Senate
4 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1663

QUESTION

WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators may have noticed in this morning’s Press an announcement - if they have not I think it is appropriate that I should announce it as being of interest to the Senate - that Mr Cumming Thom, Clerk Assistant in the Senate and officer-in-charge of the Senate’s committee secretariat, has been awarded a Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship for 1972. His programme will be to learn, by observation and discussion, as much as he can of the operation and administration of committee systems in certain overseas countries. The Senate is entering a new phase in the parliamentary history of Australia and honourable senators will agree that is most desirable that as much knowledge and experience as possible should be gained by all those associated wilh the Senate.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear!

page 1663

QUESTION

SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– Yesterday Senator McLaren asked me a question about the dress of honourable senators. When he asked me the question I hastily deferred consideration of it until this morning because I recollected at once that a similar question was asked of Petronius by the Emperor Nero a long time ago. The tactful reply of Petronius was ‘de gustibus non est disputandum’, which did nol save Petronius ultimately. Therefore ] took some time to consider my reply. 1 understand that the Premier of South Australia has assumed the role of the elegant arbiter in the South Australian Parliament. This matter was raised in 1968, when my predecessor replied that the style of dress in the Senate had been traditional, with slight variations of style and colour; thus the practice of leaving the choice of appropriate dress to the good judgment of the honourable senators and their sense of dignity of the Senate should continue. I am sure that we may rely on the continued good judgment of honourable senators.

page 1663

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Repatriation, (Mr Holten) is leaving Australia this afternoon to open an industrial trade display in Singapore on 8th November. He is expected to return to Australia on 10th November. During his absence the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will act as the Minister for Repatriation.

page 1663

POST OFFICE TOWER, BLACK MOUNTAIN, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Petition

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Australian Post Office proposes to construct a 640-ft high solid concrete tower, housing radiotelephony/television transmission facilities, on Black Mountain in Canberra.

That in the opinion of many responsible citizens such a tower would seriously impair the beauty of thi.-, city and is likely to lessen the value of the Black Mountain Flora and Fauna Reserve.

That requests from residents of Canberra, and their parliamentary representative, for information on the technical considerations supposedly favouring a solid tower have been refused by the Australian Post Office. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should, through its Standing Committee on the Social Environment, examine whether construction of a tower of this nature on Black Mountain is in the public interest, having particular regard to the need to preserve the beauty and environmental quality of the national Capital.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1663

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN TROOPS

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Why did the request for Australian advisers to stay in Vietnam and train Cambodian soldiers come not from the Cambodian Government but from a United States official? ls not this way of conducting business incompatible with Cambodian independence and incompatible with the proper relations which should exist between the Australian Government and the Government of Cambodia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It is a matter of history now that yesterday in another place there was a debate in which many of the matters now raised by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber were canvassed. Also, as he and the Senate would readily recognise, his question impinges on matters of policy. For those 2 reasons, I suggest that I should refer the first part of his question to the relevant Minister, who obviously must be the Minister for Defence, and that the second part of his question really involves a matter of policy on which I should not comment.

page 1664

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– 1 address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing. How does the Government expect young couples today to afford to build a home while rising land costs and higher mortgage interest rates are pricing them out of the picture? Is it a fact that a recent study by Dr Max Neutze of the Australian National University showed that in Sydney the housing component of the consumer price index rose by 79 per cent between 1952-53 and 1966-67 while the all-groups component of the consumer price index rose by only 39 per cent in the same period? Did Dr Neutze also find that the cost of home purchase in Australia since the post-war period had risen more rapidly than average earnings, with earnings rising by 106 per cent in the period mentioned earlier while the average price of homes rose by 200 per cent in the same 14-year period?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– Let me say at once that the question touches upon such an important matter and is so comprehensive in its references to external sources that I shall take the opporunity to have it put on the notice paper so that a full and responsible answer can be given. It is a matter of great concern that land costs and building costs are exceptionally high. The factors contributing to that do not permit of a brief answer at this stage. But it is noteworthy that, during the period of these exceptional rises, there has been exceptional industrial disruption in the building industry in Sydney.

page 1664

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Firstly, is he aware that an Australian Labour Party member of this Parliament, Mr Gordon Bryant, who visited Cambodia in July last year with a parliamentary delegation which included Senator Bishop, sent a cable from Phnom Penh to fellow Australian Labor Party parliamentarians requesting them to support a move to supply the Cambodian Government with arms to defend itself against forces from North Vietnam. Secondly, is the Minister further aware that Mr Bryant claimed in this telegram that the North Vietnamese were committing aggression in Cambodia as blatant as the Germans in Belgium in 1914 and 1940’ and called for a policy of Australian military aid based on the formula ‘one man, one gun, plus communications and transport’? Thirdly would not the provision of Australian Army instructors to assist the Cambodians in resisting ruthless and unprovoked Communist aggresion be fully in accord not only with Australian promises already made to assist this small and friendly nation but with Mr Bryant’s earlier request as well?

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Minister for Works.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. A point of order must be raised.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Are you raising a point of order, Senator Cavanagh?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes. I ask whether this question is in order. It seeks from the Minister an expression as to whether he is aware that Mr Gordon Bryant has done certain things.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– No - has said certain things.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think that there have been certain Press reports. How can the Minister be aware whether or not Mr Gordon Bryant ever sent a telegram?

Senator Gair:

– He cannot deny having sent it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I do not think that the Minister should be asked about something of which he cannot have any positive knowledge.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am quite sure that the Minister, in reply, will take into consideration the question raised by Senator Cavanagh as to the accuracy of Senator Gail’s allegations.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My memory of the contents of Mr Gordon Bryant’s telegram is substantially in accord with the statement made in Senator Gair’s question. It is of noteworthy contrast to bring that communication to our attention today when this rather small incident of current arrangements with regard to the proposal to make training personnel from Australia available to provide assistance to Cambodians in Vietnam is raised. The contents of Mr Gordon Bryant’s telegram graphically bring to our attention the situation to which these negotiations are directed.

page 1665

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AID

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask whether the Minister representing the Prime Minister will investigate the contents of a report contained in this morning’s radio programme ‘A.M.’ in which there was a reference to quantities of international aid not being utilised. Will he arrange an inquiry into the report that quantities of spectacles collected by the Apex group and sent to India are still in bond stores and unused and also that an amount of $16,000 which was collected is being returned? I ask the Minister: Because of the public involvement in this form of international aid and because of the fine community work rendered by Apex and other service groups, will he inquire whether any steps can be taken to facilitate the distribution of such money and other assistance so that those in need do receive this assistance? Will he give an assurance also that the Australian Government will take all possible steps to see that Government funds given in the form of aid are distributed effectively?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Most of the question, I think, should be directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will see that this is done. This is not in any way to lessen the significance or the importance of the matters raised, As to the latter part of the question which sought an assurance that any aid given at Government level is properly administered, inherent in what is done by the Common wealth is that appropriate steps are always taken to ensure that this does happen. Nevertheless, I shall direct that part of the question to the Prime Minister’s Department. I will direct the remaining points in the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for comment and for reply in this place.

page 1665

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Does Qantas Airways Limited propose to slash its air services dramatically during 1972? Is it a fact that flying hours will be greatly reduced during the balance of this year and in the following year? Is Qantas facing an operational or financial crisis or other disabilities which have as yet not been made known to the Government or to this Parliament? Will the Minister give the Senate a clear statement on matters affecting Qantas in view of the widely publicised versions of its difficulties which, in the absence of the Minister’s report to the Parliament, will create greater confusion amongst the public and unfortunately affect Qantas?

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

– Creating confusion amongst the public is the prerogative not only of the Press. The Parliament has been well served by the tabling every year of the annual report of Qantas Airways Limited, which contains very great detail. This will be done again at the appropriate time. I have read all these Press comments about Qantas slashing its flying hours and all these things. They have very little relation to reality. I think a useful purpose would be served if I got together some factual information and saw to it at least that the members of this Parliament, including senators - a very responsible body of people - had the most up to date information which that company can properly present in the circumstances in the middle of its financial year.

page 1665

QUESTION

SENATE BROADCASTS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to you, Mr President. Is it a fact that the effect of an honourable senator taking a point of order at question time is the erasure of the whole of the question and the answer from the rebroadcast of question time by the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is my understanding.

Senator Gair:

– Why should it be so if the point of order is not upheld?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will consider the matter and address myself to the honourable senator later.

page 1666

QUESTION

BOURKE DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Has the Minister for Health investigated the complaints of New South Wales country hospitals as exemplified by the plight of the Bourke District Hospital which contends that it is financially embarrassed by the slowness with which the Hospitals Contribution Fund processes benefit claims in comparison with other funds in New South Wales?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I understand that there was a letter in the Press about this matter. Very properly I had it examined immediately it was brought to my attention. Due to the programming commitments associated with the implementation of the reconstructed hospital benefits scheme introduced at short notice on 1st August, the scheme’s pre-payment system was temporarily suspended and hospitals were advised accordingly. Individual cheques thereupon were issued in respect of assigned benefit claims. The pre-payment plan was recently recommenced and prepayment cheques are now being despatched to hospitals. Claims received by the funds on 23rd October are being processed now and the backlog should be overcome very shortly. The Hospitals Contribution Fund, the fund involved in this complaint, has advised my Department as follows: The HCF is the only fund which makes any pre-payments on assigned hospital benefit claims. Moneys so released by the Fund for immediate use by the hospitals must enable hospitals to receive immediate payment of such claims.

page 1666

QUESTION

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he observed a recent decision by Judge Staunton in the Sydney District Court upholding the right of a schoolmaster to inflict corporal punishment? Can the Minister explain why the striking of one person by another constitutes assault under law except where the victim is a school child? Will the Minister raise this matter at the next meeting of the Attorneys-General with a view to outlawing this nineteenth century practice and thus ensuring that no child is the victim of emotionally unstable schoolmasters?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I did read Press reports of certain extracts of evidence in this case and also extracts of the judgment. The issue was litigated before the courts and the judge, after hearing the evidence, found in accordance with the decision he gave. I. do not propose to raise this matter with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, firstly, because it is not a matter strictly within the province of the Attorneys-General and, secondly, because I do not think the circumstances would wanarn it.

page 1666

QUESTION

TA R COOLA - ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport say what progress has been made on the detailed survey of the proposed Tarcoola-AIice Springs railway? Can he inform the Senate when this work will be completed?

Senator McLaren:

– I asked that question yesterday.

Senator JESSOP:

– No, I think this is a different question. According to a recent statement I am led to believe that work on this section could be started in 1973. Has the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner made any application for funds to enable this project to commence?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As was properly observed this matter was refered to yesterday, but the question did not have the same base. The latest information that I have in relation to progress is that a trial survey has been completed for the first 220 miles and that the final detailed survey has been completed for the first 82 miles. As to completion, an estimated survey will be completed in approximately 18 months time - about June 1973. In relation to the starting date, construction could not be commenced almost immediately. Substantial design work needs to be undertaken. Tenders would ineed to be called and equipment purchased. The railway commissioners applied for funds and the Budget includes an amount of $350,000 for the survey.

page 1667

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to reports that France, in the face of growing criticism, intends to persist with its nuclear test programme in the Pacific? Has the Government made fresh overtures to the French authorities to cancel the tests, having regard to the easing of international tension and the growing concern on environmental matters? Has the Government given any consideration to moves initiated by the Peruvian Government to break ofl: diplomatic relations with Franch if France persists in its nuclear testing arrangements?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Within the last 2 weeks I gave an answer on notice relating to this matter. 1 abstain from any reference to the last part of the question. With regard to the French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean, it is well known that on every occasion on which these have occurred we have protested. As late as last week the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that Australia will renew the protest if there is any announced intention on the part of France to carry out further tests.

page 1667

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– J ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he can give any reasonable estimate of the probable yield of the current wheat crop assuming no further adverse seasonal factors prior to the harvest? How will the estimated yield compare with previous years? Will the existing wheat stocks prove adequate in the light of such estimates?

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

– The honourable senator referred this matter to me and I promised to obtain some information. Currently there is much uncertainty about the seasonal wheat crop estimates, particularly in New South Wales, because of drought conditions. If early rain eventuated it will alleviate the position. If dry conditions continue then adverse circumstances must prevail; Against that background, the projected production could range from 290 million bushels to as high as 315 million bushels from a planted crop of 17.4 million acres. Deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board could range from 270 million bushels to 290 million bushels. If the honourable senator looks at last year’s conditions he will find that 16.3 million acres produced 294 million bushels, of which 254 million bushels were delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. In the previous year - 1969-70 - a total of 23.4 million acres were planted producing 387 million bushels, of which 358 million bushels were delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. The yield per acre in the 5 years ended 1970-71 had been 22.4 bushels, 12.4 bushels, 20.3 bushels, 16.5 bushels and 18 bushels respectively.

The carry over stocks are expected to be between 130 million and 135 million bushels. As the honourable senator will know, the wheat season ends at the end of November. I think I stated previously that the carry over was expected to be 150 million bushels. This level has been exceeded only in 1942, 1969 and 1970. It represents a very substantial carry over level, although its composition is not the most desirable since there is very little prime hard wheat or other types for which the demand is somewhat stronger than for fair average quality wheat.

page 1667

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs detail the occasions on which the Cambodian Government has made requests to Australia for assistance in the development of its army, including assistance with training? fs it not true to say that these requests preceded America’s interest in the subject?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not in a position to detail the requests to which the honourable senator referred. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and provide the earliest answer.

page 1667

QUESTION

GOLD MINING

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a question which I asked on 19th August 1971- No. 1254 on the notice paper - which reads:

Will the Treasurer give further urgent consideration to the plight of the goldmining industry with a view to preventing the imminent closure of the few remaining gold mines in production?

In view of the fact that the Treasurer answered a question of a similar character in another place on Tuesday last, 2nd November, when can an answer to my question be expected?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The fact is that the honourable senator put a question on the notice paper and it has been formulated to the Treasurer. My attention has been drawn to a question in Hansard - not entirely in the same absolute terms as the question asked by the honourable senator - which was posed in the other place and to which the Treasurer gave a reply at question time. This is not the same as giving a reply to a question on notice. I have raised this matter with the Treasury officials and I am informed that the honourable senator’s question, because it is on notice, requires as comprehensive and as full an answer as can be given; I do not think anybody would disagree with that. The answer given by the Treasurer at question time was that the matter was being investigated, as I recall it. We would expect that when the honourable senator receives an answer to his question, which I hope will be very soon now, it will be a detailed answer giving some background information and all the facts which are completely relevant to a question which has been put on the notice paper for that very reason.

page 1668

QUESTION

NORTH-SOUTH STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAY

Senator McLAREN:

– The Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport will recall that on 2nd November, I asked him a question similar to that asked today regarding the northsouth standard gauge railway. I asked the Minister whether certain reports in the newspapers were correct. I asked further:

If these reports are correct, will the Minister mate available to the Senate at an early date a detailed report on the enure project?

The Minister said in reply that he would direct my question in its entirety to the Department to see whether there was anything it would care to add. It would appear from an answer which the Minister gave this morning that he has something further to add. Therefore, I ask: Will that information be made available to me?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, it most certainly will. This information was sent round to me only this morning and I used it in answer to a question asked of me by Senator Jessop. I remember the honourable senator’s question very well. He asked for a detailed report, which is what I asked the Department to give me. What I got this morning would seem to be rather brief notes. 1 would like to get a greater elaboration of this matter for the honourable senator. I will do that as soon as possible.

page 1668

QUESTION

PROBATE DUTY

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns probate duty in Tasmania. I ask: How much money was collected by the Commonwealth Taxation Office from probate duty in Tasmania in the last 3 financial years? What percentage of the people responsible to pay it were women; in other words, is the collection of probate a problem that to a large extent falls upon women at a fairly difficult time?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI have been informed by the Treasury that the most recent available statistics of Commonwealth estate duty assessments issued from Tasmania are for the 1969-70 financial year. Estate duty assessments in Tasmania totalled $845,000 in 1967-68, $1,551,000 in 1968-69 and $1,843,000 in 1969-70. The statistics do not show the extent to which this estate duty fell on women beneficiaries. However, I should point out that Commonwealth estate duty returns are not due for lodgment until the elapse of 3 months after the death and one month after the grant of probate. There is then, of course, a further time lag before the assessment is made and the duty becomes payable. The Commissioner of Taxation has the statutory authority to extend the time for the lodgment of returns and the payment of duty.

page 1669

QUESTION

COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: What powers does the Commonwealth Government have in relation to compulsory unionism and the protection of the rights of individuals who do not wish to join a union? ls the Attorney-General able to say what would be the position of an individual who has been in the continual employ of a company for 10 years or more, who is not a union member and who now refuses to join a union? Will his position, including his superannuation and other benefits, be in jeopardy? Can his rights, including that of freedom of choice, be protected legally?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am a little constrained in the answer which I can give to the question. It is possible that the honourable senator would be better assisted if he were to address his question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. I am conscious of the fact that involved in giving an answer may be the expression of a legal opinion. I am also conscious of the constitutional limitations in Australia. I know that there is a provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act whereby when an award is made in which preference is granted to members of an organisation a person who has a conscientious belief that he cannot be a member of an organisation may be excluded from the operation of that award. I feel that it should also be said that it is of fundamental importance that a person should not be denied the continuance of his employment simply because it is asserted that he should become a member of an organisation and he refuses to join. I deplore the statement which was made by Senator Cavanagh by way of interjection while Senator Young was asking his question that a person who does not join a union should have his throat cut. I think that that sort of attitude is an absolute negation of what should be the rights and the freedoms of individuals. The Government’s policy generally is that the rights of individuals are important; that organisations registered under the conciliation and Arbitration Act are free organisations; and that no individual should be compelled to join an organisation in order to continue his employment. I believe that that is a view which commends itself to most Australians.

page 1669

QUESTION

UNION MEMBERSHIP

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral, on the same subject, whether he recognises also the fundamental right of persons who are members of a voluntary association which is recognised by the law of this country and which represents them in endeavours to improve their wages and conditions, to say that as a matter of their own freedom, they will decline to work with a person who accepts the benefit of what is obtained by the association but is not prepared to join it and pay a subscription to it.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Government recognises, as I think most Australians do, the tremendous value that trade unions have been in the development of working conditions in Australia, which are without peer in any other country. In regard to the point which Senator Murphy has raised, naturally one would concede to an individual the right to withold his labour if he objects to working with anybody else. But what is wrong is that those people who seek to withhold their labour, compel, by intimidation, force and other means, other people to withhold their labour when they do not wish to do so. The important and transcending factor in al! these considerations is that an individual has a basic freedom which he should be able lo exercise in this country. I am a little surprised in the light of what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Senator Murphy has often referred, asserts about the ability of persons to be free and not to be compelled to join associations, that the honourable senators should adopt the attitude which he did in the course of his question.

page 1669

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA · LP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that the 3 per cent surcharge on freight imposed by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd on non-capital ports discriminates unfairly against some areas of the Commonwealth, for example in Tasmania where the capital port of Hobart is an appreciably longer distance from the original point of transport than are Tasmania’s northern ports?

Senator Poke:

– Do not bring the north versus south issue into it.

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister take this matter up with the shipping companies, and especially their contention that it is cheaper to land steel in Hobart than in the northern ports of Tasmania, which is roundly contradicted by one leading port authority in Tasmania?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– What the honourable senator wants me to do is to direct his question and his comments to the Minister for Shipping and Transport, really on the basis that the 3 per cent surcharge tends to be rather unfair in its application to the Tasmanian ports situation. I think what he is suggesting is that there should be some weighted average which brings all Tasmanian ports into a position of equality. [ certainly shall direct the Minister’s attention to that matter. Like Senator Poke, I do not want to become involved in an argument between interests in that State as I am very fond of the whole State and not just one part of it.

page 1670

QUESTION

MERCURY POISONING

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Tn addressing a question to the Minister for Health I ask him to recall that he supported the suggestion that there was a danger to the health of the community in mercury poisoning. Will his Department carry out a survey to ascertain how much mercury is imported, who uses mercury in industrial processes and whether any of the mercury which is used escapes to the environment and so enters the food chains in a manner which leads to a danger to the health of the community as a whole?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– A question having been asked of me by the honourable senator on a previous occasion, it follows that my Department will, as a consequence of that question and the answer that I gave, already have instituted some investigation of the implications of the original question. Therefore all I can say now is that the further points raised by Senator Georges will be furnished to my Department, complementary to the points raised in the previous question, and will be considered in the preparation of the report which will eventually come back to me.

page 1670

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral, in conjunction with his colleague the Minister for Immigration, initiate discussions with the Law Institute in New South Wales for the purpose of inculcating into a minority - fortunately - of Sydney law firms an attitude of being more accessible to migrant clients? At the end of question time I will give to the AttorneyGeneral details of a couple of cases to confirm what I am suggesting.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It is very difficult for me to give any indication of what my attitude might be either in discussions with the Minister for Immigration or in discussions with the law firms to whom the honourable senator has referred. I can suggest only that if Senator Mulvihill seeks to provide me with the information I will consider it, and if a case is made out I will take it up with the relevant authorities.

page 1670

QUESTION

HANSARD REPORT

Senator GAIR:

– I address my question to you, Mr President. Further to my question yesterday and your reply concerning remarks made by Senator Murphy which were deleted from Hansard, and in view of your claim that the Melbourne ‘Age’ report of Senator Murphy’s remarks was inaccurate, and also in view of your quotation from a minute supplied by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter to the effect that the remarks were inserted and later deleted from the Hansard report, I now ask: Will you please supply to the Senate the Hansard report of the remarks made by Senator Murphy and deleted so that we can judge where the Melbourne ‘Age’ report was inaccurate?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will consider the matter during the day and will let the Senate know further.

page 1670

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. When recently replying to a question I had placed on the notice paper about future

Australian National Line shipping services the Minister stated that a review of the Line’s operations was currently proceeding. Can the Minister ascertain for me what progress has been made in the review and when we can expect to learn of the intentions of the ANL, especially as they relate to the Bass Strait area ANL shipping service?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes. I will find that out for the honourable senator.

page 1671

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL BOARD

Senator POKE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Does the Government approve of Sir William Gunn’s remaining as chairman of the Australian Wool Board and purporting to represent Australia’s major rural industry while on the other hand he is actively engaged in selling large areas of Australia to overseas interests? How can these conflicting interests assist the rural community? Is it not hypocritical that Sir William influences Americans to invest in Australian agricultural projects while he has been unable to have removed tariff and import restrictions that have helped to cripple the Australian wool industry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Sir

William Gunn has been chairman of either the Australian Wool Bureau or the Australian Wool Board, as it is now known, for the past 13 years. I believe, from my knowledge, that Sir William Gunn has done an excellent job for the industry.

Senator Poyser:

– While the industry has gone down and down.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– If the honourable senator wants to answer the question I will sit down. It is true that over the years Sir William has created a number of situations and has been in a number of situations in which he has had a lot of opposition, not only from the industry but also from people outside the industry. But if a man is doing his job properly he will always run into criticism. What Sir William Gunn does outside his job as chairman of the Australian Wool Board is his business. If the industry wants to put him out of that job it is up to the industry to do so through the representatives that it appoints to the Australian Wool Board.

page 1671

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Works in his dual capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Has the Minister seen a statement by the Director of the Queensland Employers Federation in which he advised parents of some school leavers, to keep their children at school for some months into 1972? Irrespective of the Minister’s knowledge of the statement, I ask whether he agrees that projections indicate that unemployment will rise substantially over the next 6 months and that many ordinary school leavers will be unable to obtain work. Does he think that keeping school leavers at school in order to keep them off the labour market is a practice that should be encouraged?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The upsurge of costs that is taking place in this community is lessening the chances of the continuance of employment and of new employment in industry. As an illustration, last week one company in Hobart issued a financial statement saying that notwithstanding the retrenchment of 43 officers during the year its salary bill was $45,000 more for the year than it was for the previous year, thereby obviously reducing the opportunities for employment. With regard to the suggestion about predictions of substantial increases in unemployment, I remind the honourable senator that the Prime Minister has already said that, with the advent of school leavers into the work force at about the Christmas period, it is likely that unemployment figures will rise above the traditional and exceptionally low figures that we have been able to maintain over the last few years but the projections that are entertained are not of a serious nature. I saw the statement to which the honourable senator referred. To my mind, it would be an exceptional course to leave children at school simply because of the unavailability Qf employment.

page 1671

QUESTION

RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Does the AttorneyGeneral agree that a majority of large Australian manufacturing organisations have the right to withhold goods from wholesalers and retailers unless retail prices are maintained? Is the Minister aware that intimidatory tactics are almost always used by the manufacturers to preserve resale price maintenance? Can the Minister explain to the Senate why he gives approval to the withholding of goods in this field but denies to the worker the right to withhold his labour when he feels such action is necessary to unionise an establishment in which he may be employed?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s somewhat argumentative question is based upon a complete misconception. There is a law which prohibits the practice of resale price maintenance, I am not aware of intimidatory tactics used by manufacturers. Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and suppliers have a right to deal with the persons with whom they choose to deal. That is one of the freedoms which are enjoyed in this country.

I would recognise equally that employees in a particular vocation are entitled to join together and form themselves into a registered organisation. That also is one of the freedoms in this country. What I think is the antithesis of freedom is when some people in an organisation decide that everybody must do what the organisation decides, irrespective of whether they have any say in it, and when people outside the organisation who have no wish to join it are denied employment if they do not join or are otherwise penalised. I think that while that situation exists and is supported by the honourable senator and the Party to which he belongs their protestations about the freedom of individuals are so much hot air.

page 1672

QUESTION

ESSENDON AIRPORT

Senator WEBSTER:

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation noted the recent comment of the Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, that that State would be anxious to know of long term plans for the future use of the Essendon Airport? Has the Government in view any alteration to its previously announced attitude that the airport would be used for certain aircraft movements including charter movements? Will the Minister assure the Senate that, should the Government alter this intention, the Senate will be given early notice and a final decision will not be taken until discussion has taken place with interested parties including government and semi-government authorities?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Premier of Victoria has no problem in this respect. He will be told what the Department of Civil Aviation is doing from time to time in regard to Essendon Airport as, indeed, the Victorian Government authorities are always told through the joint VictorianCommonwealth airfields committee. So that covers that point. Essendon is being used increasingly by people in the air business. The figures of expansion of its use have been most interesting and well above predictions. It is quite obvious that for quite a period the airport will need to be used for general aviation, and it will be so used. It is equally clear that there are areas and buildings there which may well prove to be surplus to the total requirement. That is being studied in great detail and with great care. Various proposals have been made for Essendon. Some people want to clear all the land and build large multi-storey buildings on it. Other people would like to see it become part of the parkland and recreational area of Melbourne. These proposals will be studied. The honourable senator may be assured that the responsible governments concerned will inform their people as and when developments are already to be considered.

page 1672

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: COURT HEARINGS

Senator McLAREN:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral’s Department issued instructions that court hearings for the Top End of the Northern Territory are not to be conducted away from the city of Darwin because of the travelling costs involved?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

page 1672

QUESTION

DRUG TESTING AND HOSPITAL TECHNIQUES

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. I refer to the question I asked yesterday concerning drug experimentation on dying patients. Has the Minister anything to add to the answer he gave me yesterday?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I am grateful for the question. Yesterday I replied to a question from Senator Georges who referred to a reported statement by Dr Leembruggen, Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, that patients in Victorian hospitals were being kept alive for experimentation with drugs and new hospital techniques. Honourable senators possibly will have seen in this morning’s Press a further report that Dr Leembruggen has, in effect, now retracted the statement which had given concern not only to Senator Georges but also to me and others in the community. In this morning’s Press there is a retraction of the statement attributed to him. According to the latest report in the Press, Dr Leembruggen has said that his earlier statement was made on more or less hearsay information. Nevertheless, in view of the considerable public concern that has been aroused by Dr Leembruggen’s original statement, I propose to arrange for a senior officer of my Department to discuss with him any points about the whole question that may Still be of concern. That will be done very promptly.

As I mentioned yesterday, the National Health and Medical Research Council has already laid down guidelines for doctors engaged in medical research generally. One of these guidelines stresses the duty of doctors to respect at all times the personality, rights, wishes, consent and freedom of patients. Another guideline states that the patient should have given his free consent to the research after being made aware of nil its implications. I am pleased to add that it is a condition applied to all medical researchers awarded National Health and Medical Research Council grants that they undertake to observe all the Council’s guidelines on this matter.

page 1673

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 ask the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which indicates that the Secretary of Television Corporation Ltd which holds the licence for TCN Sydney and which controls GTV in Melbourne has challenged the powers of the Australian

Broadcasting Control Board in determining revised requirements for Australian content in television programmes. Was this matter referred by the Board to the Commonwealth’s legal advisers for legal examination? Has the examination been completed? If so, what advice has been given by the legal advisers to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think the honourable senator’s question requires some research and an appropriate and accurate answer. I ask him to put it on the notice paper.

page 1673

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– ls the Minister for Health aware that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is organising a petition objecting to the 100 per cent increase in patient contributions for national health prescriptions because, as the Federal President of the Guild says, the scheme has been introduced prematurely and areas of anomaly and confusion exist? I ask the Minister: Has the Guild made any submission to the Government? If so, what consideration has the Government given to these submissions?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I remind the Senate that this decision is embodied in an Act of the Parliament. The enacting Bill was freely debated in the other place and here. The points of view that were put by some speakers in that debate in the other place and here were no doubt put after consultation with the Guild. It is true that the Guild has expressed views to the Department. I come back to the point that this was a Government policy decision which found its mark in an Act of the Parliament which was debated 2 or 3 weeks ago. I can add no more than that.

page 1673

QUESTION

CLEANERS AT GRACE BUILDING

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. I refer to the cleaners employed at the Grace building in Sydney. There are some 2 dozen female and a few male cleaners. It is proposed to retrench these cleaners very shortly in order to introduce contract cleaning. I ask the Minister whether some discussions may take place between the Ministry for the

Interior and the Ministry of Social Services in order to examine whether the Commonwealth actually is saving money in retrenching these people who have served the Commonwealth for many years. Many of them are widows or deserted wives - some supporting children or other dependants - and are in difficult circumstances. Will the Minister bear in mind that the problem will be transferred to the Depart ment of Social Services? In the long run would it not be more in accordance with the proper financing of the operation and also avoid needless suffering by these people if they were retained in the circumstances which have been regarded for some years as special.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not know the particular circumstances of the Grace building but I am aware of the problem of contract and large scale cleaning in buildings of that character. If has been established that substantial savings are to be made by contract cleaning in many of these cases. This is because of mechanisation, new equipment and things of that kind. The point that Senator Murphy makes is most interesting. What it really amounts to is something like this: The problem must be considered in the light of its total impact on community resources. 1 shall ask the Minister for the Interior to see whether social service commitments may outweigh what is gained through cleaning economies.

page 1674

QUESTION

INDIA

Senator GIETZELT:

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government recognise that India is carrying a very heavy burden in looking after many millions of refugees who were rendered homeless following the East Pakistan disturbance and who are now riving in refugee camps in India? In view of this tremendous responsibility, will the Government give urgent consideration to donating relief to India following the tidal wave calamity which hit that country earlier this week, which also is causing great hardship?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I agree with the first part of the question - that an extraordinary burden has been placed upon that nation. A similar question was posed to me yesterday or on Tuesday by Senator Gair and I said I would have it referred to the Prime Minister’s Department. I will send the subsequent question along also as a representation made on this issue by the honourable senator.

page 1674

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Senator GEORGES:

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation explain to me the purpose of the scaffolding which surrounds the observation tower at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport? Is it for the purpose of replacing the old glass of the observation bays with clear vision glass? Will he confirm this so that I can bs assured that the pilots of the planes in which I fly can be not only heard but also seen?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– When I was talking earlier about misinformation processes, one of the people I had particularly in mind was Senator Georges. We have an answer to the previous comment he made and it appears that we have been involved in a process of speculation without merit. There is no international standard for control tower cabs but it is accepted that there should be a clear view of the aerodrome in perspective with a minimum of distortion and conflicting reflection from the control tower glass. The glass in the Sydney control tower is of quarter-inch clear polished plate which is distortion free. The tower is double glazed with dry compressed air between the glass plates. It was the best available at the time the tower was constructed.

Early in the life of the tower some misting was experienced but dry compressed air was injected between the glass plates. This limits misting to reasonable proportions. On occasions glass plates have been replaced following cracking. This is a normal occurrence in control towers throughout the world. I do not know about the scaffolding but I imagine it was put there tor the purpose of having a very close look to make quite sure that the position was as I have stated as at the time the scaffolding was being erected.

page 1674

QUESTION

MOTORISTS’ DRINKING HABITS

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior advise me whether he has been able to secure a copy of the document setting out instructions for the persons who are conducting the inquiry into the drinking habits of Canberra residents? How many motorists were stopped by the squads last night? Were any arrests made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have some information here which I think will be useful to Senator Keeffe. I had intended to give it to him at the end of question time but his question gives me the opportunity to do that now. The blood alcohol survey at present being conducted in Canberra was first proposed by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in its report on the use of the breathalyser in the A.C.T. I point out that is a first class Committee, on which there are members of all parties. As one who served on it I can speak of its high character and ability. In its recommendation, which the Minister for the Interior accepted, the Committee made the point that the survey should be conducted with the co-operation of the motoring public’. With this in mind every effort has been made in the design of the survey and in the selection of the equipment to be used to encourage the co-operation of motorists by guaranteeing complete anonymity.

The sampling procedure, designed by officers of the Bureau of Census and Statistics on a consultative basis, is simply that motorists are selected at random and asked if they wish to co-operate in the survey. The total number of requests that will be made is such that a reasonable sample will still be achieved if a percentage of motorists requested to do so elect not to take part in the survey. Experience on the first day of the survey has shown that there has been an enthusiastic and cooperative response by motorists. The success of the survey is entirely dependent upon the continuing voluntary co-operation of the motoring public. I cannot give numbers because I do not have that information. I have a copy of the questionnaire being used for Senator Keeffe. The Department has suggested to me that if Senator Keeffe would like to accompany a survey team it will be most happy to have him.

page 1675

QUESTION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Inter ior give an assurance that any reconstruction of the Federal Highway will ensure the minimum destruction of trees? Further, in the light of the Ministers last answer will he arrange for interested senators to have a look at the part of the Federal Highway where it is proposed to change contours?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think that the people reconstructing the Federal Highway Will save as many trees as they can. Any one who drives a lot to and from Canberra knows that the area is not really remarkable for ils tree cover. The trees are fairly sparse. I think that saving them as much as possible has a lot to be said for it. 1 shall ask the Department whether the honourable senator can go with anybody to look at this project. The honourable senator has done this before on my invitation in relation to other projects and other places. I think that is a good idea.

page 1675

QUESTION

SENATE BROADCASTS

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier in the day Senator Webster asked me a question in relation to a point of order taken by Senator Cavanagh. I undertook to reply to the honourable senator later in the day. The Usher of the Black Rod who looks after re-broadcasting informs me that points of order are deleted from the recordings made of question time for re-broadcast but that questions are not deleted unless they are ruled out of order - which in fact I did not do - or unless the deletion of a point of order results in a question being unintelligible. The Usher of the Black Rod informs me that this has not happened since I have been the President. He goes on to say that such an occurrence is rather rare.

page 1675

QUESTION

CLEAR VISION GLASS

Senator GEORGES:

– I cannot allow the Minister for Civil Aviation to escape with the answer which he gave to me about clear vision glass. I ask him whether he has ever been on the bridge of a vessel at sea. Is he aware that provision is made for a clear vision disc to enable visibility to be clear at all times for those on the bridge? Can he make the necessary arrangements at least for the new observation tower at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, to see that such a clear vision disc is part of the equipment?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– My sea-going expereince is not remarkable. I have spent little time on the bridge of any vessel I have ever been on. I know the equipment to which Senator Georges refers. I have seen it in use. It appears to me to have an extremely narrow area of vision. This is only a personal observation. If the honourable senator’s suggestion as directed to me is designed to improve any facility in air safety it will be taken accordingly and investigated.

page 1676

QUESTION

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral by advising him that sincethe introduction of daylight saving I have received many complaints from persons who are unable to adjust their evening meal hour to the evening news broadcast. I ask the Minister whether he will investigate the possibility of having the Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcast the regular news and news feature session one hour later each evening until the end of the daylight saving period?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that to do as the honourable senator suggests may defeat one of the purposes of daylight saving. However, as he has suggested, there are problems. I undertake to convey his question to the Postmaster-General who I am sure will give a considered reply in due course.

page 1676

QUESTION

PORT AUGUSTA-WHYALLA RAILWAY

(Question No. 1485)

Senator McLAREN:

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

Willthe laying of the track for the new Commonwealth Railways line connecting Port Augusta to Whyalla be carried out by experienced Commonwealth Railways track laying staff, or by private contractors?

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Public tenders are to be called for tracklaying on the Port Augusta/Whyalla railway. It is understood Commonwealth Railways will be submitting a tender. The successful contractor will be chosen on his merits.

page 1676

QUESTION

NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS

(Question No.. 1510)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Have a number of countries objected to the underground explosions of nuclear weapons by the United States of America on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians?
  2. Has Australia also lodged an objection, in view of the fact that such a major underground blast is likely to cause tidal waves, possible earthquakes and nuclear pollution?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Canada, and several other nations have expressed varying degrees of concern to the United States regarding the proposed nuclear test explosion under Amchitka Island in the Aleutians late this month. The Canadian Parliament has approved a motion calling for the suspension of all nuclear tests, and specifically the Amchitka explosion. No other country has lodged a protest.
  2. Australia has lodged no objection, as the proposed Amchitka explosion, to be conducted under ground, does not contravene the 1963 Partial Test Ban treaty. The Australian Government has however, supported moves in the United Nations and at the Geneva Conferece of the Committee on Disarmament to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty which would prohibit nuclear weapon testing in all environments, including those now conducted under ground by both the USA and the USSR.

page 1676

QUESTION

DISPOSAL OF COMMONWEALTH PROPERTY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Cavanagh asked me the following question:

At the time of the closing of the Tindal air base in the Northern Territory, was a large amount of shelving and lockers, including new lockers, put through a fire and subsequently bulldozed into a dump and covered with earth? Have inquiries been made about the purchase of some of these lockers? What was the purpose in destroying these articles?

I have obtained the following information for the honourable senator:

No new or nearly new shelving and lockers were burnt or buried at Tindal. Certain old shelves and lockers were assessed by authorised officers of the RAAF and the Department of Works as being uneconomical to repair and having no resale value. These were burnt or buried. A further quantity considered to have some resale value was sold at public auction.

page 1677

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIRFORCE

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

- Senator Cavanagh also asked me the following question yesterday:

Is it true that some years ago either one or two machines for the emptying of cement bags were purchased by the Department of Air at a cost of some$1m and housed in a shed built for the purpose at Tindal air base? Is it a fact that such machine or machines have at no time been used and that the Department has no further use for them? Has it been found that at present a purchaser cannot be found for the machine or machines? Finally, what was the reason for the original purchase?

I have obtained the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The cement de-bagging equipment was purchased early in 1969 at a cost of $83,000 as part of the normal RAAF inventor of equipment for the Airfield Construction Squadron. Construction tasks performed by the RAAF since the debagging equipment was procured have been in areas where supply of bulk cement was an economic proposition and the equipment has not yet been used. Several thousand tons of bag cement was used in the construction of RAAF Tindal airfield and was de-bagged by similar equipment. The RAAF does not always expect bulk cement to be economically available and, therefore, expects to use the equipment on future projects. No attempts have been made to sell or otherwise dispose of the equipment and for convenience it is now stored at Tindal in a hangar that was vacated by No. 3 Airfield Construction Squadron after completion of airfield construction works in the area.

page 1677

QUESTION

RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 28th September, Senator Gair asked me the following question without notice:

In view of the British Government’s expulsion order against 105 Russian diplomats and officials who are accused of spying, does the Australian Government still agree with the Russian proposals, announced last May, for the Soviet owned Baltic Steamship Company to open an office and the Russian Embassy to open a trade office in Sydney? If so, will the Minister indicate what restrictions, if any, the Government proposed to impose on the number of Soviet staff to be employed in these offices?

I undertook to refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and advise him as soon as possible. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The Government agreed in May to the stationing of a Baltic Steamship Company representative in Sydney and to the opening of a Soviet consulate in Sydney, primarily for commercial purposes. A Soviet request for permission to open in Sydney a trade representation which would be an integral part of the Soviet Embassy was refused.

The Baltic Steamship Company Office will have neither diplomatic nor consular status; and the consulate will not, of course, have diplomatic status. Restrictions on staff numbers apply to Soviet personnel in Sydney as they do in Canberra.

page 1677

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 1168)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Are private nursing homes, throughout the Commonwealth through lack of a sufficient number of public hospital beds for the care of the chronically sick, caring for severely disabled people without either the necessary financial competence or sufficient professional expertise?
  2. Are church and benevolent homes at the limit of their financial accommodation, and soon could be forced to close down or drastically reduce their standards of care?
  3. Will the Minister review the subsidies now being paid, ensure that church and benevolent homes are given the assistance that their dedicated endeavours justly deserve?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Information available to me does not indicate that nursing homes are catering for any significant number of patients who need hospital treatment but who are unable to obtain admission to hospitals. It should be noted that institutions approved as hospitals for the purposes of the National Health Act are mainly intended to cater for short-term patients in the acute illness stage who require relatively frequent attention by medical practitioners. Hospitals have a relatively high proportion of trained nursing staff and usually provide comprehensive ancillary facilities such as operating theatres and x-ray equipment. Nursing homes are intended to accommodate longer-term patients with chronic illness, who require mainly nursing attention. I do not consider that there is any significant lack of financial competence on the part of organisations conducting nursing homes or of professional expertise on the part of the nursing staff of such homes.
  2. The financial difficulties that were being experienced by some nursing homes conducted by religious and charitable organisations will be alleviated by the recent increase in nursing home benefits.
  3. The Nursing Home Benefits Scheme is primarily intended to assist patients in meeting the costs of their accommodation, but it is recognised that the Scheme also indirectly assists the nursing homes themselves. On 5 October 1971, I informed the Senate that, as an interim measure, nursing home benefits were to be increased by $1.50 a day or $10.50 a week, at an additional cost to the Commonwealth of approximately $24m in a full year. I also informed the Senate that the Government would continue its detailed review of the nursing home benefits scheme. The increase of $1.50 a day came into effect on 21 October 1971.

page 1678

QUESTION

MERCURY CONTENT IN MARINE LIFE

(Question No. 1347)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has the Minister consulted his relevant Government colleagues and Slate Fisheries Ministers to ascertain the effects upon the Australian fishing and oyster industries of introducing the recommended maximum mercury content limit?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

No. The implementation or otherwise of the recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council on this subject is a matter for decision by the individual States.

page 1678

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1397)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. Has the Viet-Cong made a proposal to the Australian Government to declare a ceasefire against Australian troops if the Australian Government will nominate a specific date by which all Australian forces will be withdrawn from South Vietnam; if so, what consideration has been given to this proposal?
  2. If the Government will not accept the proposal, can the Prime Minister indicate on what grounds the Government can justify any further casualties by Australian forces in South Vietnam?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. No. Vietnamese Communist spokesmen in Paris, however, stated at a press conference on 23rd April 1970 that if the Australian Government declared it would withdraw all Australian troops from South Vietnam at one time, the Communists would be ready to take measures to guarantee the security of the troops during withdrawal.
  2. The terms of this proposal were unacceptable for a number of reasons, including the requirement for a total and simultaneous withdrawal of Australian forces.

The Prime Minister announced on 18th August 1971 that the remaining Australian combat forces would be withdrawn from South Vietnam by the end of this year, but that some military training and advisory groups would remain. The Minister for Defence said in the House of Representatives on 29th September that the Government and its military advisers were doing everything possible to ensure a safe withdrawal of Australian forces from Vietnam.

page 1678

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1401)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Are any Australian servicemen held as prisonersofwar or missing, believed to be prisonorsofwar, in Vietnam; if so, how many such servicemen are there, and what action is being taken by the Australian Government to have them released and repatriated to Australia at the same time as Australian troops are withdrawn?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

No Australian servicemen are known or believed to have been taken prisoner-or-war in Viet Nam. Two officers of the Royal Australian Air Force are listed as ‘missing’ while two members of the Australian Army are listed as ‘missing presumed dead’.

page 1678

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 1496)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Acting Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen allegations by a number of highly qualified migrants that, prior to their migration, they were given inadequate and misleading information regarding their prospects of employment in the New South Wales Stale teaching service?
  2. Will overseas migration officers, in future, emphasise to all prospective leacher-migrants that it is essential to have a diploma of education, or its equivalent, before a person can be employed as a teacher in New South Wales?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

The position is that there is a full-time representative of the New South Wales Education Department in the United States recruiting teachers and counselling enquirers upon teacher employment opportunities in the State of New South Wales. It is the practice for any enquiry received at the Australian Consulates General in the United Slates to be referred to the State Education Department representative.

In other cases enquirers are asked to provide information as to their qualifications so that an assessment of the employment opportunities can be made in Australia.

Information available to officers of the Department of Immigration indicates that the three people mentioned in the newspaper reports were not offered teaching appointments in New South Wales before their departure from the United States.

In one case, enquiries had been instituted in Australia by the Department of Immigration to assess the teacher employment prospects. Replies received from two State Education Authorities indicated employment could not be offered as a teacher. However, the migrant had decided to come to Australia and had left the United States before this information could be conveyed to him.

In another case, the migrant indicated a desire to secure an appointment in teaching at tertiary level, publishing or airline personnel work. With his qualifications and stated preferences for employment it seemed he would have reasonable prospects of gaining a suitable position on arrival. Moreover, he indicated he would initiate contacts with academic inst ititutons in Australia.

The third migrant indicated he wanted an appointment as a teacher. He discussed this with the representative of the New South Wales Education Department in New York. He was not offered a position although at the time it seemed his qualifications would be acceptable for schoolteaching in New South Wales - a fact confirmed since his arrival.

  1. The Department of Immigration co-operates closely with the State Education Departments in the recruitment of school-teachers. In Britain which has been the principal source for recruiting school-teachers, applicants are pre-selected through the offices of the Agents-General. Thus, officers of the Department of Immigration are not required to counsel applicants in relation to employment opportunities in State Education Departments.

In the event that general enquiries are received in Britain an Adviser on Professions is available to counsel the enquirers or to refer them to an appropriate authority in Australia for consideration.

Where migrant source countries are not specially staffed by Australian Migration Officers to handle employment enquiries from professionally qualified people it is the practice to refer details of qualifications to Australia for assessment as to employment prospects.

Since July, 1970, 879 teachers recruited overseas by the New South Wales Department of Education have taken up positions with that Department. Of these, 219 have come from Britain and 660 from Canada and the U.S.A.

page 1679

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister lor Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the first annual report of. the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1679

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Report

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– 1 present the report of the Standing Committee on Social Environment on the content, form and presentation of the information section of telephone directories.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

– ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator LAUCKE:

– I move:

I have pleasure in presenting to the Senate the intitial report of the Standing Committee on Social Environment which deals with the content, form and presentation of the information section of telephone directories. In its approach to the reference, the Committee held the view that, although it was relatively less important than other matters which the Committee already has under active consideration aud investigation, the telephone directory reference was of a very practical nature which could provide an opportunity to bring benefit to a wide section of the public. The reference was considered to be one which could be dealt wilh quickly in keeping with the objective that standing committees of this nature should aim at presenting reports expeditiously. In practice, the reference was surprisingly difficult and not the least because the Committee found considerable diversity of opinion, both among casual observers and experts in matters of printing, publishing and graphic design, as to what is the most acceptable form for presentation of the information pages.

The public response to invitations to provide written submissions to the Committee was disappointing and it was necessary to seek views from a range of organisations representative of commercial and expert bodies and of the man in the street. lt became clear that the Committee would achieve little in attempting to reconcile varying opinions on matters such as layout, form and aesthetic presentation of the information pages and therefore concentrated its efforts on the desirability of changes which might make the information pages more useful to the public in general. The Committee maintained a close liaison with the Postmaster-General’s Department during its examination of the directories and had the satisfaction of noting that a number of suggestions for change, which were referred to the Department for revaluation, were immediately acknowledged as being worthy of consideration for inclusion in subsequent issues of the directory.

I take this opportunity to express on behalf of the Committee appreciation for the assistance rendered by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and those who made submissions to the Committee.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 1680

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That the time for Estimates committees to report to the Senate be extended and that the committees report on or before 25th November 1971.

page 1680

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

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

(12.22) - I move:

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of the present period of sittings bc as follows:
  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.

I also move:

That, unless otherwise ordered Government Business take precedence over General Business on Thursday nights after 8 p.m. for the remainder of the present period of sitting.

I suggest that with the concurrence of the Senate, the 2 motions be debated together, Mr President.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I would think not.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

If Senator Cavanagh does not approve of that course being adopted, I will deal with them separately.

Senator Murphy:

– There would be a separate vote on them, of course?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYeS

Senator Murphy:

– I think it would be convenient to have a cognate debate on the motions and then to vote on them separately.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The first motion relates to the days and hours of meeting for the remainder of this sitting. 1 do not think it is necessary for me to spell out the proposal because honourable senators have the details in front of them. The purpose of this motion is to gain further lime on any given day for the consideration of Government Business, he second motion relates, to Government Business taking precedence over General Business on a Thursday evening.

I shall be very brief in my remarks on these motions because we have been through this exercise be/ore. To my knowledge this practice has been followed in every session during the 18 years I have been a member of this chamber. It has been predicted that the Parliament may rise on or about 9th December. During the period between now and that date the Government will be either introducing into or bringing to the Senate Bills for its consideration, lt is notable that more Bills have flowed through to this chamber early in these sittings. The Government has deliberately kept the Bills flowing in order to allow the Parliament better to conduct its affairs. During the last sessional period the Senate sat for 7 days after the other place rose. As it is anticipated that the other place will rise on 9th December, I think it is obvious that unless the Senate keeps reasonably close to the workload of the other place it will be confronted with the necessity to continue to sit at a time during which honourable senators are required to attend to constituency matters and problems associated with their occupation as members of the Parliament. What I am saying is that in the interests of the Senate, in the interests of the management of the Senate, in the interests of the conduct of the Parliament and out of consideration for senators - not only me and other Ministers, but indeed every senator - we should bite on the bullet, in terms of our sitting times, and try to keep abreast of the flow of work coming before us during this period of sittings.

For this reason I suggest that we should make extra time available by adopting the sitting times 1 have suggested. It is significant that I have not suggested that we should sit beyond 11 o’clock at night. 1 subscribe to a view, which I know is held by an overwhelming number of senators, and if it looks like becoming a matter of sitting into the wee hours of the morning, for my part and for the Government’s part the Senate will sit not in the wee hours of the morning but on the next sitting day. I take that view because I do not believe in legislation by exhaustion. We as a Senate have a role to consider everything as carefully and deliberately as we can. So, although at a certain stage in the absolutely extreme case, I may ask the Senate for its co-operation in sitting a little beyond 1 1 o’clock to complete, perhaps, a Bill which we are debating, the fundamental approach that I, my fellow Ministers and others who sit behind me will adopt will be not to have extended sittings into the early hours of the morning. Let us try to meet the situation by starting earlier - not extremely early, but at about the same time as the other place starts - reducing our luncheon break by perhaps IS minutes and making certain that we use our time effectively. That is the first part of my proposition.

As for Government Business taking precedence after 8 o’clock on Thursday nights, I am very conscious of the rights of honourable senators in relation to General Business. Whilst I am proposing that Government Business should take precedence after 8 o’clock on Thursday nights, I am aware, as I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) this morning and to Senator Byrne in discussion yesterday, that there are on the business paper under General Business certain matters which I, as Leader of the Government, will have to recognise and make provision for before the Senate rises. In the interests of the management of the Senate I want Government Business to have precedence after 8 o’clock on Thursday nights. That would facilitate the management of the Senate and enable us to deal with legislation. It would be in the best interests of us all to make more time available to ourselves in order to carry out our function, and inherent in that is an adoption by the Senate of my proposal that we deal with

Government Business after 8 o’clock on. Thursday nights. I put this suggestion to the Senate in good faith and I leave the decision to the will of the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– There is no doubt that the proposal advanced by the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) is well meant. We accept it as such. Certainly this is so in regard to the first proposal which deals with our working times. The proposal as to precedence of Government Business over General Business is a matter of principle which affects all honourable senators, other than Ministers who are dealing with Government Business. Our attitude to the first proposal is that we have no substantial objection to the times which are proposed, if it is necessary to adopt those times in order to deal with the business of the Senate. However, we have a strong feeling that we should not alter our sitting times unless there is a need to do so. We feel that the Government should come forth with a programme and timetable so that we may see where we are heading.

The Leader of the Government has suggested that we sit extra hours. Already the hours in this place are very long, not only in the chamber but also when taken together with the hours spent at committee meetings and party meetings which are held in this building. For most of us the day in Parliament House starts as early as 9 a.m. at least and we are here until after 11 p.m.; often we are here very much later than that. That is a very long day for anyone, particularly after travelling here. There is no doubt that there is a problem of industrial fatigue, if one might call it that, in this place. For this reason we should not lightly be increasing our sitting hours. The Opposition is not satisfied that the Government has presented a proper programme and timetable. Our attitude is that, until that programme is presented and until that timetable for legislative business is put before us, we will not agree to an alteration of sitting times.

Let me suggest to the Leader of the Government another point which is perhaps a minor aspect but which is becoming important. I have not discussed this with my colleagues, but it occurred to me while

I was listening to the Leader of the Government that there is some danger in clipping off the half-hours that are now available to us. Committees which may not meet while the Senate is meeting have to find some opportunity to meet. On a Wednesday, it might be convenient for a committee to meet Many committees want to have short meetings to decide something or to hear a report, and it is convenient for them if throughout the week some periods are available for their meetings - for example, on a Wednesday between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., before the Senate meets.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Regulations and Ordinances Committee meets nearly every Thursday morning.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Not at 10.30, though.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

Senator MURPHY:

– If the Committee meets at 9.30 a.m. it has until 11 a.m. to conduct its business. If the Senate meets at 10.30 a.m. the Committee’s opportunity to meet is reduced by 30 minutes; half an hour of the time available to that Committee is lost. As Senator Cavanagh has indicated, apparently it is traditional for the Committee to meet then.

Senator Durack:

– It always finishes by 10.30.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am unaware of that. Although the Committee might always finish by 10.30, for all I know the view might have been taken that members of the Committee need half an hour before the Senate meets to enable them to deal with other matters, in which case it would mean that the Committee would have to finish by 10 o’clock.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Or start earlier.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, or start earlier. The matter is not as easy as it may seem. It occurred to me that what is proposed will cut out those short periods in which committees may now meet. Their work is part of the work of the Senate. But our real objection is based on our opinion that there should be some kind of legislative programme, that the Government should indicate to us what Bills we are expected to deal with and that we should be given some estimate of the time that those Bills will take. Let us look at the position before changing the sitting times of the Senate. For the reasons I have stated, we will oppose the proposition and will continue to do so until the Government brings in some programme and timetable.

The next matter mentioned by the Leader of the Government is one of very great principle, in a week 2+ hours are made available for General Business, during which time the Opposition, private senators on the Government side of the chamber and independent senators have an opportunity to bring forth matters. It is a very serious matter to deprive private senators of that opportunity. The Government always looks to this source as a means of saving time and suggests chopping out the small amount of time which is now available to honourable senators, other than Ministers, to bring forward business. This attitude by governments is traditional. In the other chamber, in this place and in parliaments everywhere it is always easy for governments to see that their opponents’ opportunities to bring forward business are eliminated. I think this should be resisted. There are matters to be brought forward by various senators, by members of the Opposition and also by Senator Negus. Why should they not have an opportunity to bring those matters forward? Rather than see General Business go it would be preferable to sit another 2 hours at another time. If it has to be, let us sit an extra day, which we could do and preserve General Business nights for 3 or 4 weeks. Why is it that General Business has to be the first casualty when the saving is only 2i hours? If General Business is dispensed with, the saving is only 2i hours in each week.

With respect to the Senate, whatever view might be taken of the extension of times, the principle contained in the motion is wrong. It is eroding the democratic process to come in- here and to seek to have Government Business take precedence over General Business and we will resist it. We see the tendency arising every year to do away more and more with General Business. We have been cooperative and we have agreed whenever the Government has said: “There is something important to get through this night. Will you agree to give way on General Business because it is important to get this particular matter through?’ I think it is fair to say that the Opposition has agreed. We would expect some time to be made available at another stage and generally the Government has agreed.

In the light of our co-operation, why is it now when we have weeks to go, that this motion is moved? There has been no suggestion that somehow the business has all been jammed up. Especially it has not been suggested that General Business has caused any dislocation of the legislative programme. Why should General Business in effect be dispensed with? The Opposition will oppose the 2 motions moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The motion is in 2 parts, the first of which deals with slightly extended sitting hours. The second part relates to business after 8 o’clock on a Thursday evening. The Australian Democratic Labour Party regrets the need to extend the sitting hours which are already very long, but we realise the practicalities of the situation. The daily extension proposed is not unduly long and it has been left until quite late in the session to bring in the variation. In other words it is not an attempt to circumscribe the rights of senators or of the Senate, but as we face a heavy end of session legislative programme the proposal has been devised as a means by which it might be accommodated into the remaining period with the minimum of inconvenience and disturbance.

For that, reason, while we think that the sitting days are increasingly long we do not see any reason to oppose the first part of the motion. Turning to the proposal that private members’ business will be superseded on Thursday nights after 8 o’clock, this is again a rather traditional practice. Again it is regrettable that change is necessary. Perhaps at some time we will have to decide whether private members’ business should not be. moved to another day. I think we must concede that the legislative programme of the Government is important, not only to the Government but also to the Opposition. Unless there are proposals that are basically and fundamentally opposed by non-Government senators, there are many measures of tremendous importance to both sides, most of which are substantially supported by both sides.

As a matter of emphasis and priority, the legislative programme of the Government generally must be given first place, with proper opportunities for dissent and objection. I have noticed in this session a diminution of the desire of senators to speak in the debate in the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I have heard fewer speeches in the adjournment debate this session than used to be the practice.

Senator Cant:

– I have spoken twice in the adjournment debate this session.

Senator BYRNE:

– I was absent for a little while but my recollection is that we have not had the protracted and full scale debates on the adjournment motion that characterised the Senate on other occasions. It may have come about with the emergence of the committeee system, particularly the standing committees. Senators are often satisfied to have matters concerning them referred to a standing committee for investigation in depth rather than have them canvassed in the Senate. That may now be sought as an alternative method. I can see many matters referred to standing committees that might well have been the subject of a motion in private members’ business or a speech in the adjournment debate. That may account for the fact that we are getting fewer speeches in the adjournment debate. The developing committee system is also a warrant for not being so solicitous in respect of any diminution of opportunities for private members’ business, because alternative avenues of a certan character are in some measure available. It is not that anybody wants to circumscribe the rights of private members. They are tremendously important. Through urgency motions and private members’ business, important matters are raised.

The Democratic Labour Party has taken advantage of opportunities to present private members’ business, as honourable senators are aware. At one stage Senator Murphy thought that we were unduly trespassing with our notices of motion on private members’ business section of the notice paper. In an accommodation, into which this party is always willing to enter, we withdrew some of our motions and some motions of the Opposition then came towards the forefront of the business sheet. Nevertheless, while on this occasion we see it this way we would be very sensitive to any undue or premature truncation of the rights of private members or of the opportunities for General Business. We support the motion in both parts.

I am concerned generally that the Senate is allowing its sitting times to be determined according to the will and wishes of another place. When the other place determined that it would sit for a fortnight and rise for a week, we fell into that pattern. Now it. has decided that that is inconvenient and we have resumed 3 weeks of sitting and a recess of one week. This is quite unconnected with the particular new duties, responsibilities and obligations falling upon senators. We have an intensity of committee work and in the week off all of us are called to serve on a committee of one kind or another.

When we had one week off in three it was practicable to do this but now that we sit for 3 weeks and the odd days are occupied in committee work, the recess of the fourth week will be filled by longer sittings of committees. Those pressures do not apply to the House of Representatives. Even though it may cause some inconvenience between the 2 Houses I think the Senate at some stage will have to look at the attempted synchronisation with another place in the light of the inconvenience resulting to the Senate, and not consider merely the convenience of the other place or of the Government.

I strongly urge honourable senators to have some regard to that suggestion during the approaching parliamentary recess and determine whether we should not, with reasonable regard for the interconvenience of the 2 Houses, have our own sitting times in the light of our new, extending and developing committee obligations. After all, the week’s recess is very precious to honourable senators who have political as well as parliamentary responsibilities and duties. It is becoming virtually impossible for us to discharge them. The situation is now that the House of Representatives is a political forum and this is purely and exclusively a parliamentary forum. That should not be the position. The Senate is also a political forum and senators have political as well as parliamentary duties. They should not allow the disposition of another place to prevent their discharging that duality of duties which this attempted synchronisation, now apparently accepted as a fact, will produce. The DLP supports the motion moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.

Senator NEGUS:
Western Australia

– 1 thank Senator Murphy for his comments about the independent senators. I can recall Senator Turnbull speaking very strongly about this matter. I feel - and Senator Turnbull indicated this - that the independent senators get very little chance of talking on a subject unless the Opposition and the Government agree to their talking. Senator Murphy was quite correct in what he said. I request the Senate to consider the possibility of allowing independent senators who want to do so to talk to a motion or on a subject. There are really only 3 parties and a few independent senators in the Senate. I must support Senator Murphy and oppose the motion.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 1 oppose both the motions moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). I draw particular attention to the attempt to extend the hours of sitting of this place. I will not go through the details of that, because 1 do not want to take up more time than is necessary. The Senate will remember that earlier this year the Government took a battering through the media of public information over the way it handled the business of the House of Representatives. Out of that arose a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) that he would set up a committee to sec that the business of the Parliament was presented to it in an orderly manner. I want to say something about the Prime Minister with respect to this. Although he saw that he had made a mistake by applying the guillotine to the sittings of the House of Representatives and although the media of public information were pointing out to him the mistake that he was making, he was not a big enough man to admit that he had made a mistake and extend the sittings of the House of Representatives. But he promised to have this committee established for the orderly arrangement of the business of the Parliament.

We have been here since 17th August and, by and large, we have done practically nothing. 1, for my part, am a member of an Estimates Committee that is considering the expenditure of the departments that Senator Cotton represents in this place. The Committee has sat for 2 halfdays. Senator Cotton has under his jurisdiction in this place one-third of the portfolios of the Government. Yet we are not given the opportunity to examine the estimates relating to those portfolios in a proper way. Because the Government has failed to introduce a proper order of business and because the Prime Minister has not been able to implement the promise that he made to the Parliament and the nation, we now find ourselves in the position that, with approximately another 4 weeks of sitting to go, the Leader of the Government wants to extend the sitting hours. I admit, quite frankly, that the extension of hours for which he asks is not onerous in itself. But it is onerous to those honourable senators who are members of committees. There is a limit to what one can do in this place. When honourable senators are kept pretty busy working on committees, what chance have they, if extended sitting hours are introduced, to work on legislation? Any extension of the sitting hours of the Senate represents a depletion of the efficiency of honourable senators. I say that with some emphasis. That is all I want to say about the hours of sitting.

I now wish to say a few words about the Thursday night sittings. I listened very closely to what Senator Byrne had to say. He talked about the opportunity to use the adjournment debate. But, if honourable senators look at the matters under the heading of General Business, they will see that they are matters which require determination by Senate. Votes have to be taken on whether the matters should be agreed to or defeated. This cannot be done in an adjournment debate. I do not believe (hat the adjournment debate in the Senate should be used for that purpose. I believe that the adjournment debate should be used when an honourable senator has a matter of urgency which he is not able to raise or bring to the notice of the Government at some other time. The adjournment debate is not a time for a general debate. If it is, the Leader of the Government is asking us today for an unlimited extension of hours without it being in any way effective.

The Government has no right to expect the Senate to give up the right to debate General Business on Thursday nights. This is a time which is valued by all honourable senators who have interests other than what the Government wants to put on the notice paper. It is an opportunity for honourable senators to bring before the Senate matters on particular interest to their constituents, their States and the nation. The opportunity to bring such matters forward is provided on Thursday nights. How many Thursday nights have we had this session on which General Business has been discussed? The debate on Senator Murphy’s Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1971 was not completed. I am not blaming the Government in this respect. I think this was caused by the attitude of one honourable senator who was able to convince a majority to vote with him. I commend him on being able to do that. I do not think that was caused by the attitude of the Government.

Then 2 nights set aside for General Business, which should have provided an opportunity for honourable senators to raise private business, were taken up with a debate on the Standing Orders. To use the General Business night for a debate on the Standing Orders was a deprivation of the rights of private senators and, in my opinion, it was quite wrong. A discussion of the Standing Orders is a matter for the Senate and not one for General Business nights. Private honourable senators are deprived of the Opportunity to debate matters of general concern.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That was not a Government decision. It was done by agreement with your Leader.

Senator CANT:

– Many things might be done by agreement with the Leader of the Opposition. Generally, when our Leader comes to an agreement with the Leader of the Government he has the backing of those behind him. Nevertheless, it was an imposition upon the general rights of honourable senators for the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition to advance a proposal that we should give away our General Business night in order to discuss the Standing Orders. Tn the time that we have been here this session, what opportunity have we had to discuss matters of general interest to senators and matters that are on the notice paper under General Business? For the reasons I have stated, I oppose the 2 motions moved by the Leader of the Government.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I have only a few words to say on this matter, because I have taken a prominent part in previous discussions on this subject which, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has said, arises every session. Normally, I think, the recommendation for an extension of sitting hours has been raised at a later time in the session than it has on this occasion. We have 4 or 5 weeks of sitting remaining and already we have before us a recommendation for longer sitting hours.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– J do not deny that. As I have explained, 1 have done it for deliberate reasons.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. I have always taken the attitude that, if it is necessary to sit longer hours in order to deal with the business of the Senate, we should not refuse to do so. I have been an advocate of the proposal that no matter what is done in another place if we find it necessary in this chamber to sit for a longer period than does that other place we should sit for that additional time. I have been a supporter of the proposal to extend our sitting period beyond that of the other place.

On this occasion 1 think that some necessity does arise to seek a justification for the longer sitting hours proposed. Our Leader, Senator Murphy, has put up a proposal which does not oppose the longer s King hours proposed but which asks that, before the Senate commits itself to these ne.v sitting hours, a legislative programme be presented to us by the Government so thai we may see where we are going and whether the extension of sitting hours is absolutely necessary. It could well be that the hours proposed are not sufficient for the purpose of terminating our business within the timetable to which we propose to sit. I think that the proposal that we should not agree to the extension of sitting hours until such time as the Government has prepared and submitted a programme showing time limits on debates, etc., is a reasonable one.

I do not feel as strongly about the first motion as I do about the second. Since entering this Parliament I have seen a continual erosion in this chamber of the right3 of individual senators. This affects not only members of the Opposition but also those Government senators and independent senators who have some specific case which they wish to champion when General Business is discussed. It is only when General Business matters are discussed that these honourable senators have an opportunity to present their cases to the Parliament. A number of independents now sit in the Senate. They wish to present specific items for consideration. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, Senator Negus has an item for discussion which he thinks is of special importance. If the second motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) is agreed to, the opportunity for Senator Negus to present that matter for discussion will disappear for the remainder of this year, lt may be revived next year if the honourable senator is able to bring it before the Senate and have it considered prior to the next federal election. If he does not, the Parliament will be prorogued and the honourable senator will lose every opportunity that he has to raise this matter because all of these items will disappear from the Notice Paper.

Other independent senators and perhaps Government senators may have specific questions which they want considered and which they have not yet proposed for discussion under General Business. They will be denied the opportunity of having these matters discussed during a General Business debate if the second motion is agreed to. General Business night provides the one opportunity that independent senators have to bring matters to the attention of the Senate. Through a misuse of the Standing Orders, although at times the Government has no business to be discussed we are restricted to Thursday night for the discussion of General Business. The Government is reluctant to permit a consideration of General Business. Government senators want the Senate to be a Government House and not a House in which individual senators have the right to discuss matters that they propose for discussion.

At the present time under General Business 29 items are listed for discussion. The Senate has never discussed more than one General Business item on a Thursday night. Further, 12 items appear on the notice paper as notices of motion. These are an additional 12 items for discussion but if the second motion is passed any possibility of discussing these items will be denied to the Senate. To make the matter worse, we know that a deliberate attempt is made to have one matter only discussed each General Business night. When it becomes apparent to a section of the Government that the strength of support for a proposal being discussed will lead in its view to an unfavourable vote, the matter is talked out.

When the Bill relating to capital punishment was before the Senate during this sessional period 2 General Business nights were devoted to discussing it. Members of the Opposition suffered the embarrassment of the accusation that they were not rising to support the Bill. They were desperate for a vote on this question. Appreciating the importance of the issue and knowing the feelings of the Senate, Opposition senators refrained from discussing the issue although they could have made valuable contributions to the debate. Although honourable senators on this side of the chamber did not assist in prolonging the debate on that Bill, its consideration occupied 2 sitting nights. By passage of a motion to refer the Death Penalty Abolition Bill to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, the Government avoided an expression of opinion by the Senate on that matter. This is a clear indication of the Government’s intention that the discussion of General Business matters should not be part of the work of this assembly. The Government says that discussion of General Business matters should not be tolerated.

Today the Government presents this motion with the excuse that Government business is important and that members wish to return to their electorates. It says that for these reasons General Business night should be discontinued for the remainder of this session. But General Business night is one of the few opportunities that the independent senator and the back bencher have to present to this legislature some of the aspects of legislation which should be considered or to present new proposals to be written into our statutes. The independent senator and the back bencher are to be deprived of this right. I know that motions of this type are moved every session. I know that on occasions they are agreed to. But such motions have never been agreed to with my consent. Whatever emergency arises with respect to the business of the Senate I say that the rights of individual senators should not bc sacrificed and that on no account should the only night that back benchers have available to them an which to present General Business to the Senate be sacrificed to Government business. I most vehemently oppose the second motion moved by the Leader of the Government.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (2.32) - in reply - I rise to close the cognate debate on these 2 motions. Obviously separate votes will be taken on them. I wish to reply very briefly to what has been said. I respond first to the observation made by Senator Cant as to the work that has been done in this sitting. It is interesting to recall that 21 Bills have been passed and that those Bills were vital ones which were very strongly debated. They included Bills relating to budgetary matters such as social services, repatriation, national service and national health. A number of Bills dealing with the apple and pear industries were passed. Our formal debate on the Budget itself has been concluded. The Senate has not been wasting its time. The feeling I have is that Bills have been spread better this time than they are normally. This is what the Government has consciously attempted to do.

The statement has been made that this motion has been introduced earlier than usual. I agree that perhaps I have brought this matter on a little earlier than normal. But I have done so for the very reason that I wish to spread the work and to prevent circumstances similar to those which have arisen in past years and which have attracted tremendous criticism becauseso many Bills are debated in the final days of a sitting. These are the reasons whyI have moved these motions.I have done so in good faith. I will not go into the matter any further than that. A decision should be reached by way of separate votes on the 2 motions that I have moved.

Question put:

That the motion relating to hours of sitting (SenatorSir Kenneth Anderson’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion relating to precedence for Government Business (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1688

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL OF PACIFIC ADMINISTRATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - I have a statement made by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) in another place on 3rd November. I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

I wish to inform the House that the Government has made certain decisions affecting the future of the Australian School of Pacific Administration located at Mosman, Sydney. In essence, the decisions mean that instead of training Australian, as it does today, the School will be developed as an important centre for training Papuans and New Guineans. As such it will have a key role in preparing Papua New Guinea for selfgovernment and independence. These decision will also enable the Papua New Guinea Public Service Board to carry forward its recently announced plans to accelerate training for localisation of the Papua New Guinea Public Service.

The basic decision is that the Australian School of Pacific Administration - ASOPA - should supplement training and undertake specially structured training which cannot be better or more conveniently provided in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere in Australia. Opportunities will also be provided in future for trainees from South Pacific countries to attend courses at ASOPA. In its new role ASOPA will concentrate on administrative and specialised training to prepare Papuan and

New Guinean public servants for accelerated advancement within the Papua New Guinea Public Service. It will work very closely with the Papua New Guinea Administrative College.

The School will provide a range of courses. It will provide supporting segments of middle and advanced management training courses conducted by the Administrative College, additional sessions of the Papua New Guinea executive development scheme to qualify local officers for advancement to and within the Second Division of the Papua New Guinea Public Service - equivalent to Commonwealth Third Division - and specialised ad hoc courses. For example, a new course in industrial relations for Papuans and New Guineans will be commenced next year and the School will conduct a further session of a local government practice course for Papuans and New Guineans. The actual numbers of Papuans and New Guineans to undertake further education and training at ASOPA next year will depend on. a number of factors including especially the finding of suitable accommodation for them. My Department has already commenced inquiries amongst other Commonwealth departments and community organisations. Our aim is to build up to some 300 Papuans and New Guineans undertaking courses at ASOPA by 1973.

To enable the School to take on its new role oi training Papuans and New Guineans, most of t<ic existing training activities for both Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory will be relocated as soon as practicable or phased out. In recent years the main role of the School has been in training teachers for service in Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory. The Government will be making arrangements to continue the teacher training of Australians for service in Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory now undertaken at ASOPA. During 1972 ASOPA will train only those teachers who will be undertaking the final year of their course of training. Arrangements are now in hand for new teacher trainees for Papua New Guinea to commence their training at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. In line with the new role for the School the ASOPA Council will be reconstituted and its membership broadened. The Principal of the Administrative College of Papua New Guinea has been added to the Council. Dr S. S. Richardson, C.B.E., Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and Mr A. Tololo, Papua New Guinea Teaching Service Commissioner, have agreed to the bc appointed to the reconstituted Council.

ASOPA was established in 1946 and is constituted under the Papua and New Guinea Act and has had a long and creditable history in the training of Australians for government service in Papua New Guinea and, of more recent years, for the Northern Territory. The Government’s decision to use the resources of ASOPA to supplement training which can be provided in Papua New Guinea is one which I am sure will commend itself to honourable senators. Over the years the School has built up experience and specialisation in the affairs of Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific and I am sure that it will readily adapt to its new role. In the development of the programme I have just announced, 1 have had the advice of Mr W. J. Weeden, O.B.E., formerly

Senior Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and Science, who was for many years a member of the ASOPA Council. I have expressed appreciation to Mr Weeden of his efforts in preparing advice which has resulted in large part in the new programme of operations for ASOPA.

The presence of several hundred Papuans and New Guineans in Sydney for training at ASOPA together with increasing numbers coming to Australia for other education and training purposes will bring Australians into much closer contact with Papuans ami New Guineans. I am sure that all Australians will do all they can to see that the experience Papuans and New Guineans gain through living, studying and training in the Australian community will not only improve their skills for the well being of Papua New Gninea, but will also develop the bonds of personal friendships between Papuans and New Guineans and Australians.

page 1689

TARIFF BOARD- RESEARCH STAFF

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– by leave - I have a statement made by the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) relating to the annual report of the Tariff Board. It concerns research staff and it was made in the other place. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document reads as follows) -

On 7 [ti October, during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Industry, I said that I would make a statement concerning certain dissenting views in the Tariff Board’s annual report for 1970-71, after legal advice had been received from the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. Much of the dissention comment in the Board’s report concerns the use of research staff. I therefore inform the House at the outset - and this is confirmed by the legal advice that has been given - that it is perfectly proper that the Tariff Board should have a research staff available to it at all stages of its work. 1 refer to the use both of permanent staff and of consultants. Such research services are part of the equipment that the Board is entitled to, and that the Government believes it should have, to assist it in carrying out the important functions vested in it by the Tariff Board Act.

Paragraph 133 of the Board’s annual report notes that on several occasions in recent years the Government has called for improvement in the quality of the Board’s reports, and goes on to mention that, during the year, an Industry Economics Branch was established to provide the more rigorous and comprehensive economic studies needed for this purpose. The functions of the Branch are described in the report as follows: 134. The branch will prepare papers (both before and after the public hearing) to assist the Board to identify and analyse key issues, particularly in major inquiries. Its work in advance of the public hearings will improve and augment pre-inquiry reports which have been compiled for members from a variety of sources for a number of years. After the public hearings it will, as directed by the Board, analyse and comment on important economic issues arising from the evidence submitted by witnesses.

It is hoped that the first appointments to the new position will be made early in 1972. The report notes, however, that there are few persons in Australia with the necessary professional qualifications and that it may take some time before the Branch is fully operational. The report states that, in the meantime, suitably qualified temporary staff have been engaged during university vacations fr>’ post-hearing analyses and that their brief is to examine, on the basis of the sworn evidence, specific economic issues regarded as important by the relevant divisions of the Board. 1 am advised that the preparation of postinquiry analyses as discussed in the Board’s report is fully consistent with the provisions of the Tariff Board Act. This is so whether the analyses are made by permanent staff or by consultants. The questions raised by the dissenting Board members regarding the use of consultants for this purpose are set out in paragraphs 139 to 142 and 147 to 149 of the Board’s report. I refer honourable members to those paragraphs and I shall not restate the.m in any detail. One question raised iwhether a post-inquiry analysis needs to be submitted in evidence. The answer is no. As stated :.i the report, the purpose of a post-inquiry analysis is limited to examining, on the basis of the sworn evidence, specific economic issues regarded as important by the relevant divisions of the Board. A further question is whether the use of persons from universities may induce belief that the Board’s recommendations were being influenced by specialists. This is a matter for the Board itself to take care of. The third question raised concerns not the ability of the Board to keep the confidences entrusted to it, but rather its ability to continue convincing witnesses and potential witnesses that it can do so. The dissenting opinions state that this in no way puts in an unfavourable light the good name and repute of those whom the Board might employ as consultants to prepare private studies.

It is not uncommon for government departments themselves to engage outside consultant* and to do so in regard to matters of a confidential nature. I do not believe that departments thereby give the appearance of not being able to maintain confidentiality. I see no reason why the Tariff Board, which has a high reputation in this respect, is likely to be in any different position. The Chairman of the Tariff Board has had discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department to ensure that the arrangements in this regard are adequate from the strictly legal point of view. The dissenting members have commented also on the system of pre-inquiry studies that the Board, in paragraph 136 of the report, states that it introduced in the past year on an experimental basis. The information for the study referred to was obtained from published material, by way of questionnaires and to a minor extent from interviews with individual persons. The Board says that, in the case mentioned in paragraph 136, most of the material obtained through questionnaires was later submitted as sworn evidence at the public hearing and ‘.hat copies of the study, excluding confidential information, were made available to all interested parties before the hearing. The dissenting members question the use of pre-inquiry studies and, as I understand, they do so whether the studies are made by permanent staff or by consultants. They suggest that it might well be that material collected by the research staff should be presented as evidence.

As to the use of published material in a preinquiry study, such material is part of the fund of general knowledge and as a general rule would not need to be formally presented at a public hearing. Commonwealth statistics provide an example. As to material obtained through questionnaires, the Board has pointed out that much of the material is, in fact, given in the form of evidence. As to the remainder, the legal advice is that, under current procedures, this ought also to be given in evidence, and that this could be done by the formal production of the study in evidence by an appropriate per:on. The Chairman of the Board has informed me that, following discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department, it is proposed to revise the procedures so as to confine thu studies to consideration of published material and evidence received at a public hearing. The legal advice is that, if the studies are limited in this way, there would be no requirement for them to be formally produced in evidence. I believe that the other points raised in respect of preinquiry studies relate to matters that the Board can be expeced to take account of, as it sees fit and proper. 1 add that the discussions that have taken place have shown that, in regard to the engagement of consultants, appropriate procedures were not followed. Revised procedures for engagement have since been agreed upon with the Public Service Board and with the Attorney-General’s Department. What I have just said does not, of course, affect my earlier comments as to the propriety of engaging research staff in either a permanent or a consultant capacity. In conclusion. I emphasise 2 points. Firstly, as I said in the House on 28th April, and as the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) reaffirmed on 14th October, the Government believes that the Tariff Board should work independently and that the Government does not want ro interfere in its operations. Secondly, the Government considers that the Board should have expert research assistance available to it so that it can carr)’ out its important functions under the Tariff Board Act in the best possible manner. It will be evident from what I have said to the House that the Government is concerned to see that the Board is appropriately equipped for the discharge of those responsibilities.

page 1690

INCOME TAX BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

(2.45) -I move:

Senator Poke:

Mr President, I am sorry to have to raise this matter but I did not hear a word said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. A lot of yahooing was going on here and a lot of talk somewhere else. We could not hear a word that was said. 1 appeal to honourable senators that before we give the Minister permission to do anything we at least hear him.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must confess that I sympathise with the honourable senator. I could not hear very much of what he was saying.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I thank the honourable senator for his concern for my position.I appreciate it very much.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(2.46) -I move:

I ask leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

The purpose of this Bill is to declare the rates of income tax for the current financial year 1971-72. Apart from the changes foreshadowed in the Budget Speech the Bill is to the same practical effect as the comparable legislation for the 1970-71 year. One change of a purely drafting nature is that, in contrast with past practice, the Bill covers both the ordinary rates of tax and the special rates that apply for the purposes of legislation enacted in 1964 to counter legal tax avoidance. The general rates of tax payable by individuals for the current financial year will, under the Bill, be the same as those imposed for the 1970-71 financial year. It is, however, proposed to increase the additional levy payable by individuals from 2½ per cent to 5 per cent of the tax calculated in accordance with the general rates.

The upper limits of the age allowance shading-in’ ranges are to be raised as a consequence of the increase in the levy on tax at general rates. Apart from this, no changes to the age allowance provisions are proposed. As in the past, the additional levy will not be added to tax calculated under ‘shading-in’ provisions of the age allowance. The age allowance provisions proposed for 1971-72 will give quite substantial taxation relief to aged persons. An aged person - that is, a resident of Australia aged 65 or more, if a man, and 60 or more, if a woman - will pay no tax for the current year if his or her own taxable income does not exceed $1,326. and may pay reduced tax if the taxable income is more than$ 1,326 but not more than $2.286. The equivalent upper limit for 1970-71 was $2,273. A married aged person will pay no tax if the combined taxable income of husband and wife does not exceed$2,314 and there may be reductions in tax if the combined taxable income is more than$2,314 but not more than $4,155. The corresponding upper limit for 1970-71 was $4,102.

It is proposed to increase the rates of tax payable by companies for the 1971-72 financial year by 5c in the$1 on the first $10,000 of taxable income. Friendly society dispensaries will continue to be taxed at a flat rate of 37.5 per cent on the whole of their taxable income. For other companies, the existing differential between the rate on the first $10,000 of taxable income and that on the remainder of the taxable income is 5 per cent in some cases and 10 per cent in others. The proposed change will eliminate the rate differential for some companies and reduce it to 5 per cent in others.

Apart from raising needed additional revenue, the increase in rates on the first $10,000 of taxable income is directed against the taxation encouragement there has been in the past for taxpayers to arrange their affairs so that, instead of income being derived by a sole company, it is derived by 2 or more companies each of which is taxed at a lower rate on the first $10,000 of its taxable income. Details of the proposed rates of company tax for the 1971-72 financial year - that is, the 1970-71 income year of companies - are set out in the following table:

lt will be seen from the table that public companies will be taxed at the rate of 47.5 per cent on the whole of their taxable income, other than income taxed at special rates. For private companies the rate on the first $10,000 of taxable income will be 37.5 per cent and the rate on the balance will remain at 42.5 per cent. The rate of additional tax payable by private companies which have not distributed sufficient profits as dividends, will remain at 50 per cent.

In keeping with the increase in the rates of tax payable by mutual life assurance companies and other life assurance companies in respect of mutual income, and consistently with past practice, the rates of tax payable on the first $10,000 of the investment income of a superannuation fund that does not invest a sufficient proportion of its assets in public securities is being increased by 5c in the $1. This change will apply in respect of the 1971-72 income year of funds affected. Technical features of the Bill are dealt with in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable senators and 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1692

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(2.49)- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Since this matter will not be debated until next week I ask leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The principal amendments to the law proposed by this Bill will give effect to the personal income tax concessions announced in the Budget Speech. By one proposal, the upper limit of the amount that may be allowed as a deduction to a taxpayer for expenditure incurred by him in the education of a full-time student will be increased from $300 to $400 a year. By a second proposal the age below which a full-time student may qualify as a dependant for whom a taxpayer is entitled to the maintenance deduction will be raised from 21 to 25 years. The deduction for expenses paid in respect of the education of a full-time student will also be available where the student is less than 25 years of age instead of 21 as at present. Under a third proposal a concessional deduction will be available for legal expenses and fees incurred by taxpayers in adopting children. It is proposed that a taxpayer who adopts a child

will be allowed an income tax deduction for amounts expended in connection with the adoption by way of solicitors’ or barristers’ fees, fees paid to a court granting the adoption order and fees paid to a Government department or authority or to an approved adoption agency through which the adoption is arranged.

The Bill also proposes an amendment of the gift provisions of the income tax law to authorise the allowance of deductions for gifts of S2 and upwards to the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia. This Council has largely taken over the role of the Australian Productivity Council and the proposed change to the gift provisions recognises this. Gifts to the Australian Productivity Council will no longer be deductible. These amendments are all to apply to assessments based on income derived in the 1971-72 and subsequent years.

Other amendments proposed by the bill will give effect to certain income tax exemptions provided for in the agreement between the Australian and United States governments relating to the establishment of the Joint Defence Space Communications Station at Woomera. Honourable senators will recall that the present law contains exemptions provided for in earlier agreements relating to other joint projects of the 2 countries in Australia. The amendments proposed will extend to the Joint Defence Space Communications Station the exemptions now authorised in respect of those projects. Broadly speaking, the relevant provisions exempt from our income tax income derived in Australia by certain United States employees, contractors, sub-contractors and their employees from work done on the projects, so long as the income is subject to United States tax. Technical aspects of the Bill are explained in a memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1693

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

21367/71- 5.- [«6J

Second Reading

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

(2.52) - I move:

As this matter will not be dealt with until next week 1 ask leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

This Bill seeks parliamentary approval to a borrowing by the Commonwealth of up to $US90m from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to assist in financing the purchase of general defence equipment in the United States, and approval for the execution of the loan agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth for this borrowing. Under the Loan (Defence) Act 1970, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US89m to finance orders for general defence equipment placed with United States suppliers in 1969-70. The amount of that credit has been fully committed.

Under the Loan (Defence) Act (No. 2) 1970, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US123m to finance orders for general defence equipment to be placed with United States suppliers during 1970- 71. However, $US74.2m of this loan was subsequently cancelled by the Commonwealth. This cancellation was due in large part to a re-evaluation by the Service departments of equipment needs during that year. Negotiations have recently been completed for a credit to cover orders placed during 1971-72. The present Bill will provide the necessary authority to enter into an agreement for this further credit.

The loan agreement with the ExportImport Bank, which is set out as the schedule to the Bill, follows the usual form of agreements with the Bank for defence loans. The loan will carry an interest rate of 6i per cent - the rate current for this type of loan when the loan was approved in July 1971. A commitment fee of onehalf per cent will be payable on the undrawn amount from 8th August 1971. Drawings on the loan may be made at any time up to 31st December 1975, and repayment of each amount drawn will be in 14 semi-annual instalments commencing on 15th November next following the close of the financial year in which the amount was drawn. Since the borrowing is for defence purposes the approval of the Loan Council is not required. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) adjourned.

page 1694

LOAN (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL (No. 2)

1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(2.55) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to a borrowing by the Commonwealth of $US1 1,310,400 ($Al0.lm) from the Export-Import Bank of the UnitedStates and the Boeing Company, and to an appropriation of the Loan Fund of an amount not exceeding $A13, 150,000, to assist Qantas Airways Limited in financing the purchase of not more than 2 Boeing 747 jet aircraft and related equipment, spare parts and services. The Bill also contains a minor amendment to the Loan (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1968.

The loan agreement with the ExportImport Bank and Boeing appears as the First Schedule to the Bill. The proceeds of this loan will assist Qantas in financing the purchase of a fifth Boeing 747 aircraft and related equipment, spare parts and services estimated to cost in all $US29.3m ($A25.7m). Honourable senators will recall that the Commonwealth has arranged loans totalling $USl13m ($99.1m) to assist Qantas in financing the purchase of its first 4 Boeing 747 aircraft. These loans were approved by the Loan (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1968 and the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1971.

The general arrangements for this borrowing from the Export-Import Bank and

Boeing arc similar to those approved by Parliament for other loans for Qantas and Trans-Australia Airlines in recent years. The Commonwealth will be the borrower in the first instance, and the full proceeds of the loan will be made available to Qantas on terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer pursuant to clause 7 of the Bill. These terms and conditions will be the same as those under which the Commonwealth itself borrows the money. As the airline will be required to meet all charges under the loan agreement, the Commonwealth will, as usual, assume the function of an intermediary in these arrangements.

Drawings on the loan will commence as soon as the legislation has been enacted and the bulk of the funds will be drawn in September 1972, when the aircraft is due for delivery. In accordance with normal lending practice in the United States, a commitment fee of one-half of 1 per cent per annum is to be paid on the undrawn amount of the Export-Import Bank loan. The Export-Import Bank loan is to be repaid in 7 semi-annual instalments commencing 15th November 1979. The Boeing loan is repayable in 4 semi-annual instalments commencing 15th May 1978. Interest on the Export-Import Bank loan will be at 6 per cent. Interest on the major part of the Boeing loan will be at 6½ per cent with the balance at 6 per cent. The terms and conditions of the loan have been approved by the Australian Loan Council.

It will be noted by honourable senators that the agreement with the Export-Import Bank and Boeing does not contain a provision headed ‘Special Representations, Warranties and Covenants’. Such a provision appeared in the agreement with the Export-Import Bank shown as the First Schedule to the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1971. Following criticism of this provision by honourable senators representations were made, successfully, to the Export-Import Bank for its deletion. However, the Export-Import Bank has asked for a letter from Qantas stating that it is not Qantas’ present intention to use the aircraft principally in a Communist country (as defined in section 620 (f) of the United States Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended). I take this opportunity of tabling the text of this letter for the information of honourable senators.

As I have already mentioned, the other main purpose of this Bill is to appropriate loan fund by an amount not exceeding SA13, 150,000 to assist Qantas in financing the purchase of a fifth and sixth Boeing 747 aircraft and related equipment. This amount represents the Australian currency proceeds of a recent public bond issue by the Commonwealth in Europe of 15 million European units of account equivalent to $US15m. As this loan was the subject of Press statements by the Treasurer dated 20th July 1971 and 5th August 1971, I do not propose to dwell on the mechanics of this issue, except to say that it offers the borrower a considerable degree of protection against currency revaluations. Briefly, the loan carries an interest rate of 8 per cent and was issued at 991 per cent, with repayment over 15 years. The repayment provisions give an average life of approximately l Ot years. The terms and conditions of the loan were approved by the Australian Loan Council. The terms and conditions on which the Commonwealth will lend the proceeds of this loan to Qantas provide that Qantas will pay to the Commonwealth sufficient funds to enable the Commonwealth to meet, on the due dates, interest, principal and other payments required under the Loan Agreement. The loan will therefore involve no net charge on the resources of the Commonwealth.

As I have mentioned, part of the proceeds of the unit of account loan are intended for the purpose of assisting Qantas with the purchase of a sixth Boeing 747 aircraft estimated to cost approximately $US29m ($A25.4m). Qantas has entered into a contract with the Boeing company for the purchase of this sixth aircraft with an option to cancel delivery at any time on or before 1st July 1972. In the event of cancellation - in which case Qantas will forfeit the initial downpayment of $US60,000 already made - Qantas will apply the entire proceeds of the unit of account loan to financing the purchase of the fifth aircraft. Finally, the Bill contains a second schedule which details a minor amendment to the Loan (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1968. The purpose of the amendment is to provide an extension from 30th November 1971 to 28th February 1972 of the final date on which drawings can be made under the Loan Agreement approved by that Act. This extension will enable Qantas to draw the loan in full. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1695

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 November (vide page 1661), on motion by Senator Drake-Brock,nan

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Wilkinson had moved by way of amendment:

Al end of motion add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that -

The one-year emergency gram moneys available under the Bill should be directed only to those bona fide wool producers, big or ‘small, who are genuinely in need of emergency finance; and

the emergency finance should be complemented by legislation to -

establish a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip, and

implement a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme to apply to those areas of wool production and marketing which are in urgent need of improvement and assistance.”

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– When the Senate adjourned last night 1 was reaching the conclusion of my remarks on this Bill. I was examining the amendment that had been proposed by the Opposition and 1 was indicating the attitude of the Australian Democratic Labor Party towards that amendment. I said that we were not able to support it because of some of its clauses. We find clause 1 to be completely unacceptable as it proposes some form of means test, although the amendment is not very clear how such a means test could possibly be of practical application. What would be the position of a wool grower who is genuinely in need of emergency finance? Would he have to tremble on the brink of bankruptcy or would he be already bankrupt? ls it a good idea to wait until somebody is in a situation where he genuinely needs emergency finance before he is rescued from the predicament, into which many of the people in this industry would rapidly subside if it were not for the assistance that they will receive through the provisions of this Bill?

Under this Bill deficiency payments will be made to growers if the price of wool falls below a certain level. The Democratic Labor Party does not think that the Senate should express an opinion on something which is completely illogical and impractical as well as being against the general principle of applying a means test. My mind was provoked on this issue by some of the comparisons which were made last night by Senator Prowse between the wags rates at present and the income received from or the price of wool. I would be unable to join him in pursuing that particular line of thought because if it is to be accepted as a reason for providing emergency assistance today one would have thought that the wage earners in the late 1940s and early 1950s would have been helped by the wool growers. Honourable senators are no doubt aware that in isolated cases wool prices went to about 240d per lb during that period. Indeed, for a considerable period of time the average price received for wool was well over 100d per lb. Of course, those were exceptional prices. But I do not think it is possible to make any real comparison over an extended period of time between the standard wage and the price which may be obtained by a primary producer for his product or a mineral industry for its product. The price obtained in those industries may have no relationship at all to the cost of production when they are prosperous; but we all know that once the price Obtained falls below the cost of production in a period of over-supply a dangerous situation exists.

The Democratic Labor Party is not putting forward its proposition on that basis. But it is that which has prompted this Party to doubt the merit of paragraph (2) of the Opposition’s amendment. An excellent example in this regard is the sugar industry in Queensland. In that industry there is a statutory marketing authority which has specific powers. If the Senate were to express the opinion that there should be complementary legislation to establish a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip it would mean that that authority would have to be armed with statutory powers to limit production and so on, especially if it were made responsible for the absorption of the entire crop, as happens in the sugar industry in Queensland. The industry itself may eventually get around to accepting this proposition in some form, but the Democratic Labor Party feels that it is premature at this point of time for the Senate to express an opinion along those lines without having more detail at its disposal than what is contained in the amendment. Because it sees no virtue in the amendment itself and because it is trying to assist the Government ultimately to reconstruct the industry the Democratic Labor Party has evolved a proposition which will be put forward by one of my colleagues at an appropriate time in the debate, It will be along the lines J have already suggested in my contribution to the debate. That proposition will seek an expression of opinion by the Senate for the establishment of a properly constituted financial authority which will bc able to assist not only the wool industry but also the other primary industries which seem to be experiencing great difficulty at present. I foreshadow that at the appropriate time my colleague, Senator Kane, will move this amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time:

Al end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that emergency and on-going financial assistance to wool growers and other primary producers adversely affected by the grave recession in the rural industries should be made available through a special finance authority providing finance on long term and at discounted interest rates with interest and redemption free periods and providing “moratorium” protection to existing borrowers, such authority to bc approporiately structured in capital and to bc created to operate immediately’.

That proposition is in conformity with the opinion I have already expressed that many of the wool growers ultimately will need to be given the opportunity to diversify their type of production, which will probably require emergency capital and loans and may even require a moratorium on current debts to enable them to reestablish new forms of production or, if necessary, quit primary industry itself and became rehabilitated in some other form of activity which will enable them to play their part in the Australian economy. I believe that everybody in this chamber supports the proposition which has been put forward by the Government as a temporary measure and that the Bill itself will be passed. But I hope that the Senate will be wise enough at the appropriate occasion to express its opinion on some of the constructive things which will have to be done if this industry is ultimately to be placed back on its proper footing.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– The Bill before the Senate was devised by the Government supposedly after consultation with representatives of the Australian wool industry. It is designed to give effect to a plan in which the grower will be assured of a minimum price for his wool until at least 1st July 1972. I have had a close look at the Bill. It would seem to me that there are problems which could arise in the future due to oversights in the framing of this legislation. I wish to refer to one or two aspects that give me concern.

Firstly, I want to raise the matter of the wool content of sheep skins. This aspect has been ignored in the drafting of this Bill. I would ask the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) whether consideration was given to this aspect when the proposal !o give to wool growers an average price of 36c this season for shorn wool was first discussed. I am led to believe that it is anticipated that approximately 36 million sheep and lambs will be slaughtered in 1971-72, compared with a figure of 43 million last year. The expected wool content involved in the skins of these animals, according to figures I have been given, is 192.4 million lb, consisting of 17.2 million lb of fellmongered and dead wool and 175.2 million lb of wool on exported skins. That is, of course, assuming that the sheep skin industry is not disrupted by the wool scheme being applied only to shorn wool. In my opinion if the wool content of sheep skins is not included in the assistance to growers scheme it is inevitable that there will be a tendency to shear all stock before they are slaughtered in order to obtain the subsidy. If this occurs, and I think that there is evidence to suggest that it is in fact happening, the considerable amount of extra wool coming on to the wool market will surely cause a further depression in this area. The end result of that would be an increased involvement of the Government subsidy over and above the amount predicted in the Budget. That, of course, is quite apart from the irreparable damage that could be done to an important industry - the sheep skin export trade.

I do not think that the average person realises the magnitude of this business in Australia. Even on today’s market the Australian sheep skin export industry’s earnings would reach in the vicinity of S50m in foreign exchange. That figure would be drastically reduced to the point where many Australian businesses would become uneconomic and would be forced to leave the industry with the resultant unemployment of the several thousand people who are now occupied in this industry. A major proportion of Australian sheep skins are exported to Europe and sold on a cost, insurance, freight and exchange basis which contributes considerably to the Australian economy. As a large percentage of our shorn wool is shipped to Japan while the sheep skins go to the continent, the shearing of sheep skins and the placing of this extra wool on the market could adversely affect the Japanese market by upsetting the supply-demand ratio. Foreign exchange earned on sheep skins depends on the wool content and the leather. Shorn skins carrying a short length of wool of less than 1 inch present an uneconomic proposition from both the handling and export points of view and they would therefore be dumped and lost to our economy.

If the shearing of all stock occurred before slaughter, the amount of foreign income earned would be based purely on the wool content and this, I believe, would be less than that received on the basis of the whole sheep skin. I have spoken of the effect on the Australian economy in relation to export earnings, but let me point now to some far-reaching internal problems. If the sheep skin trade is not recognised as an integral part of this wool scheme, and obviously it has not been, we will witness the disappearance of country wool and skin depots which form an important adjunct to the economic life of all major country towns throughout Australia. These depots provide an important local service to the grower by handling not only his farm produce but also the skins and hides from sheep and cattle sold to local and export butchers established in country areas.

One does not have to be very familiar with economics to realise the contribution that is made by these country depots to the local economy. Honourable senators who travel in the outer metropolitan districts are well aware of the part played by the proceeds of sales by skin depots being injected back into the community they serve. Apart from the local service provided to growers and butchers, employment is available in the town for people to man these depots. Further depression would occur in the already bleak outlook of many country towns if these businesses were forced to close due to their inability to service the growers as a result of not being able to participate in the wool scheme through sheep skins as well as through shorn wool.

Moving now from the country area, I suggest that if sheep skin depots are hampered by non-participation in the wool scheme, well established and equipped export businesses, some of which are more than 160 years old, in the capital cities will find it impossible to remain viable on only the short wool skins that would be available for handling. I understand that the economics of any sheep skin export packing organisation are in handling the average skins available throughout the year. In other words, it is economic to handle skins with, say, 1 inch of wool but uneconomic at present to handle skins with a shorter length of wool. However, due to the establishment of packing houses and their desire to assist the grower, as well as the economy, they handle these uneconomic skins and average out over all types. If ; these organisations are handicapped by She inclusion of the growers in this scheme, it is apparent that many may close down, causing further unemployment, and expensive plant may become redundant. This could easily occur and, if it did, many other service industries would suffer. I point out that not the least affected would be the Northbound Australia to Europe Shipping Conference.

It is surprising to know that sheep skins comprise nearly 25 per cent of the total wool and sheep skin freight to Europe. Obviously a loss of a large proportion of this sheep skin freight would upset freight economies and create a situation in which the rates inevitably would increase. I appreciate that the Minister referred in his second reading speech to the sheep skin industry. He said:

In my earlier statement reference was made to the exclusion of wool on sheep skins from deficiency payments. In this situation the scheme may provide some inducement for shearing of sleep before slaughter.

He went on lo say that the situation would be kept under review. However, I feel that it would be disastrous to leave this matter and just see what happens. It is all very well to say that if prices go up all will be well. However, if things go wrong and prices do not go up, but in fact go down - which is happening at present - it will be too late.

Another matter to which I shall refer briefly is clause 20 (I.) of the Bill in which we find a reference to ‘registered broker’. I suggest that this clause could well have been framed differently to include people who are operating as private wool brokers. Clearly the clause suggests that a registered broker is one who conducts auction sales. I believe that it could have been better worded by making reference to the private negotiation broker. If we had realised this earlier we could have written a provision that a person who carries on a business in the course of which he conducts sales on behalf of another person by auction or private negotiation may apply for registration as a registered broker. This clause does not recognise the existence of private treaty brokers. I realise that the Secretary of the Department of the Primary Industry is provided under the Bill with discretionary powers to recognise these people, but I believe that it would have been much simpler if the wording had been changed in the manner that I have suggested.

I believe that as private treaty brokers have been handling approximately 10 per cent of the Australian wool clip, which would involve about 10,000 growers throughout Australia, and as they have been providing a worthwhile service to producers over a long period, they should have been recognised. I suggest that the Minister should give consideration to extending the provisions of this clause at some time in the future to include private treaty brokers. Some people may say that private treaty brokers could undermine the market, but I do not think there is any weight in this argument. As I have suggested, they are handling only a relatively small amount of the overall clip. As the Bill stands at present, and realising as I said earlier that the Secretary can give his blessing to these people, people in this category would be involved in considerable inconvenience in going through the necessary bookwork and filling in forms that are being devised by the Department for this purpose.

I point out also that members of the Australian Council of Wool Selling Brokers - in other words, the auction brokers as defined in the Bill - sometimes sell by private negotiation due to the fact that at times wool is passed in at auction and sold at a later date by private negotiation. This wool is not sold by auction but in fact is sold privately, which is especially provided for in the Bill in sub-clause (4.) of clause 4. In my view this indicates clearly that the auction brokers have received exceptional treatment. When selling by private treaty, growers are generally paid on delivery to the buyer’s store, which attracts an on-farm price deficiency payment without regard to handling costs. In my view the private treaty merchants have a case for at least part of their handling costs to be considered in assessing the deficiency payment and I ask the Minister to give this further consideration as it is obvious that growers operating under this method could be penalised. I am aware that these growers receive prompt payment for their wool and that under the auction system it can be several months before payment is made, but I believe that the facility of almost immediate payment, thereby enabling farmers to have use of this money, is not sufficient to offset the penalty of completely disregarding handling costs.

Much has been said over recent years about the plight of some sections of rural industry. The Government, in good faith, has always acted in full consultation with the various bodies throughout rural industry in legislating for their problems, and it is fair to say that such a policy of consultation should continue. However, I have received from growers many comments concerning the number of grower organisations which do not always represent consistently the views of the producer. Quite often they seem to have different answers to similar problems. I have also had specific representations regarding the need to inquire into the management structure of the wool industry. The most prominent representations came from Mr David Cowell, the immediate past president of the Stock Owners Association of South Australia. He advocates the engagement by the Government of a management consultant firm to investigate and report on the activities and structure of the Australian Wool Board and related wool industry organisations. The wisdom of that suggestion was apparently borne out by Sir Norman Giles, chairman of Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd, who said in his address to shareholders in Adelaide on Tuesday:

One could hardly blame the Federal Government for being misguided during the year concerning the wool industry, for the various farmer groups were unorganised and dissident among themselves. The past year has seen the Federal Government maintain its policy of waiting for growers to decide what the wool industry needed, rather than imposing solutions from above. This had resulted in a great division among growers.

Mr Cowell maintains that the appointment of an outside consultant would be a sure way to receive an unbiased report. He believes that an internal inquiry could be clouded by vested interests. He states that as an urgent priority the industry needs to tackle the problem of its unco-ordinated and fragmented leadership and to restore confidence to the decision making procedures of the industry. He informed me that he had spoken to leaders of the industry who agree that the industry’s decision making procedures must be changed.

Another concerned and informed observer has reported to me that he shares Mr Cowell’s concern and supports his suggestion to establish a group of reputable outside consultants to consider the problem with the necessary objectivity and independence of judgment to guide the industry off its present course. In the immediate future growers need financial assistance in fairly large amounts and it is vital that viable businesses should be provided with long term . and low interest assistance to enable them to survive. Over the longer period ahead they will need to find a way to influence both costs and prices received in such a way that profitability can be recovered by the majority.

Mr Cowell’s proposal that outside consultants be used to identify the main problems and to suggest practical solutions seems to me to be the right course to follow. The best consultants achieve results quickly and are ruthlessly objective. Ruthless objectivity, free from sectional discrimination, is precisely what the growers need today and it is up to the Government to give it to them. I have tried to be constructive in this speech. I ask the Minister to bear in mind what I have said about particular matters concerned with sheep skins and private treaty brokers and I hope that he will take steps to protect the industries I have mentioned, particularly if it is found necessary to extend this scheme beyond the period provided for in the measure. 1 was gratified that Mr Sinclair, the Minister for Primary Industry, acknowledged in correspondence the merit of a broader type of inquiry, having in mind what Mr Cowell had said. I respectfully suggest that he act urgently in this direction proceeding always, of course, in consultation with the industry. With the requests I have made, I support the Bill.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I regret that it is necessary for the Senate to debate this type of legislation. I have been a wool grower almost all my life and I have always felt that the wool growing industry in Australia has been independent and has stood on its own feet. Regrettably today for many complex reasons the wool industry is going through a period of depression. I use the word ‘depression’ advisedly and not in any sense of panic. I believe that the worst that can happen to the wool industry is that it be regarded as finished. I do not believe that it is finished. If certain steps are taken the Australian wool industry has a future. There has certainly to be an adaptation to the present economic situation.

The good old days have gone forever but I believe we can look to the future with confidence, despite the present situation. Today I will not discuss in a philosophical way the problems of the industry, marketing or anything of that nature. The second part of the amendment proposed by the Opposition suggests that most of the industry’s problems can be solved by the establishment of a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip.

I am not condemning any of the proposals put forward. 1 believe that we have to be flexible enough to meet changed circumstances, but it seems utterly stupid to believe that if we suddenly change the wool marketing system the world will pay more for our wool and our problems will be solved. I do not believe that. The problems of the wool industry are complex and mixed up with the financial and economic circumstances in other countries. They are mixed up wilh demand and I will speak very briefly on that aspect later. They are mixed up with so many factors that there is no one solution to the problems of the industry.

Certainly to suggest that all the industry’s problems would be solved by acquisition or some such scheme is, to say the least, naive and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the industry. This legislation is to operate for only 12 months and I sincerely trust that it will not be necessary to extend it. The Government has given the industry 12 months to put its house in order. 1 think it is most regrettable that the wool industry, in common with most primary industries, has never been able to agree upon anything. It is also naive to believe that the wool industry will agree upon a single factor. In the final resort the responsibility of leadership rests upon the Government. Finally the Government must make these decisions.

I support the principles of the Bill but, as I said earlier. I do so with regret. I wish to refer to only two or three matters in the Bill which cause me concern. As the Minister for Air (Senator Drake.Brockman), who is at the table, is aware, certain matters have been discussed between some honourable senators on this side of the chamber, himself and other Ministers concerned. The first such matter relates to clause 9 of the Bill which provides that deficiency payments, except in the case of a private sale, are to be channelled through brokers. 1 accept the fact that brokers have played a part in financing wool growers but I do not accept that brokers should have preference over other creditors.

The brokers are in business because it is a business. I do not accept that the brokers have always played the game. They are in it to get as much as they can out of it. I am in principle strongly opposed to their getting preferential treatment. Under the Bill they will have first claim upon the deficiency payment. It is immaterial whether we call it a deficiency payment or a subsidy, which it really is.

I realise that problems are inherent in the scheme. I realise that the Government had to find some means by which the payments could be made administratively without building up a huge bureaucracy to do it. I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of the draftsmen to provide in the Bill provisions that the deficiency payment or subsidy - call it what you like - should go to the wool producer. It is true that the broker who has lent money has a claim over the remainder of the wool cheque, but I do not think Chat the Bill should give a benefit to the broker. 1 believe that the other creditors - the unsecured creditors, including the small shop keeper and other people in country towns - have some rights in this matter.

My legal friends, including Senator Durack, have raised the subject of bankruptcy. The secured creditor - in this case, the broker - would have first claim and the unsecured creditors would get nothing. I view this matter with great concern. There was a period during which some of us on this side were considering moving an amendment. We have had long discussions. I ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that the deficiency payment will go to the grower. That would be in line with what I know to be the Government’s wish. I ask the Minister whether he can give some assurance that the brokers will accept this principle in the great majority of cases. There may be some cases in which the wool growers have not played the game. They are separate cases. 1 seek from the Minister an assurance that in the great majority of cases the brokers will accept in principle that the deficiency payment should go to the grower, which is the wish of the Government, and that he will make a decision as to which of his creditors will receive at least some of the deficiency payment. The brokers are entitled to some of it, but I do not accept the view that they are entitled to preferential treatment.

The performance of the brokers will be watched by some of us. If we find that the wish of the Government is not being carried out the matter will be raised again in this chamber. If unfortunately - I sincerely hope this will not be necessary - the provisions of the legislation should have to be extended for another 12 months we will reassess the situation. We may well take a view different to the one that we are prepared to take at the moment. I again ask the Minister whether he can give us some assurance that the brokers will accept the principle which I know is the principle which the Government wishes to be honoured.

The second point to which I wish to speak concerns private buying. I am inclined to take issue with Senator Prowse on this subject. I am not interested in the private buyer as a private buyer. I am interested in the wool grower who exercises his free choice and sells privately. Private selling is provided for in the Bill, and it has been an accepted practice for many years. Two committees established by the Australian Wool Board have examined private buying and its effect upon the market. The reports of those committees have indicated that it has no serious detrimental effect on the market. I fully acknowledge that figures can prove anything. One could produce figures to prove one’s case, but the fact remains that, in Western Australia particularly, about 25 per cent of wool growers make a free choice to sell privately. It is also a fact that the major buyers are those who are the biggest buyers on the floor. 1 have seen figures which I will not quote because again I acknowledge that figures can prove anything but which show clearly that in Western Australia the prices for the various grades of wool are as high if not higher than they are in other States. Historically Western Australia is the State in which there is the greatest proportion of private buying. We could argue about prices and about the manner in which they are determined, but the fact is that about 25 per cent of wool growers exercise a freedom of choice and sell privately. We have to remember that a large number of wool growers, because of their financial commit- ments, are forced to sell through brokers. I have a letter from a wool grower whom I know well and whose figures I would not dispute because, among other qualifications, he is a mathematician. His figures show that over a number of years he has made considerable financial gains by selling privately. He quoted his figures to me. I think that they should be quoted here so that we can get into some perspective the reason why wool growers sell privately.

He sold for 8 consecutive years by auction and for 4 consecutive years privately. He has calculated these figures: At auction his highest price was 50.7c per lb. By private sale his highest price was 56.3c per lb. The lowest price at auction was 47.15c per lb. By private sale it was 54.8c per lb. His average over 8 years at auction was 49.62c per lb. By private sale over 4 years it was 55.4c per lb. He averaged 11.65 per cent per lb more for the wool he sold privately. I have already said that figures can prove anything. I repeat that these figures were supplied by a man whom I know well - a mathematician - and 1 would be very much inclined to accept his figures. I suppose that in my district in Western Australia there is the biggest proportion of private selling in that State. I do know that those who sell privately claim that over a long period they gain. It matters not whether they gain or lose; it is their decision. They believe that they gain by selling privately.

This brings me to the point that the Bill, regardless of one’s opinion about private selling - I respect the people who believe that private selling is damaging; they have a point of view - apparently discriminates against those who sell privately. The opinion has been expressed by 2 committees that it is not damaging. This is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, 25 per cent to 30 per cent of growers in Australia sell privately. lt would appear that under this legislation these people are being discriminated against because the deficiency payment is calculated on the net price or the on-farm price, whereas the Commissioner of Taxation makes a judgment and the wool tax is calculated on the on-farm price plus - no doubt it is an arbitrary figure - a little over 3c per kilo. I do not argue that it should be 3c or 2c. But I do argue that there is a logic in the argument put forward by the growers. I am not interested in the buyers; I am interested in the growers who sell privately. They argue that because they have to accept the on-farm price there is a measure - I use the word measure’ advisedly - of discrimination against them. They argue that the grower who sells through the broker is being favoured because his deficiency payment is calculated on a price that includes all the handling charges.

Because the Government wants this Bill to be passed today, I resist the temptation to start quoting the handling charges, which are considerable. I believe that the Government could have given more attention to basing the deficiency payment on the net price rather than the gross price including all the handling charges, which may be based upon efficient or inefficient handling by the brokers. I regret to say that I do not accept the fact that the brokers handle-

Senator Maunsell:

– The further removed the grower is from the selling point, the greater are his transport costs.

Senator SIM:

– My friend, Senator Maunsell, who lives near Longreach which is far removed from Brisbane, suggests that his transport costs would be greater and that he could be penalised. I accept that as being an argument. There is no doubt that the private buyer makes some allowances for those charges. But I do not accept the fact-

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I do not follow you. You have already said that the on-farm price is better.

Senator SIM:

– Yes, it is better. But it is what the buyers feel they can pay. Various factors are involved, because they are buying on firm orders and they know the price at which they can deliver the wool to the eventual buyer. I think this has to be taken into account. There is no question in their minds that these are not firm orders which they have well ahead. Therefore, there are certain advantages in this method. Nevertheless, whilst I do not accept the view that the complete handling charge should be added. I think a system could be arrived at which would be less discriminatory than the present net price system.

I am not prepared to make an issue of this matter at the moment. But, if the legislation were to be reintroduced, some of lis might need to make a further examination of this matter and obtain further facts. It may be that we would take a different attitude from the one which we take now. Let me say, in putting these arguments, that a lot more research needs to be done on them. I raise the matter because 1 think it may be one which has not been properly researched. Perhaps more research is needed on my side. But I raise it because there are many wool growers - not wool buyers - who feel that they are being discriminated against and who are somewhat hostile at the moment. I do not go any further than that. I raise the issue and I make the points that I have made. I merely say that should this legislation have to be reintroduced - I sincerely hope that it will not and I do not believe that it will - I and others may have to take a serious look at this matter.

The final point I. wish to make is this: I believe that one of the great problems of wool today - perhaps the major problem - is that it is being outsold by artificial fibres. It seems extraordinary to me that in a country such as Australia one of the biggest retail stores in Perth - I can only go on what I was told by a wool grower - had only 5 pairs of woollen slacks the other day when he went to buy a pair. All the others were made of artificial fibres. It seems to me that either the stores are meeting a public demand or they find it more economical to sell artificial fibres. I believe that if an increase in the price of wool is to take place we have to create a greater demand for it throughout the world. 1 refuse to accept the argument that wool is overproduced. I do not believe it is overproduced. There may be certain types of wool which are overproduced. I believe that we have to get down to the hard, cold facts of life and produce a type of wool which is required. I do not accept the fact that wool that is in demand and can meet the challenges is overproduced. I believe the problem is that wool is not in demand.

I will not be critical of the International Wool Secretariat in its promotion of wool. On some occasions that body has done a good job. But, if the demand for wool is falling as a proportion of the world fibre market, we have to question seriously whether we are keeping up to date with our promotion. I am told that artificial fibres are sold to the public under 50 or more trade names. Every couple of months or so a new super-duper fibre is promoted and we are told that this fibre far surpasses the previous one.

Senator Cant:

– It is the same fibre that was not super-duper the month before.

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– This is correct. This is promotion. This is selling to the public. It is something new, and the public is accepting this. There may be some slight difference in the finishing process or something of this sort, but in essence it is the same fibre. I have discussed this with people in this field and they agree with this: For too long we have been trying to sell wool as wool and as the best fibre in the world. But it is obvious that the pubic are not accepting that, because they are not buying wool. We have to try some new approach to the problem. The wool mark initially was a great success. But I question whether the wool mark is making any impact upon the buying public today. If we are lo sell wool and increase the demand for it, we have to adopt modern techniques in selling, follow the example of the artificial fibre manufacturers who have been most successful in selling their product and adopt some new name. Never mind about selling it as wool; we should sell it as something which attracts the public.

Recently, a cheap method of resin coating wool fibre was discovered. This was something new and important. How did we promote it? It has not been promoted very successfully. Perhaps we should promote it in an easy way. Somebody has suggested that, if we spelt ‘easy care’ not e-a-s-y c-a-r-e but with a little more sophistication, this might attract the public. But certainly I believe that if we are to sell wool to the public we have to adopt modern selling techniques. One of the greatest problems we have is that we are trying to sell wool to the world with outdated promotion. The only thing for us to do is to learn from those who are being more successful than we are in promoting a different fibre which I do not believe, and which I do not believe the public believes, is as good as wool. But they are certainly being successful.

Therefore, I make this point: We can change all our marketing systems and everything else but unless we get wool on people’s backs in the form of clothing we are not being successful and wool has no future. For wool to have a future, a demand must be created for it so that everyone in this Senate is wearing wool, our wives are wearing it, our children are wearing it and everybody in the street is wearing it. Until > we succeed in this objective, we can talk about acquisition and everything else which may make a difference of lc or 2c per lb but we will not be selling the wool that we are producing. 1 conclude my remarks by saying that I believe we need to adopt a new attack on world markets. We need to persuade the people by clever promotion to buy woollen goods. Until we do this, wool will not have the future that I believe it could have if these techniques were adopted. I support the Bill. I hope that the comments that I have made will be noted. Although I support this Bill this year, unless certain undertakings are forthcoming or unless the intentions of the Government are carried out by wool brokers, if this legislation needs to be renewed next year - and I hope that it will not - we should have another look at it then. I would wish to do more research on the question of private buying. If 1 believe after that research that the people who elect by free choice to sell privately are being discriminated against, I shall have something to say on a future occasion. I leave it on no higher basis than that.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson. That amendment reads:

At end of motion add: but the Senate is of the opinion that:

the one-year emergency grant moneys available under the Bill should be directed only to those bona fide wool producers, big or small, who are genuinely in need of emergency finance.

the emergency finance should be complimented by legislation to:

establish a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip, and

implement a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme to apply to those areas of wool production and marketing which are in urgent need of improvement and assistance.

We are dealing at this stage with what in the past has been one of the most important industries in Australia. To those who have had anything to do with rural industries, it is pretty devastating to go through the areas in which those industries are carried on these days, to see the conditions under which producers are attempting to operate and to look at what is occurring not only on the farms but also in the towns amongst the business people and the rural work force.

This is not the first measure that the Government has brought down in an effort to deal with the problems of this industry. The first such Bill that comes to mind is the Bill introduced approximately 12 months ago to authorise the setting up of the Australian Wool Commission. That Bill had for its purpose a minimum price scheme and a stability of prices. I say at once that the Australian Wool Commission has been a complete and utter failure in attempting to achieve the objectives for which it was created. The first point that I make is that over the period during which it has been producing wool Australia has never had a stockpile of wool here until the Australian Wool Commission was instituted. Now millions of bales of wool are in stockpile. The Australian taxpayer has paid for that wool.

I ask the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents here the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair): What will be the effect upon the price of wool when the Australian Wool Commission is forced into the position of having to place its surplus wool on the market in competition with the current wool clip? What will be the position then? How will the growers get on then, when now they are able to receive the benefit of a subsidised price without the competition of what must be termed inferior type wools? The wools that are being bought and stockpiled by the Commission are wools that do not reach the reserve or at least are wools that are not wanted by the industry at the time when they are offered at auction. What will be the effect when these millions of bales are fed onto the market? The effect will not be the same as it was in 1946 when the accumulation of the Joint Organisation scheme was being disposed of. The future prospects look dim and we must anticipate that support for the wool industry from the Australian taxpayer’s purse will need to be greater. I am not complaining at this stage about the support that is given to the wool industry but later on I will complain about the type of support that is being given to the industry. I repeat that, even though the Minister does not agree with me. in my opinion the Australian Wool Commission has been a complete and utter failure.

The second major proposition that came before this Parliament was a Bill for the reconstruction of the wool industry. This, too. has been a complete and utter failure. In less than 12 months it has failed. Every State is asking for more money under the scheme. It will be remembered that $100m was put aside for this reconstruction scheme. 1 know that during the Senate election campaign last year it was bandied around that the Commonwealth Government was providing $100,n for the reconstruction of the wool industry. But non-one on the Government side said that this $ 100rn was spread over 4 years. In fact, in Western Australia, where most of this propaganda was put forward, the assistance over 4 years amounts to $15m. Yet the story coming out all the lime in support of Government candidates during the Senate election pointed out how generous the Government was in giving $10Om

Senator Wilkinson:

– Three-quarters of it on loan.

Senator CANT:

– I say, frankly, that the people who were putting the story out were the greatest con men in Australia.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is wrong. The honourable senator knows that it is.

Senator CANT:

– It is not wrong. The Government conned the people into believing that $10Om would be provided. But it did not tell the people that that $100rr was being provided over 4 years. This scheme was rushed through just before the Senate election in the same way as the Bill establishing the Australian Wool Commission was rushed through earlier last year. The first sale following this action was held in Brisbane on the Monday before the Senate election. The price of wool increased by between 15 per cent and 20 per cent at that sale. A sale was held during that week in Sydney. The price of wool increased by between 10 per cent and 15 per cent there. That has never happened since. This was a gimmick by the brokers because they knew where their friends were. When you look at the Bill before the Senate, today who are seen to be their friends? Who is to benefit most from this unlimited amount of money? The Senate is being asked today to pass an open-ended contract. The Bill will be passed because the Government has the numbers on its side. It is like the Bill relating to the Austraiian Wool Commission, which was another open-handed contract; no-one knows what the Commission will cost. If wool prices continue to fall as they have done, despite the efforts of the Australian Wool Commission the amount required for this subsidy could be substantially in excess of $10Om. Only $60m was put aside in this year’s Budget for this subsidy and that completely ignores the fact that $100m will not cover payment of a subsidy to make the price of wool up to 36c a lb in the context of wool prices today.

I saw a heading in a newspaper recently which said that New South Wales has only $4.5m left out of its share of about $35m of the $100m allocated under the rural reconstruction scheme. New South Wales has only $4. 5m left for its reconstruction programme for the next 3) years. The Minister for Air. when replying, may commit the Government to another $100m or $200m if he likes but the legislation provides for $10Om. New South Wales has only $4. 5m left and is to get no more for another 3 years. The Minister may say that that is rubbish if he wants to but he will have to point out to me the legislation under which more money will be provided.

Senator Maunsell:

– It came in this Budget.

Senator CANT:

– It will not be dealt with in this Budget because the brokers will get this money. How many wool growers will get assistance?

Senator Maunsell:

– A sum of S40m was allocated in this Budget out of the $100m to be provided when normally it would have been $20m.

Senator CANT:

– That is only getting rid of the $10Om a little more quickly. The purpose of this Bill is to subsidise prices.

Big pastoralists in the industry fought for many years against subsidies. I do not know whether they thought they could get out of their difficulties in time or whether they acted snobbishly and would not lower themselves to take a subsidy. Whatever the reason was, today they realise their mistake and that they have to take some sort of subsidy or assistance. Again I say that the assistance will not go to the people who need it most, that is, the small and large growers who are in financial difficulties. We must remember that the rural debt is over $2, 000m and quite a substantial amount of that sum is owed by wool growers. Those who have financed wool growers and have liens on their wool become the owners of the wool and will get the subsidy that is paid.

How much of this subsidy will go to the real producers. How much of it will be disbursed in country towns amongst country business people who keep shops for the convenience of the farmers in the surrounding area? How much of it will go into the pockets of the producers to help maintain the rural work force? The Minister must provide these answers if he is to satisy the Australian nation that the Government, through this legislation, is doing anything to assist the actual producers. It is of no good for the Government to say that it has instituted a subsidisation scheme or a wool deficiency payments scheme to assist the industry. It is not the industry that the Government is assisting; the great bulk of the money that will flow out of this subsidisation scheme will so. as it usually does, into the hands of the middle nien who rake off the profits but produce nothing. Those are the people who will get the most out of this scheme. 1 warn the Government that it should have a very close look at the operation of this legislation. 1 am pleased that it is to operate for only J 2 months. This will give the Government the opportunity to examine and explore the mistakes that it is making by introducing this legislation. I am nol saving for one minute that the wool growers should not get some sort of subsidy: 1 am saying that the subsidy should be on the basis of need and on no other basis. A few months ago I heard the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony). make the clear and unambiguous statement on television in Perth that subsidy schemes inevitably assisted those who least needed the assistance. The Minister was prepared to say that in the public forum and that is the sort of thing that should be looked at. If the Government intends to reproduce this sort of scheme next year without trying to cure some of the anomalies the Australian Labor Party will not let the legislation go unopposed; it will have to oppose it. It is not fair and it is not right that the Government should have an open-ended avenue into the Treasury to assist people who do not need assistance, to assist people who will not put anything into the country areas but who put the money into the cities or the pockets of overseas investors. That is money which will not be retained in the country areas; it will not even be retained within Australia. The Government will have to have a really good look at this scheme if it wants the Australian Labor Party to assist it in the future.

What is the real trouble with the wool industry today? Is it not that prices are low, costs are high and that there is a lack of markets? We must accept the fact that these are the 3 basic issues that confound the industry today. There are side issues also. I agree with Senator Sim when he says that it is almost impossible to buy pure wool. My wife has been trying to buy pure knitting wool in Perth over the past few months and it is impossible to buy a skein of it. You can buy plenty of other types of wool but not pure wool. When you can buy it you have to pay 50c for an ounce skein yet the grower is being paid only from 30c to 35c a lb for wool. So we should be looking at markets.

Only recently I learned that never at any time have we had a trade post in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We do not have one today and we will not have one this year, but sometime in the new year one will be set up in that country. The USSR is the country with the type of population and climate that would welcome wool. Synthetics are not much good in the really cold countries. What attempts has Australia made to sell wool in China? Much of China is in a pretty cold zone. The Australian Wheat Board has made deals with that country to sell wheat even though over the years Australia has not recognised it. Australia has recognised it for the purpose of trade but what are we doing with regard to wool?

When I was in my room I heard Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson introducing Bills to provide for loans from the American people for the purchase from America of equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd and defence equipment. When one borrows from America it is a condition of the loan that one purchases the goods concerned in America. What real promotion has been made in the United States? What real pressure is being put on the United States to reduce the 25c tariff barrier against the entry of Australian wool into the United States? The answer is absolutely none. We regard America as big brother and we should not offend America by bringing pressure to bear on it. We will borrow from it and trade wilh it in every other way but we will not attempt to find a market in America for our goods. I say that the Government has been lax in its marketing campaigns with respect to wool.

I turn now to the matter of costs. What has the Government really done in an endeavour to reduce the costs in industry? Every time we pick up a paper we find that there has been an application by some shipping company to increase freight rates. What action does the Government take, It leaves this matter to the committee which was set up to look at overseas freight rates. What do the shipping companies care about Australian industries? Why is not the matter of freight rates looked at on a Government level? Why does not the Government step in and tell these people that if they are not prepared to carry our wool and other products at reasonable rates will set up our own overseas shipping line and carry our own products? We might as well do that even if it means subsidising an Australian shipping line. At the present time we are subsidising overseas shipping lines. 1 do not think that there is any answer to this problem except to tell the shipowners that we are not prepared to allow them to carry our products unless they charge reasonable and rational freight rates. - What is being done internally to reduce costs? We see in the papers that States are constantly increasing freight rates on rail traffic. I know that in Western Australia one can cart a ton of iron ore from Koolyanobbin to Perth for S3 a ton but if one attempts to cart a ton of wool to Perth over the same distance it will cost SI 6.30 a ton. What does the Government intend to do about this sort of thing? Does it intend to assist the State railway services to operate so that they can charge lower freight rates? The Western Australian Government is subsidising freight rates on all woOl transported from south of Narrogin to the Albany wool sales in order to keep those wool sales open and a decentralised industry operating. But what is the Commonwealth Government doing about this sort of thing? It is doing nothing at all. The Government is doing nothing to try to reduce the overall cost structure of the industry. When one looks at the various methods which have to be used to handle a bale of wool, insure it, and give it fire protection, the cost of all those things which go with it is approximately $40 a bale. At the present time the growers are not receiving anywhere near double that amount for their wool. Before the grower receives anything, $40 has to come out of the price. These are the costs which the growers must pay.

What is the Government doing in an endeavour to reduce those costs? I do not believe that it is doing very much. It brings down these 3 hotch-potch methods about which I have spoken to try to tell the people that it is doing something to assist the industry. In fact, by these measures the Government is only prolonging the agony. I want to emphasise that this Bill will give assistance to those who are not on the production side of the industry - to what may be termed the middlemen, the brokers, the bankers, the stock firms and the finance companies. These organisations will not receive the $100m which will be provided under this Bill - or even more because it is an openended Bill - but they will receive the great bulk of this amount. This scheme is like the Fill contract. We do not know what it is going to cost. We do not know how far the price of wool might fall on the auction market this year. But whatever it falls to, the Government will be committed by this scheme to bring the price to 36c for eligible wool. Some wools are not eligible for this payment. I do not have time to go into that matter but I think that the switch which was made in the types of wool that are ineligible was not to the advantage of the industry.

The Acting Prime Minister has run around the country talking about supply management. But at no time has he attempted to define what he means by supply management. To me supply management can mean only one thing and that is management of the supply of the commodity. What are we doing to see that the types of wool which are saleable are put on the market? In fact what are we doing to see [hat the goods we are putting on the market are in a marketable form? This is not the first time that 1 have criticised the system of the presentation of the Australian wool clip. I criticised it in 1960 and I have criticised it every time a wool Bill has been before this Parliament. We do not present the wool in a manner which is attractive to the buyer. I hope that the system of core testing and objective measurement will be adopted. That will be one way of reducing costs because it will reduce a lot of the handling costs. The Government should be vigorously getting into this campaign. I do not want to delay the Senate but I do say that the measures that are forecast in the amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson has been supported at some time or other - but not in this place - by members of the Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party. When one talks to these members they agree that one of the possible solutions for the wool industry is a total acquisition scheme. But when such a suggestion is made in this chamber in the form of an Opposition amendment is there support for it?

Senator Maunsell:

– The Opposition does not have a scheme, just a suggestion.

Senator CANT:

– I do not want to get angry, this is not the type of Bill about which I would want to get angry. I think the honourable senator should understand that we are not here to spell out the details of a scheme. Give us the operation of government, give us the opportunity to institute a scheme and we will spell out the details of it. We did it during the First World War. Perhaps the honourable senator is not old enough to remember that. We did it also during the Second World War. Do not forget that when we disposed of the bulk of the wool at the end of the Second World War, even though every grower had been paid for his wool at a price satisfactory to himself, we made a profit of ,£90m and we handed that, too, to the grower. Do not say that a scheme cannot be spelt out. We say that there should be an acquisition scheme. Give us the opportunity and we will institute a scheme which will be satisfactory to the growers.

Do any of the senators on the Government side seriously contest the proposition that if a subsidy is paid it should not be paid on the basis of need? I know that Government senators will show their support for this measure when we take a vote on it, but do they support in their own minds a scheme that gives very little to the producer? It may relieve him of some debt; it may relieve him only of the interest on some debt, but what will it put into his pocket? What bread and butter will it put on the table for his wife and children unless it is determined on the basis of need?

Sentaor Lawrie - You blokes are against a means test.

Senator CANT:

– I think you are displaying as much foolishness as your colleague from Queensland displayed a little while ago. It would be wise if you did not allow me to have a real shot at you. The third proposition that the Australian Labor Party puts up is to provide a reconstruction scheme. We do so because of its importance. Our proposal is as follows: implement a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme to apply to those areas of wool production and marketing which are in urgent need of improvement and assistance.

Will not any honourable senator opposite support such a scheme? I know that when a vote is taken they will not support it, but do they not support privately in their own minds the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the wool industry? If they do not then they have little concern for one of the major industries of Australia.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– We are dealing today with what is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to come under the consideration of this chamber. It deals with Australia’s greatest industry, the wool industry which over the years has contributed greatly to the progress and welfare of this nation. In fact, as I have mentioned here before, this industry has brought into this country an amount of $25.O00m since the war by way of foreign exchange. Over the last 2 or 3 years the wool industry has faced difficulties in disposing of its product at a reasonable price. This has been brought about by a number of factors, one of which has been the problems in the synthetic industry. The price war that has been carried on in that industry has affected the sale of wool. Accordingly, there is a need for a complete reorganisation and rethinking about how we should market and control our industry.

There is also a need to see to the problems of people who are involved in this industry - not only the producers but also those who work on properties associated with the industry, in the marketing of wool and so forth, who could number some or.e million Australians. We have to see also to the problems of many country towns that are completely dependent on the wool industry for their survival. It is necessary that we give them breathing space. Because all these people are involved in an industry that has been responsible for so much of the wealth and progress of this nation there is a responsibility on the nation to do something for them in these times. Therefore we welcome this legislation, particularly at the present time when wool prices have reached an all time low and having regard to the value of our dollar. In recent months the world monetary crisis has been responsible for creating an even worse position in the wool industry. Therefore this legislation has come at the right time.

I do not intend to go into all of the ramifications of this matter because time will not permit me to do so, but there are 2 or 3 things which I would like to mention because I think it is necessary to do so. The first matter is that the grower organisations over recent months seem to have been lulled into either a false sense of security or one of stunned silence. It is completely necessary that the grower organisations get together and work out long before the next Budget is brought down some sort of marketing arrangement which is acceptable to the industry and which is practicable to implement. I stress that it must be done urgently. It is no good waiting until after the next Budget is brought down in the hope that the taxpayers of this country will get them out of trouble because it may be that assistance will not be forthcoming. I urge the grower organisations to get together to endeavour to come up with some sort of marketing system. In this modern day and age the wool industry must have a marketing system which is completely controlled and not be in the position in which it finds itself at the moment.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Does that not cut across your private enterprise idea?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– It does not cut across my ideas, the ideas of the Australian Wheat Board or the ideas of Australian sugar and a few other organisations which have successfully marketed our various products. After all, we have 105,000 wool growers in this country all of whom have different ideas and all of whom act as separate sellers. We are competing against the Du Pont organisation which has one man in control as managing director. The same situation applies to Courtaulds. In this modern day and age we cannot afford to have 105,000 sellers of the one product. Therefore whether it be a company managed in the same way as the Du Pont organisation or Courtaulds, or whether it be an organisation of wool growers, we must have some organisation that can speak with one voice. This is why we need a selling authority. We have advocated to our grower organisations the setting up of an acquisition scheme, and most of them support that proposition. In Queensland, I believe in New South Wales, and I understand even in Western Australia there has been great support for an acquisition scheme, but nobody seems to be able to agree on how this acquisition scheme should operate. All the different grower organisations are coming up with different ideas. We want then to get together and come up with a scheme which ;s acceptable to the growers and which can be implemented.

Senator Primmer:

– You will never get it.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– We will get it. We got agreement on this last scheme. When an industry gets into trouble it is amazing how people are drawn together. Such a scheme should have been implemented when the industry was profitable, but of course at that time agreement could not be reached. I feel that these organisations have to get together and do something about it.

Another matter which worries me - it was also referred to by Senator Sim - is the fact that some wool broking firms in this country are at present bent on the policy of getting out of the industry as fast as they can. 1 agree that the deficiency payments should be handled by suitable wool broking firms because it would be a very clumsy operation indeed if the amount of assistance each individual was to receive had to be worked out and then handed over to him personally. I also believe it is necessary for the deficiency payments to be handled by the brokers and bankers in order to maintain the confidence of that section of the wool industry which is providing financial assistance to the growers. There are lots of inefficient operators in the wool industry who have obtained finance from brokers and bankers. Tt would be completely wrong if the person or organisation who had a mortgage over the wool clip of those persons were not able to receive, in the form of a repayment of part of that mortgage some of the money which is handed to those growers under this scheme. We had the experience last year of some people using this money for other means instead of meeting their obligations to their bankers. Tt does not instil much confidence into the system if this sort of thing happens. I know it has happened with only a few people, but it has happened.

Most brokers will no doubt stand up to their obligations as they are interested in the future of the industry, but some will not. I know of one wool broking firm which has been the subject of a take-over bid. Its operations in Queensland at the moment leave a lot to be desired. There is no doubt that it is aiming to get out of the wool industry as quickly as possible, despite the fact that over many years, particularly during the wool boom of the 1950s, it was able to make quite large profits and has been able to operate very successfully in the wool industry. At a time when the industry needs it most it is trying to opt out.

I request the grower organisations in Queensland and elsewhere to bring to my attention any cases of undue pressure by wool broking firms, particularly in regard to the deficiency payments scheme. I realise that the contracts which may be drawn up in regard to wool sold at auction are none of my business, but it is the taxpayer’s money which is meeting these deficiency payments. I do believe that the people who arc owed money by the wool growers have at least some interest in this matter. I just draw this matter to the attention of the Minister. I hope that the Government will walch it. I understand that the Wool Selling Brokers Association has given an assurance that it will do the right thing, but I want to make quite sure that other organisations do the right thing, too. Because of the severe drought conditions which have existed for 10 years in Queensland some people who have been efficient and successful at other times have found themselves in a difficult position. No doubt they will be able to get themselves out of trouble within a reasonable period of time when good seasons come again. But these people are being unduly pressured at the moment.

I turn now to the proposal which has been put forward by the Australian Labor Party. Some crossfire has been going on between myself and Senator Cant and Senator Wilkinson on this matter. I oppose the first proposition put forward by the Australian Labor Party because, first of all, it involves the application of a means test. I would not like to be the person putting the claims through the drafting gate. We had a bitter experience in this regard last year. Anomalies will always occur. Another question is: Who is going to decide who is efficient and who is in need?

Senator Wilkinson:

– There is no difficulty with the need aspect; it is the blokes who do not have an income who want a hand.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– But how would one put them through the drafting gate? How does one decide who is needy and who is not? Will it be because of their financial set-up? The Opposition has not told us about that aspect. It has just said that if growers are in need assistance will be given. I presume that the people who are financially embarrassed will get it. But they could be quite inefficient in their operations. Another thing about which one always has to be concerned when one is handing out subsidies is whether one should subsidise those people who are growing wool in marginal areas. When the wool boom came along in 1950 lots of areas which would be considered rough cattle country were converted to sheep raising. As the prosperity of the wool industry has gradually gone down, these areas have been greatly affected. Some of them cannot produce wool for 30c or 40c per lb because of the nature of the country and the distance the wool has to be transported. I believe it would be wrong if, just because of the application of a means test, they were found to be in need and v/ere allowed to perpetuate the production of wool in marginal areas.

Senator Wilkinson:

– This proposal is for one year.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The honourable senator knows what happens to some things that go into a budget. They are not always applicable for one year. Sometimes they are applicable for a number of years, lt all depends on what are the requirements. If the position is bad this time next year the Government will have to have another look at the matter. The honourable senator knows as well as I do that it will again have to look at it. Senator Cant had a lot to say about the Australian Wool Commission, which he regarded as a disaster.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Don’t you?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I would like to know what prices the wool growers would be receiving now if the Wool Commission had not been operating in the last three or four months. 1 think wool prices would have been clown at least 30 per cent or 40 per cent on what they are now. Of course, the taxpayers of this nation would have had to foot the bill for the difference. At the moment wool is being held by the Wool Commission. The information I have is that world stocks of wool now are no greater than they were last year. The difference is that we are holding a lot of this stock in Australia. The Wool Commission is holding it at the moment instead of the manufacturers overseas buying it at completely reduced prices - at give-away prices for which the taxpayers of Australia would have had to foot the bill - and holding it. We know that the monetary situation overseas and the uncertainty about What is going on between, in particular, Japan and the United States has been responsible for the depreciation in the price of wool. But as this matter is gradually clarifying itself one can see that the wool market is moving towards the benefit of the seller. It is quite obvious that with more stability in the monetary set-up there will be an improvement in wool prices, which will more than justify the Wool Commission buying in. Senator Cant was completely wrong when he said that only inferior types of wool have been purchased by the Commission. I think most people appreciate that the better types of wool are being bought by the Commission.

Senator Wilkinson:

– That is what he said.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– No, he did not.

He said only the inferior types - the ones that could not be sold - were being bought by the Commission. He said that the Commission would dump inferior types of wool on the market in the future and thereby further depress the market. Senator Cant set out to rubbish the Government. He complained about the Commonwealth Government not doing anything about transport in Western Australia. He said that iron ore can be transported on a certain railway line for a certain price but that the price of transporting wool is terrific. I have always thought that the railway system in Western Australia is owned by the State Government and I was under the impression that the present State Government is a Labor government. I suggest that Senator Cant direct his attention to his own brand of government in Western Australia in an attempt to see that the transport costs of wool growers in that State are reduced.

Senator Wilkinson:

– That was arranged by the Liberal Government.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The Labor Government has had plenty of time in which to do something about the situation in Western Australia. Although Senator Cant complains to the Federal Government about transport costs, there is no doubt that his complaint should be directed to his own State Government. The Federal Government does not control transport costs in Western Australia.

I have explained already, in relation to part (2) of the amendment, that we have been advocating an acquisition scheme for wool for some time. I have been doing so in this place for at least 12 months, and probably for longer than that. As I have mentioned before, all we want is a scheme that is acceptable. So, in part (2) (a) of the amendment the Opposition is merely following our suggestion. Pan (2) (b) proposes the implementation of a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme. Are honourable senators opposite not aware of what is going on in the States today? Do they not know of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States with regard to rehabilitation, reconstruction and farm build-up? Legislation has been implemented over the past 2 or 3 years in this place and in the States with respect to these matters and these things have been happening. Obviously Western Australian senators opposite, who seem to bc the Opposition’s main spokesmen on the Bill, are not aware of what is being done in this regard. As our time is limited, 1 state merely that 1 support the Bill and that 1 congratulate the Government on bringing it in. 1 add that if it had not been for this measure at this time 1 would hate lo think what would have happened to the Australian wool industry.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I support the legislation for what it is, as 1 see it - a useful but limited emergency financial measure. In that context 1 support it, although 1 see in it some disabilities. I hope that those financial houses which in the past have dealt with and, indeed, walked side by side with the farming communities will show the same degree of moderation and understanding as they have shown in the past. I see no need for a means test in applying the scheme. Indeed, strangely enough, I see in this measure a similarity with the reported future policies of the Australian Labor Party on housing. I understand from the Press that the Labor Party envisages a 2 per cent interest subsidy extending over a period to some $4,800. That 2 per cent, of course, would be paid to the same kind of lending institutions. which apparently are not wicked when they arc lending for houses but are wicked when they are lending for rural communities. I see no dissimilarity in the type of approach. 1 stress that I do not see this scheme as any kind of solution. It poses a number of difficulties. Is it to be a single year programme or is it to go further? I hope that it is not intended to be in perpetuity because this kind of perpetual subsidy can be an aggravation and not a solution. It can be only an emergency part of a whole scheme which envisages massive rural reconstruction, assistance for the amalgamation of holdings, assistance for diversification and market forecasting and assistance for financial restructuring. If in the phasing out period it becomes necessary finally lo dispose of some totally uneconomic holdings, I can only plead that that be done with the greatest humanity that is possible, bearing in mind the enormous stresses and enormous sentiments that will be involved in human beings who were born on the land, who are attached to the land and who, indeed, have given a great deal to this country.

Because i have heard from the Opposition a continuous question: ‘What is your solution?’, and because what is in the amendment - which I reject - is apparently the Opposition’s solution, let me say that I believe that we have always tended to look at rural problems through the wrong end of the political telescope. By that I mean that for some reason we here, as was done in America over the decades, have sought to find a solution in marketing when in fact the solution has been at the other end - costs. Until both s.ides of ihe Senate and the Australian people recognise that a product cannot be viable in perpetuity unless it is by nature, quality and presentation what is required and is made available at a cost at which people are willing to purchase it, any kind of propping up by subsidies can be only a palliative in the short term. But since the whole pressure of the Opposition’s amendment has been: Righto, what are you going to do?’, let me say: ‘Righto, what are we going to do?’

I want to put it fair and square: The problem of solving the farmer’s dilemma on the farm is not the problem of the farmer and it is not the problem of the Government; it is the problem of every Australian, and notably the problem of those who have a large interest in secondary or manufacturing industry and commerce in which are contained those ingredients which provide costs. I put it fairly lo both sides of the Senate that between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of all rural costs are incurred off the farm. They are incurred in our electorates. They are incurred in the factories and in the shops, and particularly on the roads and the rails. They are incurred by those who are employed in secondary industry.

Here is an interesting paradox: The many hundreds of thousands of good Australians - good trade unionists - who are in secondary industry and who think they are not in any way attached, by way of responsibility, to rural industry must come to understand that, unless rural industry is viable and unless it can earn the export earnings that represent 50 per cent of our export income today, their jobs will not exist. Their jobs exist because they can be serviced by the money that we earn overseas. That, primarily, is the factor that we must keep in mind. If we did not have the export earnings we would have a deficit on our balance of payments and not, in fact, a surplus. So the real issue is costs, and that issue is for all Australians. Unless we get costs down and unless we can sell our product - be it meat, wool, oil seeds or whatever - at a price at which it can be purchased overseas, the standard of living of all Australians will shrink. So, no amount of marketing or presentation will solve the problem of the wool grower, unless we tackle costs.

I plead, as I have done once before in this chamber, that the Parliament consider as a first step a national inquiry into freights of all kinds - shipping, road and rail - because freights on all commodities represent between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of all costs. Freights are incurred off the farm. I know that there is a tendency for the Labor Party to say that the policies which it has enunciated do not affect farms. Only recently in a television debate with a Labor personality I mentioned this factor and he said: ‘You have it wrong; the 35-hour week advocacy of the Labor Party would not affect the farms because it would not apply to farm workers’. I say that, because it applies to people who work in the freight industry - the transport industry - and because it applies to people who make the ploughs and the harvesters and who do all the servicing work, the 35- hour week as advocated would in fact add a 10 per cent factor to all costs on the farm. That policy in industry would have a profound impact on the farmers. As the first test 1 would like to see recognition that the production of wool in respect of labour costs is no different from the production of chewing gum, butter or eggs. There is no speciality. It carries within it the costs of labour and they represent on farms between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of production costs.

I would like to see a national freight inquiry and an inquiry into the whole of the wool industry to see whether the number of handling steps could be rationalised. 1 believe that handling charges represent too big a proportion of costs. The rural committee of my Party has advocated the establishment of a rural industries board to look at the problems in the way that a Tariff Board works. My time is very limited. I repeat that we are dealing with an emergency and this legislation can do no more than take the sharp edge off the immediate plight of the industry. It is not enough to look simply at marketing, at stabilisation or acquisition, at core testing or some such proposal. All these things represent only a fraction of the problem. If members of the Labor Party are sincere in asking what can be done for the wool industry, a start could be made by recognising that throughout Australia in everything we do we should look for ways to increase productivity.

I sound a warning to those people who feel complacent that we have over the years found as a partial substitute for our rural product exports the export of minerals. The assumption should not be that in the next two or three decades that position will continue. Other developments could well occur, apart from the human factor involved. My final comment is that the real solution lies in costs and it lies with us all.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I had not intended to speak in this debate, but having listened to some of the speakers I feel that in the interests of the country people of New South Wales I have a responsibility to voice in the Australian Parliament their situation as I see it. Senator Wilkinson, who has led for the Opposition in this debate, has already mentioned that this Bill is extremely complicated. Having read the second reading speech of the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), I find it difficult to comprehend how the administration of this legislation will be effected. It is rather ironical that such a complicated Bill will have to be studied and comprehended by the ordinary farmer in the community.

Members of the Australian Country Party have queried the proposed administration of the very effective amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. I very much (feel that a Bill of this nature is affording much more protection to brokers than to growers. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that deficiency payments must go to the mortgagee or to the holder of a bill of sale over the wool involved.

The great bulk of the money that will be made available under this legislation will become a book entry - and that is all it will be - against growers’ mortgages. Because we do not believe that growers will be the final beneficiaries under this type of legislation we have moved that the 1-year emergency grants should be directed only to bona fide growers who are genuinely in need of emergency finance. For Country Party members to ask in the Senate how we of the Labor movement are to determine who is in need of emergency finance when today thousands of New South Wales farmers, especially in the western district, are literally walking off their properties, indicates to me the hopelessness of thought amongst those Country Party members.

I agree with Senator Carrick about the need for a national inquiry into freight charges in this country. Only last week the New South Wales Minister for Transport referred to freight charges in the New South Wales Parliament. He also had something to say about the administration of the Australian Wool Board, and about the Australian Wool Commission and the Federal Government. Perhaps the matters he raised warrant investigation as well as freight charges. If Senator Carrick is prepared to move that an inquiry into freight charges should be established, covering rail, shipping and all other forms of transport, I dare say that he would receive the support of the Opposition. If we were to move that there should be an inquiry into excessive interest charges inposed upon farmers by banks, oil companies and hire purchase companies, I hope that Senator Carrick would support us. The excessive and exorbitant interest rates imposed on a short term basis upon Australian farmers today arc virtually putting them out of business.

It is rather ironical that the large oil companies, hire purchase companies and banks are erecting large multi-storey complexes in the coastal cities as they have been fleecing the farmers to the point where they are literally having to walk off their properties. More than 1 million Australians depend for their existence on the wool industry. The majority of them are living in very depressed circumstances and a great number of them are unemployed as a result of the Government’s policy. On their behalf we express our very strong criticism of the Government for its failure to grasp the nettle and to face up to the realities of the situation.

Four years ago the outstanding debt of the wool industry was about $980m, which represented about 1) times the net farm income. The outstanding debt of the wool industry today is estimated at $ 1.200m, which represents about 4 times the net farm income. Despite the wool aid emergency scheme about which we heard so much 2 years ago, despite the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission about which we heard so much 12 months ago, just before the last Senate election, and despite the introduction of legislation of the type we are debating today, the simple fact is that the wool growers of this country are in a parlous situation.

Senator Wright:

– When you referred to $ 1,200m and 4 times the farm income, did you mean the wool income?

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDThe wool industry indebtedness is $ 1,200m.

Senator Wright:

– What is the farm income? One quarter of $ 1,200m is $300m.

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDThose figures were issued by the Department of Primary Industry in July or August of this year. The simple fact is that despite the Government’s policies and the temporary measures that have been introduced, our wool growers today are in a parlous situation. Legislation of this nature, because the Government is failing to grasp the nettle, is simply putting off the evil day. In addition, the capital value of properities has depreciated substantially. If a person wants to leave his property, which has a market value of $40,000 or $50,000, he is lucky to get $12,000 or $15,000 for it. Yet the production estimate for 1970-71 was about 2,000,000 lb, which was the second highest on record. Today wool prices are depressed and the lowest ever in the history of the industry. There is increased production, yet there appears to be a fear on the part of the Government and apparently also on the part of the leaders of the industry that if wool is pushed too much on world markets it might come up against increased competition from man made fibres. They fear thai the world wool textile industries might turn to synthetics.

What is the future of the wool industry under this Government, having regard to the failure of the Government in its 22 years of office to produce a constructive policy? As Senator Wilkinson said last night, only this week the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) who, in addition is the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Lender of the Country Party, when addressing a National Press Club luncheon in Canberra, said that he thought that time was running out for the industry and that the industry, not the Government, had to find solutions lo the present problems. He said that ‘if at the end of 12 months we have a situation where stockpiles have built up to I million bales or more’ - that is in the hands of the Wool Commission - ‘then the industry cannot expect that sort of situation to go on continuously without making some adjustments’. He added that ‘if the adjustments meant trying to restrain the supply of wool to the market then that is what they must look at1. He has told the industry that what will happen at the end of 12 months is that if a stockpile of 1 million bales has built up it will be ‘get bigger or get out’ for the wool industry, as it has been for the dairying industry.

What is the significance of that comment when compared with the provisions of the Bill? I suggest that the 12-month period is very ominous for wool growers, because this legislation will run for a period of 12 months only. I ask the Minister for Air to state categorically, so that wool growers, particularly those in the western districts of New South Wales, will know, the future of the industry at the end of the next 12 months. The farmers are wanting to know what the future holds for them. Throughout New South Wales rural survival committees have been and are being established. These survival committees, as members of the Country Party probably know, are gathering very great momentum. For instance, last July at Ivanhoe in New South Wales a resolution was carried- by the Ivanhoe Woolgrowers Survival Committee that the members of that Committee are not prepared to tolerate any longer the incredible reluctance of the Federal Government - to quote the words in the resolution - to intervene and protect both the wool growers of Australia and the economy of the nation from exploitation by the representatives of the wool textile industries and the speculators trading on the Australian wool industry.

It is all very well for the members of the Country Party who have spoken in the debate to suggest, as apparently the Acting Prime Minister suggested, that it is up to the industry leaders to get around a table, to stop arguing and bickering among themselves and to work out some kind of sensible and practical marketing arrangement and that this should be done urgently. If the industry leaders cannot agree among themselves and if the matter is urgent, the Government has the responsibility to take immediate and urgent action not only on the part of wool growers but also on the part of Australians generally. Senator Carrick said that the workers would be affected if the industry did not get itself into a state of solvency. The simple fact is that the coalition Government - a coalition of the Liberal Party and the Country Party - because of the divergent policies of its partners is not in a position to take action because one partner represents the Country Party and the other partner represents the Liberals or business interests.

On 10th August last, a week before the Parliament resumed sitting, the Liberal member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) sent a telegram to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), a copy of which was published on the front page of the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ on the same day. The telegram stated:

Any attempt by the Government to interfere wilh the free and open wool marketing auction system could bring about the disintegration of the Liberal Party and the downfall of the Government.

On the same night on ‘This Day Tonight’, on the national television network, the honourable member said: ‘We have licked them before and we will lick them again’. As Senator Wilkinson pointed out, when SO per cent of Australia’s wool is sold before it gets to the auction floor one can see that the brokers and the wool buyers have very large and vested interests in this type of legislation. That is probably why they seem to be receiving first preference over the wool growers. The present price level is such that it is impossible for any man to continue to exist.

As recently as 14th May of this year the Acting Prime Minister said: ‘The industry’s fundamental problem is that of price’. I mention that merely to indicate that while Senator Carrick thinks it is one of cost the Acting Prime Minister says that the industry’s fundamental problem is that of price. The Minister continued:

Because of the extraordinary seriousness of the situation, Ihe industry must shake off some of its old ideas.

It will have to consider new and possibly unorthodox methods to achieve a better return for its wool.

If the industry goes into another season with the national average price running at around current levels the result will be disaster for many in the industry, and a further undermining of the confidence of the industry’s creditors.

The present price level, if it continues, will make debt repayment most difficult and inhibit the immediate effectiveness of the new debt reconstruction proposals as a means for providing financial relief to those wool growers in most need of assistance.

Accordingly, time is running out for the industry to concert its thinking on some positive approach to the price problem. lt cannot live indefinitely on the hope of higher prices being achieved through existing market forces.

Just as the Acting Prime Minister has said that time is running out for the industry, so I suggest to the Government that if in the very near future it does not come forward with a practical and constructive policy time will have run out for it.

Not only members of the Labor movement are critical of the present Government for its lack of constructive policies in regard to the wool industry and many other facets of the rural life of this country. The New South Wales Minister for Lands has been very critical of the Federal Government’s rural reconstruction scheme. He has said over and over again that if additional assistance is not forthcoming thousands of farmers will have to leave their properties and unemployment will become more acute in the country areas of that State. The New South Wales Minister for Transport, the Liberal member for Maitland in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly said in that chamber only last week that he had to be critical of the Federal Government and the Australian Wool Board for passing the buck on to the State governments. The wool industry is in the state in which it is today only because the Government refuses to take action and because it is frightened to move one way or another in case it offends one section of the industry. We have today a situation in which the growers expect the Federal Government to take action. The Federal Government expects the industry leaders to take the initiative. Yet, at >he same time the Federal Government admits that the leaders of the industry cannot reach unanimity of opinion. If the leaders of the industry cannot reach unanimity of opinion it is the responsibility of the Government, on behalf of the growers and the Australian people, to take the initiative. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. Frankly, it is merely of an interim nature. We believe that only by putting into effect the provisions of the amendment proposed by Senator Wilkinson on behalf of the Opposition will some effective, constructive action be taken to ameliorate the very severe conditions being complained of and being suffered by those engaged in the wool industry of Australia, particularly those for whom I speak in New South Wales.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

Senator Douglas McClelland, who has just resumed his scat, made a number of charges against the Government, one of which was about a lack of money for the New South Wales rural reconstruction programme. The honourable senator knows as well as I do that the Minister who is in charge of that programme in New South Wales has available to him approximately $18m to spend in the forthcoming year. If he has spent that money, let him say so. But he has not said it. A good deal of what the honourable senator said could be dealt with along similar lines.

J thank the Senate for its consideration of the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill 1971, and particularly those honourable senators who contributed to the debate. We have had a very lengthy debate on this legislation, commencing last night and continuing all this afternoon. Most honourable senators have indicated during their speeches their very deep concern for the present situation within the rural industries. It is true that the rural industries are going through a very trying time. I believe that a good deal of the situation can bc attributed to the prices received by the producers for their goods. This legislation is of the utmost importance to everyone in the Australian community. Not only are 1 million people directly concerned with the production of primary industry, but another 2 million people arc concerned with the prosperity of the rural industries.

The scheme before the Senate is the result of a decision taken by the Government to supplement market returns on wool for a period of 1 year. The Government has taken this decision to enable the wool industry to make adjustments with the minimum of economic delay and without social disruption. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that the returns to growers during the 1971-72 season are at least equivalent to 36c per lb over the whole of the clip. The Government proposes to implement the scheme through a wool deficiency payment, the operations of which Senator Wilkinson claims the growers will never bc able to understand. I admit that the scheme is pretty involved. I was hoping that this afternoon 1 could take honourable senators through the scheme in a very much more abbreviated form than that contained in the second reading speech. But I have been informed since the honourable senator spoke that the Commonwealth is preparing a simple explanatory brochure so that growers will be able to understand the scheme. Even if the growers were not able to understand the full operation of the scheme, I believe that all they need is a knowledge of the deficiency percentage, which will be publicised widely in the Press.

I now return to responding to honourable senators who have spoken in the debate. I make the point that the Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, which is in 2 parts. The first part suggests that a means test should be imposed. I would have thought that the experience gained last year, when an assistance scheme involving up to $30m was introduced by the Government in the form of wool emergency grants, would have shown what a means lest can do. Honourable senators will recall that in last year’s legislation a limit was placed on the amount of grant that each grower could obtain. The limit was $1:500. To avoid giving a grant to wealthy farmers or wealthy producers, as the Opposition likes to call them, the legislation stated that at least half of the applicant’s income must be received from wool if he was to obtain the full grant. Smaller grants could be obtained down to 33 1/3 per cent of the income derived from wool. A further limiting factor was then imposed on this grant. It was stated that a grower applying for it must have had a fall in income of at least 8 per cent compared to the previous year’s income.

We ail know the history of that scheme. Many people received assistance. Many people who perhaps did not need assistance received it. But the more alarming situation was that many applicants who were worthy of assistance were not able to obtain it because of the means test imposed by that legislation. I believe that we could run into the same situation again. Surely the larger grower needs assistance more than the smaller grower in certain cases, particularly where the smaller grower is more of a mixed farmer and receives income from beef and other production. In any event, the deficiency payment will be subject to income tax. Those persons with the largest surplus of income over expenses will have to pay the most tax. Surely that is a limiting factor in this situation.

Senator Wilkinson:

– This tax revenue will not bc distributed. It will come back into Consolidated Revenue, will it not?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– This assistance is being given to all those who are genuine wool producers. The second part of the amendment refers to the establishment of a single marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire clip. This is something with which I agree personally. In my first speech in the Senate in 1958 I suggested the same thing because I came from Western Australia as the former president of the wool section. This had been the policy of the wool section in Western Australia for as long as 1 can remember. This policy goes to the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation where it becomes the policy of that body. But the other side of the federal body has not expressed its policy in regard to the acquisition of the clip as a whole.

Admittedly many people in New South Wales and Victoria who are associated with the Graziers Association would like acquisition. But the whole point is that this is a short term measure. Senator Wilkinson talks about the establishment of a single selling authority which surely is a long term measure. The Government hopes that the growers will look at this matter. If they wish to have an acquisition scheme, we hope that they will come to the Government and tell it that this is the sort of marketing operation that they wish to be implemented. The only other point that I make in regard to this legislation is that it could well be, that if no international currency crisis existed today the price of wool would be approximately 36c a lb and the industry probably would be over some of its problems. For those reasons, the Government rejects the amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson on behalf of the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Wilkinson then referred to clause 4. 1 believe that this is a most important clause and one that takes a good deal of understanding. Nearly every honourable senator who has spoken in this debate has referred to clause 4. I have been informed that the holder of a lien over wool or of a mortgage over sheep is not the producer within the meaning of the definition. It is true that under the State laws relating to mortgages and liens a mortgagee or a holder of a lien owns the wool immediately after it is shorn and so comes within the meaning of paragraph (a) of clause 4(1.). Referring to paragraph (c) of this clause, we see that the definition in the words following this paragraph provides that a person having equity of redemption is deemed to be the owner of the wool or sheep and this person is the farmer who has given the lien. Although as has been said the holder of a lien or a mortgagee is not the producer, he may have the right to receive a deficiency payment in accordance with the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill.

The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that the returns to growers during the 1971-72 season are equal to at least 36c a lb over the whole clip by supplementing the market price. In doing that, the deficiency payment should thus be regarded as an integral part of the proceeds from the wool. I say this because the wool deficiency payment scheme has as its whole purpose the payment to growers of price support through recognised traders, namely the brokers and others registered for this purpose. Any other way of operating the scheme would cost more and the scheme would become unwieldy. This scheme is based on the average price obtained at auction. The statistical information that is used in operating the scheme is available to the Australian Wool Commission and is based on the auction system.

Clause 9 of the Bill safeguards the rights of secured creditors by directing that the deficiency payment moneys shall be treated in the same manner as the sale proceeds of the wool. I have just dealt with that matter. If the Bill provided that the deficiency payment was to go to the grower, a problem would be associated with the establishment of the rights of creditors. It is considered that the persons with the security over the wool could expect that the security would extend to all moneys derived from the wool. This expectation would be unfounded and they would be placed in the same position as unsecured creditors with no preferred position. This would cause a loss of confidence on the part of traditional lenders to the industry. The function of the scheme is dependent particularly on the co-operation of the brokers who service the industry. Without this assistance the scheme could not function in its present form. The brokers are not being reimbursed for the increased administrative costs involved in making the deficiency payments. Accordingly, the scheme is designed to keep these costs to a minimum. The making of the deficiency payments separately from the sale proceeds would involve substantial additional costs as well as delay in getting the money into the hands of the people.

I have had a further look at this matter. I have considered also some of the other schemes. The Acts relating to the cotton bounty and the dairy industry bounty provide that the bounty shall be paid by the gin or by the dairy factory to the producer. A producer could assign his right to the bounty as security for a loan. Looking at the Acts relating to the apple and pear stabilisation scheme and the dried vine fruits stabilisation scheme we see that they provide that money may be retained by an exporter or a packing house only where the producer has authorised such retention. The provision of a different nature was included in the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill because wool subject to security had already been delivered to the brokers and sold before the introduction of the legislation and thus before the Act will become operative. The position of producers where there was a security over the wool needed to be clarified so that each party would be aware of his rights.

With respect to wool delivered before the Bill becomes law, it would not have become possible for brokers to ensure that their security extended to the deficiency payments. As the deficiency payment is intended as an increase in the price of wool, it was considered that the holders of the existing securities were normally entitled to have the payments on wool sold after 2nd July included in the scope of their security. With respect to wool delivered after the Bill becomes law, brokers in any case could retain the money when authorised to do so by a producer. This happens with respect to payments under the dried vine fruits stabilisation scheme.

I recognised that many honourable senators on both sides had a problem concerning this provision, so I spoke to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) about the Senate’s problem and the concern of honourable senators regarding clause 9. The Minister informed me that it was his wish that the brokers and private buyers acting as agents of the Commonwealth should pass the proceeds of the deficiency payments to the wool growers. Before this debate resumed in the Senate, as honourable senators know, the Minister proceeded overseas. Last night I approached the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon). I again expressed on behalf of some honourable senators their concern about this matter. The Acting Minister then contacted the President of the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers, Mr Anderson, and told him of the concern of honourable senators in this matter. He asked him if he would give an assurance that the brokers would pass that part of the proceeds from the support price plan, or the deficiency payment, on to the growers. Mr Anderson said that naturally he could not contact some 20 members of the Council at that time but that he believed he could give an assurance that where there was a lien on the wool clip all such cases would be dealt with sympathetically by the wool brokers. With the exception of some very bad clients, Mr Anderson was prepared to assure Mr Nixon that at least the equivalent of the deficiency payment would be passed back to the growers for carry-on expenses. By mentioning those 2 cases of assurance by the Minister and the Acting Minister I hope I relieve some of the concern expressed here by honourable senators.

I shall refer briefly to a matter mentioned by Senator Little. He was kind enough to give me a look at the amendment he proposes to move later. All I can say to him is that the Government is aware of the situation in regard to rural credit. I am sure honourable senators are aware that the Government has been investigating the feasibility of establishing a farm loans insurance corporation. It is hoped that a report on this matter will be available shortly. In view of the complexity of the whole field of rural credit the Minister for Primary Industry has asked the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for a thorough review of the supply of and demand for credit in rural industries and possible methods of meeting the situation. Pending receipt of these reports the Government would regard the proposed amendment as being premature. If carried it would affect the future of rural industries for many years ahead without real knowledge of what is needed. I hope Senator Little can see his way clear to recognise the problem before the Government.

I inform Senator Jessop that during the period when the deficiency payments scheme was being formulated approaches were made by representatives of the skin buyers, skin exporters and fellmongers suggesting that, if the scheme was not extended to sheepskins, growers would shear sheep before the sheep were slaughtered. This is recognised. As Senator Jessop mentioned, the Minister said in his second reading speech that he would watch the situation carefully. Some comment on this matter by Mr F. J. Walker appeared in the SydneyDaily Telegraph on 30th October. He referred to the same sort of approach as that suggested bythe honourable senator in his contribution to the debate. I asked for some information about this and it seems that the major reason for the decline in fellmongering activity is the reduced price for wool, scoured wool and sheep skins. Pelts without wool or with wool of short staple are not economic to process and increasing numbers are reported to be dumped. So at the present time it is a matter of economics. I assure Senator Jessop that his concern will be brought to the notice of the Minister. As the Minister said, he will watch the situation carefully.

Senator Sim expressed some concern about private sellers. All I want to say is that there will not necessarily be discrimination against wool grower who sells privately to a private buyer who is not undercutting the market. Senator Sim indicated how in a particular case the private buyer is not undercutting the market. The private buyer should be able to pay the grower an amount which together with the deficiency payment would result in the grower receiving the same net amount as if he had sold at auction. I have some figures which bear this out but, as Senator Sim said, figures can tell all sorts of stories. I believe from the inquiries I have made since honourable senators expressed concern to me about this matter that the grower who sells his wool to a private buyer who is not undercutting the auction system will benefit the same as will the producer who sells his wool on the auction system.

Senator Cant referred to rural reconstruction. The Government never mentioned the period of grant and never said how much was available. I have in my hand the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act 1971. The time period is mentioned in that Act. The grant will end in 1975. The Act stipulates that$100m will be available over that period and it indicates how much each State will receive. Senator Cant’s remarks were not fair.

Mr President, 1 support this Bill. The Government believes it will assist the wool producers of Australia this year. It will enable the leaders of the industry to think deeply about the future of the wool industry and what action they suggest the Government should take to overcome some of the many problems that are looming in front of them at present. The amendment moved by the spokesman for the Labor Party will not overcome the problem. In the long term some parts of the amendment could go a long way towards solving the problem but at this particular time I do not think it would suit the position. The Government rejects the amendment. I ask that the motion for the second reading be now put.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 6

In division.

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I wish to move the amendment foreshadowed by my colleague. Senator Little. Accordingly, I move:

I do not propose to speak at length. 1 understand that it is desired to dispose of this Bill before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. This afternoon I was quite interested to hear the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) talk about the Government’s proposal for a rural insurance finance corporation. This reminds me that that proposal was submitted by the former Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) during the Senate election campaign last year. This is the first we have heard of that corporation since that time. It is our attitude that there is insufficient private finance available to meet the needs of industry. We proposed during the Senate election campaign and we reiterate now that the only body capable of providing the finance to meet the needs of the rural people today is the Commonwealth Government. I think honourable senators will recall that towards the closing days of the last session 1 moved an amendment to a Bil] to provide for the establishment of a rural finance corporation which would make available long term low interest loans to rural people. This corporation would be structured to provide for an interest free non-redemption period foi loans which it would fund. In other words the corporation would fund existing rural debts and refinance them with this moratorium like period.

At that time some honourable senators seemed to be of the opinion that had we not used certain words in that amendment perhaps they could have supported it. We hope that the amendment now before the Senate will do 2 things: We hope that it will meet the needs of those honourable senators who have some objection to the words used in the previous amendment and that it will establish the principle of what might be termed a ‘new agricultural bank’ to meet the needs of rural industries today. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I second the amendment. It incorporates the policy of the Australian Democratic Labor Party which has been propounded at general elections. It has been presented on many occasions in various ways in this chamber. The need for something like this is becoming more apparent and more urgent every day as proposition after proposition to retrieve the rural industries has been tried, tested and found wanting. We feel that our proposition is the only way in which the immediate and long term needs of the rural industries can be met. We feel that there is a demand among rural producers for some assistance of this kind through such an agency. We commend the amendment to honourable senators.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I could say that this further amendment surprises me, but it does not. I am really astounded that the Australian Democratic Labor Party should bring forward this amendment when it has just helped to defeat an amendment which would have done the same thing but in relation to the wool industry. That is the only industry with which this Bill is concerned. Let us look at what the Democratic Labor Party has proposed in its amendment. It uses the words: . . to woolgrowers and other primary producers adversely affected by the grave recession in the rural industries . . .

This amendment is spread across the fishing industry, the banana industry and the pineapple industry. It is spread across every rural industry. The DLP is trying to introduce this amendment after we have tried to do the same sort of thing in our amendment but only for the wool industry. What is the special financial authority which is proposed by the DLP? At the present time the Commonwealth Banking Corporation is a facility which can organise this assistance. Existing authorities are operating which can help with any of this assistance. But the Australian Labor Party did not have the support of the Democratic Labor Party. Our amendment could have been presented to the Government as an expression of the opinion of this chamber of what was wrong with the rural industries in Australia, particularly the wool industry with whichwe are dealing. A little further down in its amendment the Democratic Labour Party mentions discounted interest rates. We have talked about discounted interest rates every time we have talked about rural matters. I have said repeatedly that there should be moratorium protection, and that is inherent in the amendment which has just been turned down by the Democratic Labour Party. That amendment reads in part:

  1. the emergency finance should be complemented by legislation to -

    1. implement a progressive reconstruction and rehabilitation programme to apply to those areas of wool production. . . .

That is what we have tried to do. and the Democratic Labor Party will not support our proposal. It comes in here with this sort of amendment and expects us to take on something which only demonstrates its insincerity. If we were to support this amendment what would happen is that the Democratic Labor Party supporters would say that they were the only people doing anything about these matters. We have already proposed an amendment which the DLP has turned down. The situation is that we will not support this amendment because of the insincerity of the people who have proposed it. I leave it at that.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– The Government will not support this amendment because it believes that the motion, if agreed to, would be premature in view of the 2 inquiries presently being conducted. One of the inquiries is into the feasibility of the establishment of a farm loan insurance corporation, and the other, which is being sought by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) through the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is into the supply of or the demand for credit in rural industries.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 4

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 6.4 to 8 p.m.

page 1722

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONMr President,I desire to inform the Senate that following the passage of the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill 1971 the sitting of the Senate will be suspended until the ringing of the bells at 10.30 p.m. to enable Estimates Committee Dand Estimates Committee E to meet. Estimates Committee D will meet in this chamber and Estimates Committee E will meet in room L1 7.

page 1722

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1971

Debate resumed.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it Ihe wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator Wilkinson:

– In order to expedite the business of the Senate, I am prepared to allow the Bill to be taken as a whole, provided I can deal with 3 clauses, namely, clauses 4. 9 and 13.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Do you wish to move an amendment to the Bill in the Committee stage, Senator Wilkinson?

Senator Wilkinson:

– No. I will not be seeking a vote on anything. I will only be seeking information.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole, subject to the matters which Senator Wilkinson wishes to raise? There being no objection, I will allow that course io be followed.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– First of all, I wish to refer to the interpretation of ‘producer’ in clause 4 of the Bill. I noted what the Minister had to say about this matter in his reply to comments which were made during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Clause 4 reads: the producer’, in relation to wool, means -

  1. except where paragraph (b) or (c) of this definition applies - the person who owns the wool immediately after it is shorn

I noted that the Minister had some doubt in his mind as to where this matter would definitely finish and that he had received assurances from, I understand, the wool brokers that every facility would be made available to pass on the deficiency payment to the grower wherever possible. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further if that is a correct interpretation of what the Minister said.

The second matter to which I wish to refer is in relation to the whole of clause 9. The position is very awkward insofar as growers who are in debt to brokers and have accounts with brokers is concerned, ft could be that a number of needy growers owe a very considerable amount at the lime a deficiency payment is made on the wool they have produced. I am concerned about the deficiency payment not going to the growers. This follows on clause 4. It is just a further interpretation in that clause 9 deals with the persons who are entitled to the deficiency payment.

Senator Webster:

– Does the honourable senator know of any grower who has more than 100 per cent of his wool cheque obligated to a broker? Does he know of any instance of that occurring?

Senator WILKINSON:

– Yes, I do know of a grower who would have the whole of his wool cheque as well as the deficiency payment involved. I take it the Minister is saying that the broker will, as far as possible, separate the deficiency payment from the wool cheque and that this will enable the grower to have some further income on which to live and which will help him with other debts. I think the Minister gave me that sort of assurance.

The third matter to which 1 wish to refer is in relation to clause 13, which is, of course, the complicated clause which determines the percentage rates of deficiency payments. I drew attention lo this matter in my earlier speech. 1 was very interested to hear from the Minister that the Minister for Primary Industry proposes to bring out an explanatory document which will be made available to growers everywhere. If I can have an assurance from the Minister on those 3 points I will be satisfied.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I shall deal with the last aspect first, f understand that the document or the brochure to which the honourable senator referred is being printed at the present time and that it will be made available to all registered persons for distribution to their clients. In other words, anyone who handles deficiency payments will be able to send one of these brochures to the people for whom they handle the deficiency payments. The honourable senator raised a point in connection with clause 4(3.). I have given an assurance that wherever possible the deficiency payment will be passed on except in the special cases where there is not so much an outstanding debt but a client has not been playing the game by the broker. Perhaps that is understandable. As the honourable senator knows, there are persons who do these things at times. I turn now to the query which the honourable senator raised in connection with the definition of ‘producer’. If the honourable senator looks at that definition he will see that it states that, a person who, for the purposes of that definition, has rights in the nature of an equity of redemption in respect of wool or sheep the subject of a mortgage or other security shall be deemed to be the owner of the wool or sheep. Is that satisfactory, Senator Wilkinson?

Senator Wilkinson:

– Yes, that is reasonable.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill on motion by Senator Drake* Brockman) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 8.10 to 10.30 p.m.

page 1724

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711104_senate_27_s50_C1/>.