was a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Frankly I think that the sheer multiplicity of committees sitting at the one time must break down the system. I urge the Government, and those responsible for the system to give this matter very careful and weighty consideration. I think the committee system is of tremendous advantage to the Australian community but it could become bogged down through the great amount of work involved at the one time.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– t do not want to say that it is easy to be wise after the event. However, I recall that when it was proposed that we have a whole series of committees, the very position which has now emerged in relation to the Estimates committees and their conflict with sittings of other committees of various descriptions was mentioned. It is obvious that we are to have a multiplicity of committees. It is not only a question of the availability of the administrative staff and of officers of the public administration, but also the sheer availability of senators through increasing demands on their time. It is obvious that we are in a completely experimental phase with this committee work. To some extent we are not masters of our own destiny because now there is emerging a series of joint parliamentary committees in addition to the standing and statutory parliamentary committees. I refer to joint parliamentary committees such as the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Committee. Those committees have to be accommodated within the convenience not of one House but of two Houses. In these circumstances it is obvious that the pioneering stage will present and is presenting considerable difficulties.

I think the only solution is that possibly we shall have to be more temperate in calling meetings of committees. Unless there is a matter of urgency, they could be postponed. The Estimates Committees are completely ad hoc committees. They are to sit within a certain circumscribed period and for a particular purpose. Possibly their sittings will commence and finish within a few weeks. Therefore, I think that the work of other committees, not presenting the same element of urgency, might well be postponed, so far as the Senate can command that decision, until the Estimates Committees have discharged their duties and the Appropriation Bill is passed, if that is the termination of their work. It will be impossible to try to do all these things. It is a question of determining priorities. In those matters in which we are not masters of our own destinies we put our point of view to the other place. Where we are masters of our own destinies we determine a system of priorities. In those circumstances I think the situation could be not comfortably but easily resolved. I suggest that to you, Mr President, and to the officers as a means of solving this very serious problem.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– -Like Senator Cavanagh, 1 am disturbed by

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack’s request because 1 believe that whole system of committee work in the Senate will become a complete farce if the present situation is allowed to continue. Standing committees, select committees and all types of persons desire to sit at the same time as the Estimates Committees.

Senator Murphy:

– There are no standing committees of the Senate.

Senator POYSER:

– There are standing committees of the Senate. Next week an application could be made by one of those committees to sit at the same time as the Estimates Committees. 1 am tot concerned about the present request. Like Senator Cavanagh, I am not prepared to oppose it by voting against it. 1 want to say quite clearly that if this is to be the pattern I most certainly will be opposing, by my vote, any further requests. It is quite obvious that, if the Senate Estimates Committees are to sit and if honourable senators who have volunteered to sit on those Committees are drawn away to sit on other committees of which they are members, we will have a complete shambles. I believe that that exists already in any case.

The present situation is that the Senate will not have a proper opportunity, as a Senate, to discuss the Estimates, lt is quite clear and obvious to every honourable senator that, if we are to rise, as is indicated, at the end of next week, the Estimates will be discussed not at length in the Senate but very briefly indeed. Honourable senators who have not been able to attend all Estimates Committees - and it is physically impossible for them so to do - will not have any opportunity in open Senate meetings to have the discussions that they may desire. On this occasion there may be very good and sound reasons for agreeing to the motion put by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I will not oppose it on this occasion, but 1 add a word of warning. The reasons for making similar applications in future will have to be very strong indeed before they should even be considered by any honourable senator.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I wish to speak only very briefly because I think that Senator . Sir Magnus Cormack has exhibited a propriety which has brought an acknowledgment of his position and of his Committee’s position. That is why no objection is being taken to the motion. I think that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was entitled to say that, having regard to the uncertainty which prevails, his committee should be able to sit at any time that the Senate was not sitting. It is only because the sitting of the Senate is being suspended to enable the Estimates committees to meet that this curious situation has arisen. I think it is in these circumstances that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has raised his point. I do not think that it would be in the best interests of the Senate if committees were to sit during the sitting of the Senate. It appears to me that there are 2 aspects of this problem.

Senator Byrne:

– As a matter of course or in an emergency?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The Senate should be able to give permission on specific occasions. As I was about to say, there are 2 aspects of this problem. The first is that when the Senate itself is sitting - labouring what I just said in response to an interjection by Senator Byrne - Senate committees should not sit unless the Senate agrees, on cause being shown why they should sit. I should think that that ought to be the position with regard to not only standing committees of the Senate but also Senate representation on joint committees of the Parliament. The second aspect which arises is when the Senate itself suspends its sitting to enable sub-committees of the Senates - estimates committees - to meet. It appears to me that what the Senate is in fact doing in these circumstances is forgoing its right to sit as a whole to enable its members to meet and sit in part. I should think that the whole purpose would be nullified if this occasion is used as an opportunity for other committees - joint or standing - to meet without the express permission of the Senate. I say that only because it has become an occasion for some expression of opinion from the body of the Senate and that is the way I view it. I think, equally with Senator Byrne, that we are in a stage of experimentation and it is inevitable that these problems will arise. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is obviously seeking guidance. However, I do feel that if these committees are to work as intended this is a matter which ought to be looked at by the Standing Orders Committee with a view to formulating a proper proposal which can be put to the Senate in due course for its approval.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak only very briefly. The first thing I wish to say on the matter which is before us is that I think that all members of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange will agree with me that its immediate proceedings are a matter of great urgency which ought to be dealt with this afternoon. The other point I wish to make is a more general one. I believe that there will have to be at some stage consideration of the whole matter of the sitting of committees of the Senate and the Senate as a whole. The present situation appears to be most unsatisfactory. My impression of the situation in, for example, the United States Congress is that sittings of committees take place while the 2 Houses of Congress are in session. I may be incorrect, but this is my understanding of the situation. My opinion is that if the system is to be workable it may be necessary to vary the Standing Orders to allow committees to sit while the Senate is in full session.

Senator Byrne:

– Normally they do not get a very big attendance of members in the United States Senate.

Senator WHEELDON:

Senator Byrne has reminded me that normally there is not a very big attendance of members in the Senate chamber in the United States. This is correct. I believe that there would probably be more profit in having honourable senators sitting on committees^ - whether they be standing committees or Senate select committees - in which they have a close interest than having them sitting in the chamber doing nothing but listening to what others are saying. I do not want to labour this point at the moment other than to say that it seems to me that if we are to have a workable committee system we will, in view of the long hours of sitting of the Senate, either have to reconsider the continued existence of the committees or reconsider the Standing Orders in relation to the prevention of committees sitting while the full Senate is sitting. I repeat Senator Sir Magnus Cormack Y statement that the matter which is before us at the moment is of great urgency. I believe that the motion which has been put ought to be carried.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– 1 am very strongly opposed to the suggestion that Senate select committees or other committees should be sitting during the sitting of the Senate or on an occasion when the Senate divides itself into committees to consider the Estimates. The Estimates are an important section of the Senate’s work. If other committees take honourable senators away from the Estimates Committees of the Senate then it makes for an incomplete job to be done on that work. These are the Estimates providing for the expenditure of the funds of this Commonwealth during the ensuing 12 months. Therefore 1 think that nothing should be done to take honourable senators away from that work. I know that people probably feel that some of these other committees may have some importance but they are no more important than the work of these Estimate Committees which is directly the work of the Senate. Under those circumstances I think it is wrong to have such committees sitting. For practically 18 years I have been Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and have been a member of that Committee for a little longer than that. That Committee never sits while the Senate sits. That is a standing rule so far as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is concerned. That is why honourable senators will find that Committee at work at 9 a.m. in this building. I strongly oppose this suggestion that select committees and other committees outside the Estimates Committees and the Senate itself should sit when those Estimates Committees and the Senate are sitting. I think to allow that would detract from the work of the Senate.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 1 was not here when Senator Sir Magnus Cormack spoke so 1 did not hear what he said. But it disturbs me to think that an application is before the Senate in the face of the Standing Orders for permission for a standing committee or a select committee to sit during the time that the Senate is sitting. I agree that there are peculiar circumstances here because the sitting of the Senate is being suspended to allow committees to sit. Nevertheless this is action which the Senate has taken. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack wants permission for the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange to sit because witnesses are in Canberra. 1 wonder whether the honourable senator anticipated a decision of the Senate and invited his witnesses to be present today when he is fully aware of what the Standing Orders provide. I have always been a supporter of committees. I think the committee system in the Senate is perhaps the most valuable work that the Senate can do. I have tried to play my part as far as the committees are concerned. But I think it would be bad for this Senate to adopt a policy of having select committees or standing committees sitting when the Senate is in session. 1 say this mainly because I think we should be all informed on what is going on in the Senate as far as we are able consistent with the work that we have to perform on matters which we are handling in the Senate.

Senator Wheeldon:

– The honourable senator can only be in one Estimates Committee at the same time. He cannot be in two.

Senator CANT:

– A proposition is before the Senate for 8 standing committees to be set up. Each one of those is to be manned by 8 honourable senators. If all those committees make successful applications to sit while the Senate is sitting and there is no duplication of honourable senators on the standing committees then there will be no Senate at all. I oppose the application on this occasion but I warn the Senate that I will not accept this as a matter which should be coming before the Senate as a general principle. If honourable senators are going to do this sort of thing the Standing Orders should be brought before the Senate so that the Senate can adopt a standing order which will allow this work to be done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1312

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That die Senate at its rising adjourn till tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 4.15 to 10 p.m.

page 1313

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(10.0) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the borrowing of moneys not exceeding £142,550,000 to be advanced to the States during 1970-71 for housing in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. At its meeting last June, the Australian Loan Council approved a government borrowing programme for 1970-71, of which $823m was for the financing of State works and housing. Within this total, each State nominated the amount it wished to receive as advances under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In aggregate, housing advances in 1970-71 will amount to $142,550,000- an increase of $10,320,000 or about 8 per cent over last year. The amounts requested by the States are as follows:

Advances made to the States under the Agreement are repayable over a period of 53 years and bear interest at1 per cent per annum below the long term bond rate.

This is the concluding year of the period covered by the present Housing Agreement. During this 5 year period, the Commonwealth will have advanced almost $644m to the States for housing purposes. Of this amount, it is expected that almost $426m will have been used by State housing authorities, together with supplementary advances from the Commonwealth for the housing of servicemen, to construct some 54,400 dwellings. The remaining $2 18m will have been advanced through the home builders’ accounts and, together with moneys accruing from earlier advances, will have assisted some 39,600 persons to acquire their own homes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1313

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to remove a doubt whether Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory may have extra-territorial effect. The need to remove this doubt has arisen in connection with proposals to make certain amendments to the Uniform Companies Act, and in particular the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory. The amendments to the Companies Acts will give effect to recommendations by the Company Law Advisory Committee, consisting of Mr Justice Eggleston, as Chairman, Mr J. M. Rodd, C.B.E., and Mr P. C. E. Cox. This Advisory Committee was appointed by, and reports to, the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General. The Advisory Committee has recommended amendments which, amongst other things, will require the disclosure of substantial shareholdings in companies and improve the effectiveness of the take-over code. The provisions requiring disclosure of substantial shareholdings will require a person having a beneficial interest in not less than one-tenth of the voting capital in a company listed on an Australian stock exchange to disclose that interest, thereby preventing concealment by means of nominee shareholders. The new takeover provisions will prevent circumvention of the code by means such as firstcome first-served offers.

The Company Law Advisory Committee specifically directed its attention to the need for this legislation to extend to overseas shareholders, and in paragraph 6 of its Second Interim Report the Committee made the following statement:

We think it is important that the legislation should be so expressed as to leave no doubt that the obligation of disclosure is intended to apply to persons resident, or companies incorporated, outside the jurisdiction, as well as to persons or corporations within the jurisdiction.

The Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral has decided to give effect to this recommendation and has agreed upon a draft of the proposed amending provisions. There is, however, some doubt, as the matter stands at present, whether the proposed amendments to the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory can be given an extra-territorial operation. It is desirable that this doubt should be removed so as to facilitate the making of this proposed companies legislation, and also other legislative measures that may from time to time require similar treatment in the future.

The High Court of Australia has held that, as a matter of constitutional law, laws for the government of a territory can operate wherever territorially the authority of the Commonwealth runs. But there is a doubt whether, as a matter of statutory construction, the Ordinance-making power conferred by section 12 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910- 1965 enables an Ordinance to be given such an extra-territorial operation. The present power in section 12 is to make Ordinances ‘having the force of law in the Territory’. This Bill provides instead for a power to make Ordinances ‘for the peace, order and good government of the Territory’. The form of words proposed by the Bill is a time-honoured one. It is used in the Northern Territory (Administration) Act, Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act, Christmas Island Act, Norfolk Island Act, Papua and New Guinea Act, the Constitution Acts of the States and, in respect of specified subjects, in the Commonwealth Constitution, lt has been held by the courts to permit the making of laws having extra-territorial effect.

The opportunity has been taken in the Bill to attend to one other matter of a statute law reform character. Section 11 of the principal Act, which confers certain jurisdiction on inferior courts in Jervis

Bay Territory, is no longer necessary because the jurisdiction is now conferred by the Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory. The present Bill accordingly provides for the repeal of section 11. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 1314

AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS BOUNTY BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 October (vide page 1 154), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The objective of this Bill is to provide assistance to manufacturers of bountiable tractors additional to that now being provided under the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1966. At the outset let me say that although we are supporting this measure we believe that it reflects the very critical situation that exists in this section of secondary industry which depends on primary industry in Australia. Not only is the situation developing into a crisis in the industry associated with the manufacture and distribution of tractors and other farm equipment, but it is a prelude to what we believe could become a national crisis. We have pointed out over the years that the inflationary process which has been going on and by which the primary industries have been costed out of their traditional markets would have this effect. But, just through fortuitous circumstances, we have had the discovery of minerals which has tided us over the foreign exchange situation. By our exports of minerals we have been able to adjust our economic position temporarily - or more than temporarily.

At the same time the situation on the primary industrial level has deteriorated. In practically every field of primary industry there is a crisis. The wool growers have found that. Even in today’s Press we read of a further deterioration in the price of wool. The problems facing the wool growers are such that the future of this great and basic Australian industry is threatened. The wool growers throughout Australia do not know where to go next. These are things which are accumulating at the primary industry level and which are being reflected in secondary industry. It is on that level mat we are discussing this Agricultural Tractors. Bounty Bill.

The Government, in presenting this legislation, said that the industry was facing serious damage from import competition. But that is only part of the picture. The ability of people on the land to see any future in the wheat industry, orcharding or any of the other primary industries, to be able to invest in the future, to borrow money in order to finance the purchase of agricultural equipment such as tractors and to embark on developmental projects on their properties is reaching the stage where an industry such as the tractor industry is the first one to feel the full impact.

Financing the tractor industry over the next 18 months or so will be quite a costly process. This is only a palliative. It does not give this industry any continuity to enable planning for the future, for the simple reason that the parts of primary industry that it is serving have such uncertainty. Let me refer to some of the statistics of the industry. In Western Australia one of the companies that we are considering - Chamberlain Industries Pty Hd - was employing 1,650 persons last year and now it has only 800 employees. It has lost sales worth up to $10m. Its overall losses have amounted to $750,000. That amount cannot be absorbed. The future of this industry in Western Australia is very gravely jeopardised. Another part of this industry is the International Harvester Co. at Geelong in Victoria, lt will have to dismiss 300 men.

This is added to the fact that there is a very critical situation in primary industry which is affecting the sale of not only tractors but also agricultural machinery, fencing materials, water conservation equipment, trucks and utilities and all the other ancillary services that are supplied to people on the land, who are finding it impossible not only to finance development work but even to pay their way. In addition to this, of course, primary industry is faced with many other problems, such as the drought and low wool prices. There is a crisis in the wool industry. The dairy industry is going through one of its worst periods. People engaged in the poultry industry are at a loss to know what their future holds. These people who have orchards growing apples and pears throughout Victoria and Tasmania have no guarantee that their future has any promise. Also there ls a matter which has often been refered to in the Senate, the plight of the pea and bean industry as it affects Tasmania.

Implicit in this temporary expedient introduced by this Bill is the need to solve the problems of the tractor industry, lt is important to remember that 60 per cent of our export income has been derived from primary industries. This industry is one of the main ancillaries to primary industry as it supplies the wherewithal for the cultivation and intense use of our land. But the industry has declined to the extent where we have to subsidise it further. In addition to the bounty already being paid to the industry it is considered necessary to subsidise the industry further. This must bring home to the Government that its policy with regard to this most important part of our economy has failed.

Senator Young:

– ls the honourable senator suggesting that we should stop manufacturing tractors here and should import all our tractors in order to get them more cheaply?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– 1 am not suggesting that we stop manufacturing them, but we will find a situation arising when manufacturers will not be able to continue production. In the second reading speech on this Bill it is stated that the industry has been facing serious damage from import competition. But despite the fact that a considerable bounty is paid already to the 2 companies which are to be assisted by this measure, they cannot see any hope for the future and are left with 2 alternatives. One is that they close down because their market is diminishing so rapidly; the other is that overseas companies take them over. They are the 2 alternatives that face this industry.

Senator Young:

– They are merged already. Massey-Harris is American and John Deere is already with Chamberlain, so I do not know what point it is that the honourable senator is making.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The point is that they are considered to be Australian companies. They are subsidised as Australian companies. To contradict what the honourable senator has just said I refer to the Tariff Board’s interim report on agricultural tractors in 1966 which states that these were considered to be Australian industries. The report states:

Two Australian manufacturers, Chamberlain Industries Pty Ltd and International Harvester Co. of Australia Pty Ltd produce agricultural wheeled tractors. Both these manufacturers were producing tractors at the time of the Board’s previous inquiry . . .

So they are considered to be Australian companies. The Australian content of their shareholding is not divulged in the report. The seriousness of the threat to this industry is illustrated by the fact that it is found necessary to add an additional bounty to that recommended by the Tariff Board, without there being any foreseeable solution of the problem. The additional bounty to be applied by this measure is just an expediency. It will not give added security to this important industry. The honourable senator has said that overseas capital is involved in these companies, but that is typical of what happens in so many industries.

After all, there are big advantages in mass production. If the Australian companies can engage in mass production they can supply their clients with a tractor that will compare favourably with imported tractors. These Australian tractor manufacturing companies employ considerable numbers of Australians. Chamberlain Industries Pty Ltd. as I have said, was employing 1,650 people in Western Australia. They, together with their wives and dependants, would make a considerable contribution towards decentralisation. Other people would be associated with supplying services to the people engaged in the tractor manufacturing industry. It is a very important segment of our economy and it warrants very careful consideration at present.

Although the Opposition supports this Bill, it feels that not enough accent has been placed on the overall crisis facing primary industries, in the first place, and on the repercussions on the secondary industries that depend for their market on primary industries. The effect can multiply in that way and have a very serious effect on our economy. The assistance to be granted under this measure is to be authorised only until 30th June 1972, subject to the possibility of earlier termination. As we gauge the trends at present, there will not be an earlier termination and it is quite likely that further assistance will be required to maintain the industry as a viable proposition.

The Government has promised that it will review the situation to determine the effect of this assistance and to adjust the rate of payment. It has said that a further Tariff Board report will be submitted on the question of long term assistance to the industry. I believe that the tractor manufacturing companies, one in Victoria and one in Western Australia, are worthy of support because of the role they have played over the years in supplying balance for our overall economy. In addition, they have been employers of labour, producing from our own raw materials a product that has been of great assistance to our primary industries. Every effort should be made to find an alternative to a palliative such as this measure.

Through such an alternative we should seek to give confidence to the industry. It should be made to feel that there is in Australia continuity in its market and room for expansion in the future. The industry should be able to take its place in a community such as ours which is based on the primary industries. The tractor manufacturing industry should have no threat to its future. We want to sound a warning to the Government that unless something more substantial is done than the temporary palliative offered by this Bill, these two very fine parts of our economy could be threatened.

Senator Young:

– What do you suggest?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– We suggest that the whole of all our primary industry should be reviewed. New markets should be encouraged. The effect of the loss of our European markets should be considered. We should be looking for new markets in neighbouring countries. We have to find a way of financing new markets and arranging an exchange of our goods with the people who need them. There are millions of people in Asia who would like to buy our primary products if they could but they cannot finance their purchases. We have to find a way of financing such sales in our natural market - the countries close by.

The Government is not attempting to do this, lt is tied up with other extraneous things. In my view the Government is alienating the people throughout Asia rather than making friends of them. Those countries are potential markets for Australia, and the Government is missing out on the chance to make Australia a viable and substantial trading country. It is losing sight of the fact that our old traditional markets can go as quickly as snow melts in the sunlight. A lot of people are under the impression that the old ties of the British Empire and the British Commonwealth will continue into the future, that arrangements will be made to soften the effect of the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community and that Australia will get some of the crumbs from Great Britain. It is my view that Australia will be left very much out in the cold if Great Britain enters the Community. We will be forced to find markets nearby and to make economic arrangements to exchange our products.

This Bill highlights the crisis of our primary industries. People on the land cannot afford to buy the products of these tractor companies because men on the land are faced virtually with bankruptcy. The Government should not allow the situation to deteriorate so far that these people will fade out gradually. Yet this is what the Government is permitting to happen. It is offering this temporary bounty. It is sweeping the problem under the carpet and is not facing up to the really critical situation that confronts people on the. land.

The Government has the responsibility, yet Senator Young asked what we of the Opposition would do. We would take a very different approach to that adopted by the Government. The Government is not adopting positive measures but is just drifting along. It is enjoying windfalls along the way; it has been very fortunate in many ways. The discovery of very rich mineral resources has tided the Government over for a period. Nevertheless the Government still has to confront this situation that is on its doorstep. The people on the land, the primary producers, are on the verge of bankruptcy, whether we like it or not. All sections of primary industry have lost confidence in their ability to find markets for their products and to pay their way. It is only a matter of time before they go bankrupt. That is the only logical conclusion to reach if they cannot obtain the cost of production for their goods. The presentation of this Bill is an indication that those who supply goods such as equipment for cultivation are facing difficulties.

Debate interrupted.

page 1317

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned al 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19701020_senate_27_s46/>.