Senate
23 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 1959

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Anthony, left Australia on 20th November to attend a meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - GATT - in Geneva. He is expected to return to Australia on 27th November. During his absence the Minister for Repatriation, Mr Holten, is Acting Minister for Trade and Industry. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for External Territories, Mr Barnes, will be in Papua New Guinea this week.

page 1959

PETITIONS

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to help solve, as there are eight million people, many of them helpless children, affected.

We have matched our words by deeds with contributions to our own special appeal in Victoria.

Now we ask the Government to:

Give immediate aid of at least $10,000,000 to help relieve the suffering

Take the necessary diplomatic steps to seek a political solution.

Urge the United Nations to make a more effective effort to intervene on behalf of these stricken people.

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

Petition received and read.

Social Services

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 while the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies from the Aus tralian Social Service system, a major inadequacy still remains in that a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishesto see his relatives in Europe, is denied pensioner transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Senate, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands. France, Germany. Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received and read.

Treatment of Prisoners In Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That we request the Commonwealth Government to make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union expressing the deep concern of a large section of Australians of East European origin and other Australians at the harsh treatment of prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union and the non-implementation by the Soviet Union of the Declaration of Human Rights.

To instruct the Representatives of the Commonwealth Government at the United Nations to bring this matter before the United Nations, in particular the case of Valentyn Moroz sentenced to 14 years of hard labour for conducting allegedly anti-Soviet propaganda.

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

Petition received and read.

Clutha Development Pty Ltd

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The Council of the City of Wollongong by resolution of 11th October 1971 resolved to respectfully draw to your attention Clutha Development Pty Limited’s proposal to establish a railway line, coal stockpile, and offshore loading terminal at Coalcliff, New South Wales, and that Council considers these operations will deleteriously affect the lives and livelihood of citizens of the area and the amenity of the area by pollution.

The Council respectfully prays that the Senate will investigate this proposal and its accompanying threat of pollution and disturbance of the natural environment in the district surrounding the township of Coalcliff.

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

Petition received and read.

page 1960

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– i give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Primary and Seconday Industry and Trade the following matter:

The structure and determination of the prices of automotive fuels and lubricants within Australia.

page 1960

QUESTION

INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate how it comes about that an important matter of Government policy- a review of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act - was made known to a private member of this Parliament by the honourable gentleman prior to its being stated to the Parliament? In what respects it is proposed to review that legislation? In particular, what safeguards are proposed if, as a result of the review, there is to be any extension of permissible telephone tapping under the legislation?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is right in suggesting that a premature statement on a major change in Government policy has been conveyed to a private member of the Parliament without being generally conveyed to the Parliament and the public at large. The situation is that I receive - as I am sure all Ministers receive - letters, requests and complaints from members of the Parliament. I replied by letter to a particular matter which was raised by a private member of the Parliament. He chose, as I understand from reading a Press report yesterday, to convey that letter to the journalist in question. Because that article did not accurately set out what is proposed, I propose to read the one paragraph of the letter which states what is under way. I said:

Before answering your question I should inform you that an examination of provisions of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 has been taking place within my Department and that I propose to give careful consideration as to whether the Act should be amended.

I should also state that this examination has been taking place for some time. The fact that it was taking place was announced in the Parliament by one of my predecessors approximately 12 months ago. I have not had an opportunity to give consideration to the matter. The general area in which consideration will be given was out >.l - I think quite accurately - in the newspaper article. As that article is the source from which the Leader of the Opposition drew his question. I think he will be able to satisfy himself by a further reading of it.

page 1960

QUESTION

MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, relates to the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare on mentally and physically, handicapped persons in Australia that was tabled in this chamber on 5th May of this year, which is over 6 months ago. I ask: What has the Government done to give effect to any of the recommendations contained in that report? If no action has been taken, when does the Government intend to act upon those recommendations?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt is true that such a report was put down in this chamber. I would not challenge the honourable senator’s timing as I think it would be fairly right. It is equally true that a critical examination of the report is being made in the Department of Health insofar as its contents relate to the Department’s activities. It is equally true that at my instigation an inter-departmental consideration of the various aspects of that report is going on at present. I would not like to say that a report on that consideration will be put down before the end of this session. I think to do that would be to pay lip service to the. value of the report, which is a very comprehensive document covering a very wide range of issues which will affect questions of major policy in not only my Department but also lots of other departments. So I cannot say categorically when and how the report will be dealt with. I can only give an assurance that it is being critically examined at the present time.

page 1971

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. How does the Government justify to the 88 per cent of Australian taxpayers living in urban areas the appropriation of a further S300m last Friday for use by the Australian Wool Commission in propping up the wool industry? ls it not true that stop-gap measures of this nature are only postponing the inevitable, and that only when the Commission stops stockpiling and price deficiency payments will wool prices find their own true market level? if $300m is to go to the wool industry this financial year in grants, loans, research allocations and promotional expenses, when does the Liberal Party intend to stop the Country Party squandering public funds at a terrifying rate merely to bolster its failing electoral position?

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

– We are dealing with a very serious matter and therefore I shall ignore the last part of the honourable senator’s question. I point out to the honourable senator that the sum he refers to is $30m, not $300m. The principal aim of the Australian Wool Commission is to use its reserve price scheme to protect woolgrowers. The Government has considered this matter in full and has decided, as announced by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, that a further $30m will be provided, if necessary, to enable the Commission to continue its present reserve price policies. Mr Nixon then went on to say that it was very disappointing that tho Commission had had to continue purchases in order to hold its reserve price but that the Government had reaffirmed its belief that this was the best course in the present circumstances of the wool industry. This decision was made after seeking information overseas through the International Wool Secretariat as well as from the Australian Wool Board. It was not made on the hearsay that has been read in the Press.

page 1971

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: What financial obligations in the way of dues etc. did the People’s Republic of China incur when it recently accepted a seat in the United Nations? Has any of this money been paid?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The procedure in the United Nations, as I understand it, is that a committee makes recommendations as to the contribution that should be levied upon a new member. This committee has not yet sat in regard to the People’s Republic of China and whether or not any dues have been paid is unknown. I just wish to say that when the Republic of China - Taiwan - was the subject of a levy, an intermediate basis was fixed for that government, having regard to its claims to represent the whole of the Chinese mainland and Taiwan. That matter introduces an indefinite element in the consideration of the new contribution.

page 1971

QUESTION

RAILWAY SLEEPERS

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport 1 should say, Mr President, that already 2 related questions are on the notice paper but the matter is now becoming urgent. Has the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner decided to use concrete sleepers for future railway works and maintenance in place of jarrah sleepers? Is the Minister aware that a decision such as this will seriously affect employment in the timber industry in Western Australia? Will he inform the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner of the serious repercussions that would flow immediately from such a decision?

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

– I understand the problem and I know a little about it from being engaged in another field during my life. It is perfectly true that the production of jarrah sleepers, both for local use and for export, was a tremendously important part of the timber industry in Western Australia. I know that quite a lot of experiments have been done with concrete sleepers and equally with preservatised softwood sleepers. A tremendous amount nf work has been going on in this field because, fundamentally, the problem has been to try to obtain a longer lasting sleeper for railway systems and one which will have a heavier load bearing capacity to take heavier trains. I cannot add any more information. I know that the honourable senator has extra questions about this matter on the notice paper. I shall chase up the questions as soon as I come out of the Senate later on today.

page 1962

QUESTION

IMPORTED GRASS SEED

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that very large quantities of grass seeds are being imported which will almost bring about, it is claimed, the extinction of the Australian grass seed production industry? Will the Minister examine schedule A of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement which seems to provide that seeds must not be imported in retail packs under this Agreement, with a view to ascertaining whether there is any abrogation of this provision in relation to the imports?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think the honourable senator indicated an interest in this matter during the week we rose. I undertook to add to the information which I had already given him. The information which I have shows that the Australian grass seed industry has recently made representations on imports of grass seed. I am informed that imports of grass seed, including rye grass seed, have declined in each year since 1967-68 when 14.2 million lb were imported. In 1970-71 the imports of grass seed totalled 5.2 million lb. The import of rye grass seed has declined from 8.7 million lb in 1967-68 to 1.9 million lb in 1970-71. The duty free schedule of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement - the NZAFTA Agreement - includes grass seed in bulk. Grass seed in retail packs is subject to import duty and may be imported provided the duty is paid. The local industry has been discussing the import situation with the Department of Trade and Industry and its representations are currently being considered. The industry has also made representations to the Department of Customs and Excise requesting anti-dumping action. These matters are under consideration. I think that information ought to cover the balance of the honourable senator’s inquiry where he introduced the matter of schedule A.

The PRESIDENT:

– For a question without notice that is a very ample answer.

page 1962

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry why 8,000 bales of wool were offered for sale by tender in the week ending 12th

November 1971. Why were they not offered for sale by public auction? Why were not these offerings guaranteed by the Australian Wool Commission as to type and micron? What quantity was sold and by whom?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not recall the incident to which the honourable senator is referring. I know that 8,000 bales of wool have been or are being sent overseas by the Australian Wool Commission. I do not know whether they are the 8,000 bales to which the honourable senator is referring. I shall seek information and give him an answer tomorrow.

page 1962

QUESTION

AIR TRAVEL

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As we seem to be in a time when all possible economies in government expenditure should be made, has the Government given due thought to having all Government employees travel economy class on aircraft inside and outside Australia? Will the Minister advise the Senate how much money is spent by all Government departments on air travel inside and outside Australia each year and the likely saving if ail Government employees were to travel economy class?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am not certain whether the honourable senator includes parliamentarians in his reference but I shall put that matter to one side. I shall seek to obtain the information that he requires from the Treasurer and will make it available when it comes to me.

page 1962

QUESTION

AMERICAN BASES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether there are more than 25 American bases sited in Australia and in Australian territories? Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the location of the bases? How many of them are open to inspection by Australian parliamentarians?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I shall obtain that information. I shall refer the question to the Department of Defence and when it is answered I shall make the answer available to the honourable senator and to the Senate.

page 1963

QUESTION

INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the AttorneyGeneral’s attention been drawn to a recent speech by an honourable member in another place and an article that appeared in yesterday’s ‘Australian Financial Review’, both of which suggest that the Minister intends to allow State police to tap and intercept telephone communications? Will the Minister assure the Senate that he will do nothing that will infringe individual civil liberties in any way, but rather will tighten up the loopholes that it has been alleged exist in the telephone communications legislation?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– This question relates to much the same area as that upon which Senator Murphy questioned me earlier. I assure the honourable senator, as I assured Senator Murphy, that the examination that has been conducted is one to ascertain where are the areas of concern, and that no decisions have been made. I assure the honourable senator that my concern in any proposed consideration will be to ensure that, if there is to be any extension which the public interest would warrant of the ability to intercept telephone conversations, such extension will be in a way that protects the privacy and civil rights of all citizens, and that if this extension does occur it will be because considerations of public interest have necessitated it. The examination suggests that certain types of crime, such as the bomb hoax which concerned Qantas Airways Ltd and in which there was a very real risk of a tremendous loss of life, and acts of kidnapping are areas in which possibly, if there is an issue of a warrant made on proper grounds, the public interest will be served I do not say that these are areas in which a change must take place, but they are areas in which examination is taking place, As at present, no decisions have been made.

page 1963

QUESTION

THE PRESS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware of the decision made last night by the Victorian District of the Australian Journalists Association to protest strongly about his attempt to intimidate AJA members in the performance of their journalistic duties during his appearance on

This Day Tonight’ last Tuesday night? Does he deny the right of the news media to enlighten the public? Does not his attack on the Australian Broadcasting Commission after the Michael Matteson incident amount to an arrogant and unjustifiable attempt to intimidate the media; or does he believe that the media should raise or discuss only issues which do not embarrass the Government?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 do not challenge the right of the journalists, the Press and those on the news media to express their views and to convey to the public information which the public is entitled to have. At no stage have I intimidated any journalist. At no stage have I suggested in any way that the freedom which I value and recognise should be imperilled. A newspaper headline which attributed to me words to that effect and which was published last week was a complete fabrication and was privately conceded to me by the editor of the newspaper concerned to be, in fact, a headline which should never have been printed. I do not regard statements of criticism as amounting to intimidation, and I do not think any reasonable-minded person could so regard them. The fact that journalists are entitled to comment upon the activities of members of Parliament in a critical way would not be regarded by them as intimidation of members of Parliament.

page 1963

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of brief preface I refer to my reservation to Chapter 9 of the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade on the Australian National Line shipping services to and from Tasmania, and also to my earlier question to the Minister. I now ask the Minister: Will he draw the attention of his colleague to and urge his colleague’s close consideration of a motion passed at a meeting attended by approximately 280 persons, representing a cross-section of business, industry and local and State government, and held at George Town in Tasmania last night? The motion reads:

That this meeting believes that it is essential that the Commonwealth Government should refer to the Bureau of Transport Economics for consideration-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are giving information, Senator Rae.

Senator RAE:

– Information being the wording of the motion to whichI refer. The motion continues:

  1. . the Bureau of Transport Economics for consideration, assessment and recommendations, the queston of the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of a scheme of subsidy, freight costing equalisation-
The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether he had read an article and then you proceeded to give him information.

Senator RAE:

– No,I did not ask him whether he had read an article.

The PRESIDENT:

– You referred to the article.

Senator RAE:

– No, I did not refer to an article.

The PRESIDENT:

– All right. Ask the question. A motion adopted in George Town is not a question.

Senator RAE:

-I am simply informing the Minister of the wording of the motion andI am stating it of my own knowledge, having been there. If I may just continue-

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator RAE:

– To ask the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, ask the question.

Senator RAE:

– The question is whether the Minister will refer to his colleague the contents of a motion. So that he may refer it to his colleague I would like to complete giving the wording to him. It continues

The PRESIDENT:

– No, I will not permit it.

Senator Cant:

– I rise to a point of order. I want to ask a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do not see you. I call the Minister.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I will, Mr President.

page 1964

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT ENTITLEMENTS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the financial difficulties being experienced by the ever-increasing number of Australians unemployed, will the Minister give sympathy and urgent consideration to increasing unemployment entitlements to at least the maximum provided for other social service entitlements? Will the Minister agree that such action would be justified in view of the fact that the Government has been able to find an additional$30m to assist wool growers experiencing financial difficulties?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator asks a budgetary question and therefore I suggest that it go on notice.

page 1964

QUESTION

WOOL DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the deficiency rates calculated by the Australian Wool Commission for each auction week since 2nd July is an average of 21 per cent less than the amount of 36c per lb determined by the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Act? Does this indicate that 7.5c per lb will be paid to all wool growers on all eligible wool sold since 2nd July? Can the Minister give an assessment of the total cost of deficiency payments to wool growers if the current wool prices continue for the remainder of the 12-month period?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

-I am not sure whether I understand all of the honourable senator’s question. A statement has been made by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry setting out the deficiency payments from the beginning of the season on 2nd July. I do not know whether the suggested 21 per cent less than the average of 36c per lb is correct but I point out to the honourable senator that the figure of 36c per lb is the average price of greasy wool over the whole of the clip for the 12 months. Therefore some of the deficiency payments for a particular sale could relate to a price less or, on the other hand, more than the average of 36c. I wouldlike to have a look at the remainder of the question, and if I can give the honourable senator any further information I shall do so.

page 1964

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General: Is there any power in the Broadcasting Control Board to prevent the gross intrusion into the comfort of television viewers by screaming commercial advertisements many decibels of sound above the level prevailing in the programme being viewed? If there is power, will the Board take steps to ensure that commercial advertisements are presented at a sound level which does not require the viewer to leap at the set in an attempt to reduce the volume?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to refer specifically to any provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act which would cover the situation to which the honourable senator referred, but I think it is general knowledge that the area about which he is concerned is one for which the Australian Broadcasting Control Board does accept responsibility and in respect of which it can givedirections to the various television stations. I am unable to say whether the Board is prepared to give directions to the stations, but I will convey the honourable senator’s question to the Postmaster-General and leave it to him to take such action by way of reference to the Board or otherwise that he considers appropriate.

page 1965

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator RAE:

Mr President, mayI complete the question whichI was asking earlier of the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. It will not be in any way a reference to a newspaper report. I refer to a statement of fact to render intelligible the question which I wished to ask and it is authenticated by me. I again read the motion which I was in the process of reading. The motion reads:

That this meeting believes that it is essential that the Commonwealth Government should refer to the Bureau of Transport Economics for consideration, assessment and recommendation-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will put the question on notice.

page 1965

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Was the Attorney-General informed at 3 p.m. on 16th November that a draft resister was being invited to appear on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s programme This Day Tonight’ scheduled for showing 4½ hours later? Did the AttorneyGeneral at that time accept the invitation extended to him to appear on the same programme and did he stipulate at that time that he should not be in the same studio as the resister? Did the AttorneyGeneral immediately notify the Commonwealth police of the fact that a draft resister would be on the programme? At 7.32 p.m.. 2 minutes after the programme went on the air. did Commonwealth police arrive at the ABC studios at Gore Hill in Sydney? Why did the Minister stipulate that he should not be in the same studio as the resister, although he would be on the same programme? Does he genuinely expect the Australian public to believe that he and the Commonwealth police really wanted the young man who appeared on the programme to be apprehended?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question was in many parts. I shall endeavour, as far as my recollection goes and as far as my pencil took down the various parts, to answer each part. At no stage during the course of the day preceding the interview which I gave on Channel 2 in the’ This Day Tonight’ programme did I have any conversation with anybody from the Channel 2 studios until I arrived at the studio. My Press secretary had conversations with a representative of This Day Tonight’ and, as they were related to me, I was informed that a draft resister would be on the programme. I did not indicate immediately that I was prepared to appear on the programme. I ascertained whether, if I did not appear on the programme, the draft resister would be appearing. I was assured that the draft resister would be appearing, that he would be alleging that the Commonwealth Government was deliberately not enforcing the National Service Act and that my name would be mentioned. In those circumstances I felt constrained, because I had no option, to accept the invitation to appear on the programme.

I inquired whether the draft resister would be physically present at the same place at which I would be because I sensed that there could be embarrassment if an allegation of that character were made and if the person were indicating something which he was proposing to do. At no time did I believe that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would have in its studio a person for whom a warrant of arrest had been issued. I understand, from inquiries which I have made, that the Commonwealth police arrived at the studio not at 7.32 p.m. but a quarter of an hour to half an hour before the programme commenced. I have said many times that it is the Government’s intention to have draft resisters arrested, that the police have made many efforts to effect those arrests and that the people concerned have run away from the police as they have run away from their obligations. I believe also that honourable senators who in the past have described me as being ‘a law and order man’ could scarcely believe that they are wrong in supposing that I would want to have these people arrested.

page 1966

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In vew of the extremely low prices offering for wool crutchings and locks and the need to find further outlets for this grade of wool, will consideration be given to feasibility studies being undertaken by an organisation such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to ascertain whether this grade of wool could be processed and used as an economic alternative to jute fibre for industrial purposes? Is it a fact that the motor industry in Australia alone uses some 6,000,000 lb of jute fibre annually in the upholstering component of motor vehicles and that this could well be replaced by wool fibre of the type I have referred to?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think it would be fair to say that low grade wools have been of great concern to the Australian Wool Commission and the wool industry generally because of the quality and quantity of wools of this grade being put on the market and the price being obtained. Last year the lower grade wools came under the protection of the Wool Commission, but since the beginning of this wool selling season they have not received that protection, with the result that early in the season there was a substantial fall in the price received for wools of this type. In recent times there has been some uplift in price, but it has not equated that which was obtained at the end of the last wool selling season. In view of this I shall place the honourable senator’s suggestion before the Minister for Primary Industry with a view to his examining the situation and, if I have additional information which I can pass on to the honourable senator, I shall do that.

page 1966

QUESTION

SUBSIDY ON WOOL

Senator MILLINER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. As a question concerning a request for urgent consideration of the upgrading of unemployment payments is regarded as a budgetary measure, could not the grant to wool growers of an additional $30m likewise be regarded as a budgetary measure?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe 2 issues which the honourable senator has joined in one question are dealt with in different ways. The honourable senator has proposed that certain things be done in relation to unemployment payments and I have said that this is a matter which should go to the Treasurer for his comment. The other matter raised by him presumably relates to a question asked earlier today of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in relation to a statement which appeared in the Press as a consequence of a decision of the Government. There is nothing inappropriate in what I have suggested to the honourable senator. The only way in which consideration could be given to his proposal is by having it referred to the Treasurer. As a courtesy to the Senate, to the honourable senator, and to you, Sir, I have suggested that that procedure should be followed.

page 1966

QUESTION

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON HOSPITALS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Health seen a recent newspaper report of a speech by the New South Wales Minister for Health in which the New South Wales Minister is reported to have criticised the level of Commonwealth capital expenditure on Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory hospitals compared with New South Wales capital expenditure on public hospitals.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes,I saw the report. I think it was a report of a speech by the New South Wales Minister for Health at the opening of a hospital or a health centre atQueenscliffe. I feel bound to say that when I first read the report I thought it purported to suggest that Commonwealth capital expenditure on 2 hospitals, one at Woden in the. Australian Capital Territory and the other at Alice Springs, would exceed the New South Wales expenditure on hospitals for the financial year 1970-71. My first reaction was one of surprise and an assumption that surely the Minister must have been reported out of context. But as the report appeared, and gained certain headlines, I have an obligation to respond to it. My adverse reaction to the report was based on the illogicality of comparing 2 things which are not comparable. The total Commonwealth expenditure on 2 hospitals over periods of some years was compared with annual expenditure on State hospitals. I think that anybody who has any knowledge of statistics would know that that is a completely unacceptable comparison, to say the least. The reported expenditure of$17m for the Woden Valley hospital will be substantially correct when the hospital is completed, but 3 or 4 years will have elapsed before it is completed. That is the first point to remember. When talking about the proposed Commonwealth expenditure at Alice Springs, it must be remembered that the first sod has not yet been turned for the additions to the Alice Springs hospital.

We are asked to compare the annual expenditure of a State on hospital capital works with the total Commonwealth expenditure over a period of years on 2 hospitals, one in the Centre on which work has not yet commenced, and the other which is in the course of erection and has not yet been commissioned. It seems to me that Mr Jago’s reported reference to Alice Springs was singularly inappropriate. However, I think the point I have made is fair enough. Admittedly expenditure at Alice Springs is estimated at$11. 5m. However, again, that work will be spread over a period of at least 3 years. Again we are asked to compare 2 things which, in fact, are in no way comparable. Having demonstrably, I hope, given the faulty basis on which the comparison of the New South Wales Minister for Health was made, I mention that it has been reported that the New South Wales Government proposes to incur - I have no doubt quite worthily - capital expenditure of approximately$86m on a single institution, namely, the proposed 1,100 bed

Westmead hospital.I would not question the merit or the justification for that expenditure, but I would point out that the Woden Valley hospital will cost $17m and that it will be a 600 bed hospital. If comparisons are to be made, they should be made in terms of equal time in relation to 2 singular operations or hospitals. If the comparison is not made in that way, it is completely meaningless.

page 1967

QUESTION

CORONARY HEART DISEASE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware of recent criticisms of the paucity of the financial provision made by the Federal Government towards the cost of the work of the National Heart Foundation on coronary heart disease? Can the Minister give any hope that this situation might be remedied at an early date so that research into the causes, detection and curative treatment of heart disease can receive the level of help which its current rating as a killer warrants?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Commonwealth’s subvention towards research into heart disease has been under consideration for some time. Indeed, I was present at representations that were made to the Government in relation to it. With the forbearance of the Senate and yourself, Mr President, I think I should mention some facts in relation to financial support for this work. The Commonwealth makes a substantial and continuing indirect contribution to the Foundation through income tax concessions in respect of donors to the Foundation. The functions ofthe National Health and Medical Research Council include the making of recommendations for Commonwealth expenditure on grants for medical research. The Council’s policy is that generally these grants should not be provided directly to organisations such as the National Heart Foundation whose interests and objectives naturally tend to he limited to special areas of medical research. The point I want to make is that the Council usually favours grants to individual researchers or groups of researchers in order that the most flexible use of Commonwealth funds can be made. The awareness in the National Health and Medical Research Councl of the needfor research in the cardio-vascular field is well illustrated by the fact that in 1971 alone it has recommended for that purpose grants totalling about$220,000. That sum was directed to a particular aspect of research.

Apart from indirect assistance by way of taxation concessions for donations and by National Health and Medical Research Council grantsto individuals or to groups of researchers in the cardio-vascular field, the Government made a special direct grant of $50,000 to the National Heart Foundation in 1969. None of us would challenge the worthiness of that group. On a much wider canvas the Commonwealth - that is. the taxpayers - makes grants in a direct sense for particular purposes. In the field referred to by the honourable senator, annual grants are made.

page 1968

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that in the taxation structure of some overseas countries there is provision for the owners of registered blood stock to claim depreciation at a set schedule of rates for each class of animal? Does this system of economic encouragement so that owners and breeders of livestock in Australia may seek further to improve and to develop the quality of bloodstock in this country appeal to the Minister? Will he advocate to the Treasurer that such a system be introduced?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I would forbear advocacy on a matter of that nature because I am not sufficiently equipped for it. However, I do guarantee that the Treasurer will be made aware of the point of view expressed by the honourable senator. No doubt the Treasurer and officers of his Department in their own right will seek information from appropriate departments to determine the strength of the case put by the honourable senator. They will then respond to the question through me.

page 1968

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. As there is public interest in Western Australia in the segment of the television programme This Day Tonight’, not shown in Western Australia, in which the Attorney-General and

Mr Michael Matteson discussed the National Service Act, will the Minister see to it that people in Western Australia have the same opportunity to see the segment and to hear the unusual dialogue in it as television watchers in the eastern States have had?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have a personal interest in this matter, as the honourable senator indicated, but I am not in control of the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, nor is the Postmaster-General. The only way in which I can respond to the honourable senator’s question is to convey the tenor of his remarks to the Postmaster-General and for him to take such action, by way of suggestion or otherwise to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as he considers necessary.

page 1968

QUESTION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Is the Minister for Health aware of a snide practice employed by the National Employers’ Mutual General Insurance Association which covers a large segment of workers’ compensation insurance in the rubber industry in New South Wales, by which it seeks to pressure members of the Rubber Workers Union who are contributors to the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia to claim for hernia hospitalisation and similar industrial accidents from the Hospitals Contribution Fund and in effect to transfer the industrial insurance liability from the National Employers’ Mutual General Insurance Association to the entire Hospitals Contribution Fund structure? Can the Minister give a firm assurance to the Rubber Workers Union in particular and subscribers to the Hospitals Contribution Fund in general that this method of insurance feather bedding will cease?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I am not aware of such a snide practice, nor am I aware of any feather-bedding. Nevertheless, I sought some information for the honourable senator in relation to this matter. The existing rules of the Hospital Contribution Fund - the rules which have been in force since 22nd December 1970 - specifically exclude the payment of fund benefits to contributors who have the right to recover costs under workers’ compensation legislation and so on. In fact, the HCF claim form requires the contributor to answer a specific question as to whether he has any entitlement to claim under workers’ compensation or third party insurance. Having answered that and other related questions, the contributor must sign a declaration in the claim form that the information given is true and correct. So the rules of the HCF on this matter are categorical.

page 1969

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I again refer the Attorney-General to the extraordinary and startling appearance last Tuesday on the television programme ‘This Day Tonight’ of a draft resister, and the Attorney’s statement that he was not aware that a person in conflict with the National Service Act would be appearing on that programme. Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Police were aware that such a resister would appear on that programme? Is that not the reason why they reached the television studio at least half an hour before the programme took place? Further, is it not a fact that it was the AttorneyGeneral’s Department which advised the Commonwealth Police-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Attorney-General’s office.

Senator GEORGES:

– Well, is it not a fact that it was the Attorney-General’s office which advised the Commonwealth Police that such a resister would appear on that programme? Does it not appear that the Attorney-General took part in a rather shabby plan to apprehend the resister whom he knew would be taking part in that programme?

The PRESIDENT:

– Before calling upon the Attorney-General to answer that question, I would like to remind Senator Georges that a predecessor in this Chair ruled - I think properly - that to make a statement of fact is in order but to impute improper motives is out of order.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As to the latter part of the imputation which Senator Georges raised, I assure him that I was not party to any shabby arrangement which he thinks may have been involved in what occurred last Tuesday night. The question is based on certain assumptions which are incorrect. In the first place, as I have stated many times, I was not aware that a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued was to appear on the programme, though I did know that a draft resister was to appear. We all know that a whole variety of people describe themselves as draft resisters these days. It is a fact that the Commonwealth Police were aware that I was to appear on a programme with a draft resister, but my subsequent inquiries have elicited that they did not believe that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would have in the studio a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued. It is a fact that it was my office which informed the Commonwealth Police that I proposed to go on the programme. I think those statements represent the answers to the factual part of the question asked by the honourable senator.

page 1969

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister seen reports that a delegation from the Australian Wheat Board recently returned to Australia from China after attending the Canton Trade Fair? Is it a fact that such a delegation was invited by the China National Cereals and Oilseeds and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation? Has the Minister seen a statement by Dr Callaghan, the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, that discussions were held on a very friendly basis, although the delegation was not able to reconcile points of view on a purely business and commercial basis, mainly in relation to price? Is it not a fact that both the invitation to the Australian Wheat Board and the Chairman’s statement clearly show that negotiations and discussions between the Chinese and the Board are held on a purely commercial basis and completely divorced from politics, which is contrary to what the Australian Labor Party would have us believe?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have seen a report relating to the return from the People’s Republic of China of a delegation from the Australian Wheat Board.I read that the delegation attended the Canton Fair at the invitation of the Cereals Corporation. I have read very closely a statement made by the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. Substantially it was in line with what the honourable senator said. I point out to the honourable senator that the Government and particularly the Minister for Primary Industry have contended all along that the delay in sales of wheat to China is probably due to commercial factors. There is evidence of a large grain crop in China and of a satisfactory position in stocks of cereals in that country.

Senator Willesee:

– Why did China buy wheat from Canada?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am dealing with China at the moment. There is another factor also which makes the Chinese position a lot more satisfactory.I refer to the fact that there are reduced exports of rice. Those exports in the past have been used as a major source of foreign exchange. This is the situation that the Australian Wheat Board delegation found when it was there. The Board has made record sales this year. The carry-over from 30th November will be in the vicinity of 132 million bushels, which is one of the smallest carry-overs that the Board has had for some time. In view of the crop coming in. wheat growers would like to see sales made to China very shortly. I am not going to say anything today that could upset the conditions prevailing at present. This is a job for the Australian Wheat Board and I hope it has success. I point out that since the time of the last sale - that was in December 1969 for delivery of wheat in 1970 - there have been constant communications with the Corporation and those communications have been on a very friendly basis at all times.

page 1970

QUESTION

YOUTH CLUBS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that South Australian Youth Clubs Incorporated is the headquarters for 70 open youth clubs which operate in that State and cater for 12,000 young people? Does he know that these clubs operate autonomously and provide a wide variety of activities ranging from gymnastics to field sports and camping to handicrafts, emphasising the development of skills in all these areas? Is he aware also that the association is facing a deficit of $11,000 for the current year? Will he give urgent consideration to providing additional finance, either through the National Fitness Council or in some other way, to assist not only this organisation which is in a desperate plight but also other similar institutions throughout Australia that are providing such worthwhile healthy facilities for the youth of Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I am aware of this organisation but not of its unfortunate deficit. Generally speaking, individual groups such as this come within the purview of the State Government concerned. The activities of the National Fitness Council are on a wide canvas and as a general rule it does not make provision for individual groups. The Commonwealth does not make funds available to individual organisations under the National Fitness Act. The Act provides that financial assistance is to be given to National Fitness Councils appointed by each State Government. That is the problem in relation to that fund and that organisation, which is within my administration. However,I will look at the question and its implications. As a consequence of questions directed to me by another honourable senator I am currently having a new look at the functioning of the National Fitness Act. I do not want that to be held out as a promise that I am going to meet the deficit of that fund. I think that the first representation in relation to that fund should be directed to the State concerned. But I am currently having another examination made of the National Fitness Act on a far wider canvas than operates at the present time.

page 1970

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Senator MURPHY:

– Is the Minister for Health aware that tobacco companies are blatantly evading the voluntary code on cigarette advertising and that sponsored events by them such as the Craven filter champion kick test and the Wills Masters golf tournament are being used as a means of showing cigarette advertising on television on Sundays contrary to the code? If, by means such as this, these merchants of death and disease are willing to evade the provisions of their voluntary code will the Minister consider introducing provisions to ensure that they are not able to continue with this kind of advertising on television or, as far as can be provided, in any other way?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not want to be joined with the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the companies to which he refers. I deprecate that reference immediately. It is a statement by the Leader of the Opposition, not by me. Dealing with the other matter, I would be the first to admit that, watching a Sunday golf tournament in more recent times, inevitably one sees advertisements for tobacco. Equally, I saw a speedway racing programme momentarily among my domestic chores during a week end and there was a big tobacco company advertisement. I think the point which Senator Murphy is making is quite clear. This does happen. But this matter is really linked with the fact that there is a voluntary code which became effective from 1st October. I recall that some weeks ago Senator Willesee asked me a question about it.

The code specifically states that no cigarette advertisement may be broadcast or televised between 4 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. from Monday to Saturday or before 7.30 p.m. on Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday. The implication of the question is that because one is looking at speedway racing or a golf tournament and inevitably sees a huge advertisement for cigarettes that circumvents or cuts across the code.

Senator Murphy:

– In a programme sponsored by them.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Murphy adds a helpful interjection: In a programme sponsored by a tobacco company. This is a very grey area as I. think even the honourable senator will admit. One could have a situation where a lot of people are going to be denied the broadcasting or televising of what they want to see on the basis that they must inevitably see some advertisement for tobacco, cigarettes, cigars or whatever it may be. A judgment will have to be made. I shall have a look at the matter. I have agreed to receive a deputation from the anti-smoking and cancer groups in Sydney on 11th December purposely to enable them to put their views in relation to this matter before me. I have no doubt that this type of advertising will be alluded to. I would not like to commit myself by saying that this advertising is in conflict with the code. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board will have to have some involvement in the matter.I promise to have the matter examined.

page 1971

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Arising out of the answer to Senator Douglas McClelland’s question, I ask the AttorneyGeneral: If the police were at the studio of Channel 2, where Michael Matteson appeared on ‘This Day Tonight’, 15 to 30 minutes before the programme commenced, how many police were present and what did they do while Matteson arrived, appeared and departed? Did the Commonwealth police seek admission to the studio 2 minutes after the commencement of the programme? Did the police have a warrant of entry and search? Was there only one door as an entrance to and exit from the studio concerned? If the Attorney-General knew that a draft resister was to be on the programme, why was not similar action taken to that which was taken at the University of Melbourne?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Insofar as there is an imputation that what I have been saying constantly in the Senate and to other people for the last week is in some way untrue, I can only assure the Senate that when I said that I was aware that there was a draft resister I meant precisely that and no more; I did not believe that there was any person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued. In answer to the questions asked by the honourable senator, let me say that, as I have been told in a report which has come to me from the Commonwealth police, there were 2 Commonwealth policemen in attendance some quarter of an hour to half an hour before the programme commenced and they were not anticipating that, in fact, a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued would be in the studio. They became aware that a person whom they were seeking to apprehend was in the studio only when one of them saw on the television set in the foyer the actual presence of this man Matteson. It was at that stage that they sought to effect entry, but by the time one of them reached a position where he could view what was happening in the studio Mr Matteson had left. There is more than one door,I am informed-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are not suggesting that they were hindered in any way, are you?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Attorney-General is not here to be crossexamined. The question is being answered honestly and for the benefit of all honourable senators.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am informed that there is certainly more than one door by which entry and exit can be effected to and from the studio. The police did not have any search warrant; but they are entitled, by virtue of the warrants which they hold, to seek to apprehend a person in premises where they have reasonable grounds for believing he is.

page 1972

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to further reductions in employment and production resulting from the announcement by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd of its decision to cut steel production drastically and the laying up of 2 Australian National Line freighters, which actions will accelerate the growing unemployment which is forecast to reach more than 100,000 workers by the end of January? What is the Government doing in respect of these matters? Will it consider what action can be taken in respect of the ANL laying up and the BHP cuts? Will the Government consider the call by Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, for an early Premiers Conference to consider ways of stimulating the economy?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONFirst of all, a figure of 100,000 is being bandied about. I think it is a figure that has been loosely picked up and referred to. The bower birds get hold of it - I am not suggesting that the honourable senator is in that category - and it becomes a political figure for the purpose of making cases. Secondly, I saw today a reference to certain curtailments that BHP is proposing. Concurrently with that, I saw a reference to the fact that this would not mean a displacement of employees at all, but was being done at a time when certain work has to be done in relation to the maintenance of its equipment, etc. The honourable senator also referred to the laying up of certain ships of the Australian National Line. 1 am not competent to answer that question. It should be directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I will have it referred to him.

Senator Bishop:

– I am talking about the laying up of a crew.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am not competent to answer that at all and I shall have to refer it to the Minister. The other matter referred to was a blueprint which was put down, I think, by the Premier of South Australia. When I read it I thought: It is not bad; it is obviously pitched for home consumption because most of the things in it are directed to issues which would have particular interest in South Australia. For instance, I noted that one of the matters related to a motor car industry, and there is a motor car industry in South Australia. I noticed another one was pitched to an electronics industry which I know has quite an establishment there. Then there was one pitched to the wine industry, which has been referred to particularly in the Senate. Another one related to the building of a railway from somewhere in South Australia up to the border. I thought that as a political exercise these 12 points were well directed to the people in South Australia, but this is the world in which we live. That being so, all I can say is that the Government is aware of the economy; it has a responsibility to look to the economy and to the state of the economy. This is a matter of Government policy. Nevertheless in fairness to Senator Bishop, I shall refer his question to the Treasurer.

page 1972

QUESTION

RACISM

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the Hitler type tactics of the Australian National Socialist Party, also known as the Australian Nazi Party, at an Australian Council of Churches conference on racism held on the Gold Coast last weekend? Is the Minister also aware of the activities of extremist groups known as the Australian League of Rights and the National Civic Council in country and provincial areas in Queensland? In order to alert people of the true motives and objectives of these organisations, will the Minister prepare a White Paper on the Nazi Party, the National Civic Council and the League of Rights?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not aware of and my attention has not been drawn to any incident which occurred on the Gold Coast last weekend at a conference being organised by the Australian Council of Churches. Whatever incident did occur, I do not know whether it would be within the area of my ministerial responsibility. It may be that if anything did occur it is within the responsibility of the State police who, it should never be forgotten, have the primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in this country. In relation to the other aspects of the honourable senator’s question, I suggest that if he desires a considered answer he should put the question on the notice paper and I will then consider it.

page 1973

QUESTION

DRESS OF SENATORS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. On11 th November you advised the Senate that you proposed to call an early meeting of the Senate House Committee for the specific purpose of making recommendations on the dress of senators. I now ask whether this meeting has been held. If not, when will it be held, and will the Senate be given an opportunity to debate the Committee’s report before rising for the Christmas recess?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall give an answer to that question at the end of question time.

page 1973

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator RAE:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport ascertain whether one of the 2 Australian National Line ships ‘Lake Boga’ and ‘Lake Macquarie’ which are at present being laid up due to lack of trade can, if an economical conversion is possible, be made available to make scheduled voyages to northern Tasmania to transport livestock from Tasmania to the Victorian markets?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– That seems to me to be a very useful suggestion and I shall pass it on to the Minister for Shipping and Transport as soon as we conclude question time.

page 1973

QUESTION

FRUIT

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Government aware of the grave situation in the fruit growing areas of the Goulburn Valley, in Victoria, and Griffith and Leeton, in New South Wales, where certain canneries have advised that only an unsatisfactory percentage of this year’s crop can be taken tor canning? Following last year’s difficult result, does this face many Victorian growers in particular with the prospect of ruin? Is the statement correct that a large New South Wales cannery has closed because the Commonwealth refused finance? Will the Government ask its officers to examine this problem at once and seek ways and means to help the growers?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I well understand the situation to which the honourable senator refers. I am very sympathetic to the growers’ problems, especially in the present situation of over production of canned fruits. However, I point out to the honourable senator that it has been the policy of the Government developed over a long period that where problems of such a nature affect a State the remedy is a matter for the State. Only recently the Commonwealth, on a $1 for$1 basis with the State governments, made money available both in New South Wales and South Australia. In regard to the problem at Griffith, at the present time a sum of $200,000 is being mentioned. This is a matter which the Commonwealth believes is well within the capabilities of the State Government to attend to. I can point out to the honourable senator that a committee comprising representatives of the Commonwealth, the States and the industry itself is presently investigating the long terms problems of the industry. I understand that this committee has been set up by the Australian Agricultural Council and will be reporting to the Agricultural Council. I shall convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and if there is anything further to add I shall ask the Minister to do so.

page 1973

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like to make a plea for the indulgence of honourable senators in relation to questions without notice. There is a substantial list of questions on notice to which answers have been received. Ministers have been under questioning for an hour and 20 minutes, so with that thought in mind perhaps honourable senators might consider allowing questions which have been on notice for sonic time to be answered by postponing further questions without notice until another day.

page 1974

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator POYSER:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral received a statement which was made lust Sunday by the President of the Australian Union of Students regarding the unwillingness of the Government to prosecute draft resisters? Is the immunity from prosecution that many prominent students and other draft resisters so obviously enjoy conditional only upon these people not seeking undue publicity for themselves as being persons in breach of the National Service Act? Does the Government’s unwillingness to prosecute all but the most brazen draft resisters arise from fear of swamping the gaols of Australia with essentially political prisoners?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question is based upon assumptions which are incorrect. The Government is not selective in the persons whom it prosecutes. It prosecutes all those persons who are detected as having committed breaches of the National Service Act. Those persons who are able to be located and served with summonses are brought before the courts. Those persons who. having been served, do not appear are the subject of warrants for arrest. I have read the statement which appears in the newspaper attributed to the President of the Australian Union of Stude. ts. He mentions 7 names. An examination of records shows that 2 of the 7 persons named by Mr Macaulay have had registration forms lodged with the Department of Labour and National Service at the required time but they were balloted out. and upon what basis they now claim themselves to be liable to arrest 1 am unable to say. One person has been the subject of prosecution proceedings for failure to register and also for failure to attend for medical examination and he has now to be called up for service. Another person has registered but failed to attend for medical examination and proceedings are currently being initiated against him for that offence. The cases of the other 3 men are still being investigated. There is no readily apparent indication that they are in breach of any obligation under the National Service Act. The statement made by Mr Macaulay appears to fall somewhat short of being completely accurate, to say the least, and that is consistent with certain things that he is alleged to have said at about the same time.

page 1974

QUESTION

THAILAND: MARTIAL LAW

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What protest has the Government made to the Government of Thailand following the imposition of martial law and the dissolution of the Thai Parliament? As Thailand has now followed Cambodia in the process of non-democratic government will the Australian Government, which has used men and money to support so-called democracy in South Vietnam, make public its displeasure at the way in which democracy is being challenged by our former allies in Indo-China?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– There is a certain amount of impertinence in the question. Nevertheless, it refers to a matter which is of serious concern to serious people in the Parliament. The incident to which reference has been made has been publicised, indicating that martial law has been imposed in Thailand and that the Cabinet and Parliament were abolished on 17th November by a group calling themselves the Revolutionary Parly. Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn announced, at a Press conference, that the National Executive Council would expedite the writing of a new Constitution and would appoint new Ministers in 2 or 3 months. The changes which have taken place were changes within the domestic jurisdiction of Thailand.

It is satisfactory to note that the establishment of the National Executive Council was accomplished without bloodshed or violence and that there is no question of danger to Australian lives or property. The Australian ambassador to Thailand is accredited to His Majesty the King of Thailand, the Head of State, whose position has not been affected by recent developments. Therefore no question of diplomatic recognition arises and no new act of diplomatic recognition is required. Australia’s relations with Thailand are expected not to be affected. Thailand remains a responsible member of SEATO and other international organisations of which Australia also is a member. Australia’s aid programme to Thailand will continue unchanged.

page 1975

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I ask of the Attorney-General a question which arises out of the previous question that I asked. Did the warrant to apprehend the draft resister held by a Commonwealth policeman who sought and was refused entry to a studio in which Michael Matteson was present entitle the police to force an entry? Did the particular officer seek to force such an entry?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The existence of a warrant to arrest a person carries with it certain rights in the constable who holds the warrant or who, pursuant to that warrant, is seeking to effect an arrest. It is a matter of what is reasonable in the circumstances in which the arrest is sought and whether the conduct in which he engages is justified by that warrant. I would appreciate that the honourable senator should know that one cannot lay down in advance all the circumstances in which certain conduct would be appropriate. It must be judged in the light of what is reasonable at the time. That night there was no breaking or entering. An attempt was made to enter a studio in which the programme was being held. The door to the studio was locked. Although there was a thumping on the door in an endeavour to have it opened from the inside, that was unsuccessful.

page 1975

QUESTION

HEALTH FUNDS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. By way of preface and, in defence of you, Mr President,I state that it is necessary to ask this supplementary question to avoid my raising the matter during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. Am I to understand that in the absence of a hospitals insurance commission the Minister is taking no action, through his officers, to probe whether some workers compensation liability is being carried by the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia and therefore is eroding the funds of members?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI think that at question time it would be very wrong for the honourable senator to make assumptions or for me to make judgments on this question. I think the fairest thing for both of us would be for him to put the question on notice. I thank him for not raising the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I will look at it and perhaps tomorrow I will be able to expand on the answer that I gave earlier.

page 1975

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

Senator GEORGES:

– May I inform you, Mr President, that I had 5 questions to ask and that I did not intend to ask a further question now but I have been prompted to do so by the previous answer given by the Attorney-General. I now ask the Attorney-General whether he can explain to me what type of warrant the Commonwealth policeman who was at the Australian Broadcasting Commission studios had. Did he have a warrant for the arrest of Matteson in particular? How was it that he had this warrant when he did not have foreknowledge that Matteson would be there?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I do not know how I can explain to the honourable senator the warrant about which he asked. The point which I make is that I have not said, as I recall my answer, that the policemen had in their possession a warrant for anybody’s arrest. Certainly the Commonwealth police have a statutory right to exercise warrants which are directed to them or which are directed to any member of a State police force. The warrant issued for the arrest of Mr Matteson was tabled in the Senate within the last month to 6 weeks. So it is available to anyone who might question its existence. It is not necessary for a policeman to have the actual warrant in his possession at the time that he effects arrest. If that were the case the whole process of law enforcement would be nullified.

page 1975

QUESTION

SIR WILLIAM GUNN

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, by advising the Senate thatI am agreeable to having my 7 questions on notice and the answers to them incorporated in Hansard. Is the Minister aware that

Sir William Gunn intends to retire from public office associated with wool industry organisations? Has Sir William’s resignation been brought about by pressure from the Government generally or by pressure from certain Government members, in particular the Deputy Prime Minister and/ or the Minister for Primary Industry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The answer is no.

page 1976

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier Senator Rae asked a question to which I have given some consideration since asking him to put the question on notice. I have been through every ruling that has been given by every predecessor who has occupied this chair and I have come to the concluion that if I applied every one of them no-one would be able to ask any questions. However, I am willing to see Senator Rae if he can frame his question in such a way as not to offend me.

Senator RAE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question. By way of brief preface, I refer to chapter 9 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade on the Australian National Line shipping services to and from Tasmania, and I refer also to my questions to the Minister earlier this session. I now ask: Will the Minister draw to the attention of his colleague and urge his close consideration of a motion passed at a meeting attended by approximately 280 persons, representing a cross-section of business, industry and local and State governments held at George Town in Tasmania last night? The motion passed at that meeting, at which I was present and of which I have knowledge, read as follows:

That this meeting believes that it is essential that the Commonwealth Government should refer to the Bureau of Transport Economics for consideration, assessment and recommendation the question of the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of a scheme of subsidy by freight cost equalisation for shipping to and from Tasmania at the same time that it carries out its already announced quantitative assessment of Tasmania’s transport disabilities relative to the other States.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As I indicated earlier this afternoon, I certainly will do this. I am grateful to have the motion.

page 1976

QUESTION

THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier, Senator McLaren asked me about an undertaking that I gave 10 days ago on the question of referring to the House Committee the matter of dress in the Senate. I have asked the Secretary of the House Committee to call a meeting of the Committee this week. I cannot anticipate in any way how the Committee will report or when it will report, but I assure the honourable senator and anyone else who is interested in the matter that the Senate chamber is fully air conditioned. Its normal temperature is 68 degrees, but if any honourable senator feels hot I am willing to have the temperature controls screwed down further.

page 1976

QUESTION

DARWIN AIRPORT

Senator McLAREN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the Department of Air set aside 330 acres on Darwin Airport for the Department of Civil Aviation to establish a civil complex? If so, when was this decision made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Darwin Airport is owned by the Department of Air. The Department of Civil Aviation is a tenant on that airfield under the general programme of joint user facilities, which method is adopted where it is possible to do so. I shall have to make detailed inquiries from my own Department and from the Department of Air in order to obtain the precise information sought by the honourable senator. I shall do that.

page 1976

QUESTION

LOCK TO KIMBA PIPELINE

(Question No. 1515)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that the South Australain Government was deeply disappointed that the Federal Government was not prepared to provide financial assistance for the Lock-Kimba pipeline, which would relieve the acute shortage of water in the Kimba area, and would benefit farmers over an area of about 1,000 square miles.
  2. Will the South Australian Government build the pipeline notwithstanding the continued refusal of the Federal Government to assist the people living in this area.
  3. Is the Minister also aware that it will take the South Australian Government much longer to complete the pipeline than the original forecast of 6 to 7 years had financial assistance been forthcoming from the Federal Government.
  4. Will the Minister consult with the Prime Minister for the purpose of having the necessary finance made available so that water can be supplied to the people of Kimba as quickly as possible.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I believethe South Australian Government is proceeding with the scheme, but am not in a position to say what its attitude may be in future.
  3. I recognise that the rale of construction depends to a large extent on the rate at which finance can be provided, and that Commonwealth financial assistance would reduce the construction time.
  4. Both the Prime Minister andI have recently received deputations concerning Commonwealth financial assistance for construction of the scheme. Information was provided suggesting that a considerable change in the nature of production was occurring in the area. The members of these deputations and the Premier of South Australia have been advised that the Commonwealth will give further consideration to any new submission, provided that there is convincing evidence of a change in stocking patterns in relation to the project. It would still be necessary to show that the project has adequate merit from the national viewpoint to warrant Commonwealth financial assistance.

page 1977

QUESTION

MURRAY BRIDGE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

(Question No. 1534)

Senator McLAREN:

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

When will the Murray Bridge telephone exchange be fully connected to the national Subscriber Trunk Dialling network.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The Murray Bridge telephone exchange is tentatively planned for connection to the national STD network during 1975.

page 1977

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

(Question No. 1555)

Senator WEBSTER:
through Senator Lawrie

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

  1. Which nations that voted for or against the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations Organisation, and the expulsion of Taiwan, were financial members of the United Nations at the time of the vote.
  2. For how long had the unfinancial members been in default, and what arrears of contributions were owing in each case.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The United Nations does not publish information relating to which members are in arrears with their contributions. However, in accordance with Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, a member which is in arrears in its financial contributions to the Organisation shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arreas equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the proceeding 2 full years. From this point of view a nonfinancial member would be a member who is 2 years in arrears.

The Soviet Union, France and some others were in arrears in accordance with Article 19 in 1965 because they refused to meet the expenses of the organisation connected with the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations Force in the Congo and the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle-East. As a means of overcoming the crises which was associated with the attempt to apply Article 19 to these countries a consensus was reached in the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and adopted by the General Assembly which stated:

  1. That the General Assembly will carry on its work normally in accordance with its rules of procedure:
  2. That the question of the applicability of Article 19 of the Charter will not be raised with regard to the United Nations Emergency Force and the United Nations Operations in the Congo;
  3. That the financial difficulties of the Organisation should be solved through voluntary contributions by member states, with the highly developed countries making substantial contributions.

With this qualification all of the members of the United Nations which participated in the vote on Chinese representation were financial members.

page 1977

QUESTION

TAKEOVER OF AUSTRALIAN COMPANY

(Question No. 1279)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Australia Pty Ltd refused to supply the Australian company of De Neefe Signs Pty Ltd with reflective materials; if so, is this refusal connected with the fact that De Neefe Signs has developed a reflective sheeting called Australite’ which is competitive with ‘Scotchlite’ made by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company.
  2. Will the Minister take steps to prevent this attempt by a giant overseas-owned corporation to strangle, economically, a small Australian company.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. I am aware of a public statement issued by De Neefe Signs Pty Ltd some time ago in which the company stated that Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Australia Pty Ltd had stopped its supply of reflective products or material to the company. I have also received representations from Dr R. Gun, M.P., on this matter.
  2. De Neefe Signs Pty Ltd has informed my Department that the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company Australia Pty Ltd is now supplying De Neefe Signs Pty Ltd with their requirements of reflective products and material.

page 1978

QUESTION

OFFICE BUILDING

(Question No. 1394)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Do the figures released on 27th September 1971 which show a sharp rise in approvals for private office building, indicate that the Government’s call for restraint in this area has been unsuccessful.
  2. Does the Government’s reluctance to house its departments in Commonwealth offices and, as revealed in the Minister’s answer to my question on 8th September 1971, the resulting necessity to pay $20m per annum in rent, encourage private developers to continue building office blocks.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The housing of Commonwealth Departments is not related directly to variations in the rate of approvals for private office building from time to time.

The figures of private office building approvals for the month of August reflected the inclusion, in that particular month, of a number of very large projects. Because of this, the large increase in office approvals between July and August is not necessarily indicative of a general upward trend. In the seven months since the former Prime Minister’s call for restraint, approvals of private office buildings have declined to a level 14 per cent below that in the corresponding period of the previous year.

The Commonwealth’s occupation of privatelyowned buildings for office accommodation purposes is determined by the Commonwealth’s overall needs, the suitability of the buildings concerned for Commonwealth accommodation, prevailing rental levels, and the relative priorities of Commonwealth office construction projects as compared with other capital works. The Government has implemented major office construction programmes in recent years and is continually reviewing the most appropriate ways of accommodating departments in capital cities and regional centres.

page 1978

QUESTION

TRADE

(Question No. 1408)

Senator YOUNG:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of Australia’s imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in each of the past five years.
  2. For how long have Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics been trading partners, and has Australia ever refused to trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  3. From which countries does Australia import most of its crude oil and what is the cost per barrel of crude oil imported by Australia.
  4. Does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics export crude oil beyond the Communist-bloc countries; if so, how does the price of their crude oil compare with the price of crude oil presently imported by Australia, taking into account differences in grade and freight rates.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. Australian imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for each of the last five years were as follows:
  1. Since the inception of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922, Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been trading partners. However, it was not until the signing of the Australia/USSR Trade Agreement in October 1965 that trade relations between the two nations were formalised. Australia has never refused to trade with the USSR. However, Australian exports to the USSR are limited to those not on the strategic export list.
  2. Australian imports of crude petroleum in 1970-71 were as follows:
  1. The USSR exports crude oil to countries outside the Communist Bloc but official USSR statistics do not record the information separately. The statistics show the average export price received by the USSR in 1970 for exports to all destinations was$A12.36 f.o.b. per metric ton. This compares with an average Australian import price in 1970-71 of$A10.14 f.o.b. per metric ton. However no account can be taken of differences which may exist in grade and quality.

page 1979

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1571)

Senator GAIR:

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

  1. Did the recent delegation to Canberra of Papuan politicians, headed by Mr Oala-Rarua, the Assistant Ministerial Member for Treasury, request a system of regional assemblies of parliaments in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. Was the purpose of this request to safeguard ethnic and minority rights against the encroaching demands of central government in Port Moresby.
  3. Will the Minister give an assurance that this request by responsible Papuan politicians for a federal government in Papua and New Guinea, with entrenched state or regional rights, will receive full and sympathetic consideration from the Australian Government.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) Yes. The delegation did raise this matter and the Government is aware of the problem. At the conclusion of the discussions, I issued a press statement which said inter alia:

The group had raised the question of regional authorities for Papua New Guinea which it felt would help to protect minority groups and through which local government could make its demands known to the central government. The Minister (for External Territories) noted the views of the group and it was agreed that this was a matter for a select committee on constitutional development of the next House.’

Also on 20th May, 1971, the Administrator of Papua New Guinea, Mr L. W. Johnson, made on my authority, a statement on National Unity. In this statement Mr Johnson said inter alia: . . there will be the opportunity in the lifetime of the next House to look more deeply into the problem of the relationship between the future central government and its constituent elements and the means by which the interests of the less populous and less developed areas can best be protected.’

The Local Government (Authorities) Ordinance 1971 provides for the setting up of area authorities in Papua New Guinea. It was passed by the House of Assembly during its March sittingthis year. These area authorities will enable a substantial degree of decision-making to be devolvedto the districts or areas in which they are proclaimed. Plans to set up the first area authority in New Ireland, are currently well advanced.

page 1979

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1577)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Australian Government has taken no initiative to offer its services in resolving the current dispute between India and Pakistan.
  2. Is it also a fact that assistance for refugees in India will continue to be needed until such time as a political solution allows the refugees to return to East Pakistan.
  3. How long does the Government expect the Australian people to continue donating goods and money for the relief of refugees while it takes no initiative itself to resolve the problem.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Government has exercised and will continue to exercise its influence in whatever way it can to reduce tension in the Indian sub-continent.
  2. It is impossible to predict how long there will be a requirement to assist the refugees in India.
  3. See answers to (1) and (2).

page 1979

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS, TOWNSVILLE

(Question No. 1583)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Why were Department of Works employees dismissed from the Townsville Depot when the following vehicles were made available for repair on the dates shown, but had not been repaired as at 1 3th October 1971 because of unavailability of spare parts.

    1. Diamond’ T’ Wrecker Registration No. 143416 available on 8th June 1971.
    2. An International Mark 3 Registration No. 171141 available on 28th July 1971.
    3. A Volkswagen Registration No. 116778 available on 30th July 1971.
    4. An International Mark 3 Registration No. 170100 available on 17th August 1971.
    5. A Land Rover Registration No. 113547 available on 19th August 1971.
    6. An International F.1 Registration No. 174997 available on 24th August 1971.
    7. An International F.1 Registration No. 175037 available on 27th August 1971.
    1. Is it a fact that employees were dismissed from the depot largely because of inefficiency at top administrative level in a number of areas and not because of alleged scarcity of work.
Senator WRIGHT:

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

  1. The reasons why the services of six (6) Department of Works employees were retrenched at the Townsville Plant Workshop were given in my answer of 28th September 1971 to Question No. 1386 (page 885).

The total man hours of labour involved in repairing the vehicles mentioned were 437½ hours. As at 13th October 1971 the number of remaining hours on these vehicles was 29½ hours. The number of remaining hours on all current Army work, including these vehicles, at that date, was 206¾.

  1. The answer to the question is no. Retrenchment was necessary because of scarcity of work. The following details show how the workload supplied by the Army has decreased.

page 1980

QUESTION

USTASHI

(Question No. 1391)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Did Mr Justice Lush in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 19th August 1971, inthe case of the Crown versus Halimi, make comments which implied certain terrorist activity by Ustashi elements in Australia; if so, will the AttorneyGeneral take immediate action through the appropriate Government agency to counter this situation.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

No. In the case in question, comments to this effect were made by counsel for the accused. The allegations are under investigation.

page 1980

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

(Question No. 1399)

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the 26th September 1971 issue of The Sunday Australian’, that despite the fact that the Commonwealth Office of the Environment was created 6 months ago, it has no staff.
  2. Is it also a fact that only four positions have been established and they will not be filled for several weeks; if so, does the Government have in mind for the Office of the Environment a purely decorative, rather than a practical role.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Executive Council approval was given on 16th July 1971 to the creation of the following offices in the Office of the Environment Division of my Department:

First Assistant Secretary, Level 3, Second Division

Assistant Secretary, Level 1, Second Division Steno-Secretary (Female), Grade 1, (two positions)

Recommendations for the creation of additional offices are expected to be placed before the Executive Council in the near future.

Commonwealth Gazette No. 94 of 7th October 1971 notified a transfer to the Office of First Assistant Secretary and a provisional promotion to the Office of Assistant Secretary.

page 1980

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

(Question No. 1434)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Did 200 Commonwealth Police make a raid at 5 a.m. on 30th September 1971 on Union House on the grounds of the University of Melbourne.
  2. Were offers of keys to gain entry refused by the police, and were keys available from the Fire Protection Unit on request, but not sought by the police.
  3. Did the police damage about 30 doors and other property in order to gain entry to the building; if so, is the Commonwealth Government responsible for restoration of the damage, and what will be the cost of doing so.
  4. Did the Registrar of the University of Melbourne commend students for their conduct during the raid.
  5. How many Commonwealth Police and vehicles were used for the raid, and what time was spent in carrying out the raid.
  6. What purpose was served by the raid.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. On 30th September 1971 140 members of the Commonwealth Police Force, under the direction of a Deputy Commissioner,visited the University of Melbourne to conduct a search for illegal radio equipment and for a number of persons for whom warrants of arrest had been issued. The persons were being harboured by others in Union House, and had publicly advertised their whereabouts. Thirty members of the Force entered Union House to make the search.
  2. A member of the Commonwealth Police Force had on 29th September 1971 asked the Registrar of the University whether, in the event of it being necessary, for the Commonwealth Police to go into Union House at any time in the future he could provide a key to Union House. Later the sameday the Registrar stated that he could not supply a key. No offers of keys were made to the members of the Force until about 45 minutes afterthe search had commenced. By that time, the search of the building was almost completed. An offer of keys was then made and accepted by the police.I understand that fire prolection for the University is provided by the Carlton Fire Brigade and not by a unit at the University,
  3. Two doors were damaged in order to gain entry to the building. Other doors were damaged inside the building to gain access to rooms. The Commonwealth Government is not responsible for the restoration of the damage.
  4. I have no information on this matter.
  5. One hundred and forty members of the Force, two buses, four cars and a panel van were used. The time spent was approximately 2 hours.
  6. One person, in respect of whom a warrant had been issued, was arrested. In addition, some equipment was seized in execution of a warrant issued for the search of the premises to locate a transmitter being used for illegal broadcasting. The action by the police also served the purpose of demonstrating that the Commonwealth Police are concerned to apprehend persons for whom warrants for arrest have been issued.

page 1981

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TELEVISION RIGHTS

(Question No. 1513)

Senator McAULIFFE:

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

Why are videotapes of the British rugby league match-of-the-day not shown on ABC television each week in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Darwin, as is the case with the British soccer match-of-the-day.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The Australian television rights tothe English Rugby League 1970-71 season were purchased by Australian commercial television network and are therefore not available to the ABC.

page 1981

QUESTION

FOREIGN PYRAMID SELLING ORGANISATIONS

(Question No. 1561)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice: (1)Is it possible, under the Constitution or by the introduction of legislation, to prevent foreign pyramid-selling organizations, such as ‘Holiday Magic’ and ‘Golden Products’, from becoming established in Australia.

  1. Can these organizations be required by law to return cash to agents who have been virtually made bankrupt in many instances by the doubtful selling practices adopted by them.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) It would not be in accordance with the Standing Orders to provide the legal opinions sought by this question. Pyramidsellingwasdiscussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General at Hobart on 28th October 1971. I then indicated that the current review of trade practicesbeing undertaken by the Commonwealth Government would include a consideration of pyramid-selling.

page 1981

QUESTION

VALUE OF THE AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR

(Question No. 1427)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the value of the Australian dollar in relation to foreign currencies especially the yen?
  2. What has been the effect on Australia in terms of imports and export prices of Australian goods as a result of the international monetary crisis?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. and (2) In a statement to Parliament on 26th August the Prime Minister announced that, because of the state of uncertainty in foreign exchange markets following the economic measures announced by President Nixon on 15th August, it was not possible to settle on a firm exchange rate for the Australian dollar. However, in order to enable overseas transactions to take place, the Government had decided to continue to fix the exchange rate of the Australian dollar with the pound sterling on a daily basis. The Prime Minister added that the situation was continually under review and that any short-term change in the rate against the United States dollar should not necessarily be taken as an indication as to the long-term rate that will eventually be settled for the Australian dollar.

As a result of this decision, the existing parity between the Australian dollar and sterling - that is, $A2. 1429 for £1 sterling - has been maintained. The value of the Australian dollar in relation to all other currencies is determined by the rate at which sterling is traded in terms of those currencies. As I pointed out in my statement to the Mouse on 28th October on the international monetary situation, this means that the Ausralian dollar has appreciated by about 4 per cent in terms of parity with the United States dollar. However, other countries, some of them important trading partners, have appreciated even more against the United States dollar. If the Australian dollar is related to the currencies of our trading partners, it is evident that overall the Australian dollar has effectively neither revalued nor devalued to any significant extent.

The rate of exchange for the Australian dollar in terms of a number of overseas currencies as at 29t h October as quoted by the Commonweath TradingBank, is shown below. (Most of the rates are variable from day to day.)

Rates for the yen are available only on application and not quoted publicly. However, as a guide, the rate in London on 1st November was about 328.69 yen for$US1, which was the equivalent of about 368.13 yen for $A1.

page 1982

QUESTION

PRO RATA FURLOUGH

(Question No. 1488)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Have steps been taken to amend the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act to provide for pro rata furlough after 10 years service in place of the present provision of pro rata furlough after 15 years service, other than when retirement is due to old age or ill-health.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 refer the honourable senator to the Acting

Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 4412 (Hansard, House of Representatives, page 2998) on 3rd November 1971.

page 1982

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MUTTON

(Question No. 1 545)

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

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

  1. How much mutton exported by Australia to the United States has been rejected because of sheep measles, in each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971?
  2. Where was the rejected meat ultimately sold, and at what price?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Lesions of sheep measles are not identified as such by United States import inspectors in the records of their inspections. Details of the quantities of Australian mutton rejected for this cause are therefore unavailable. However, the following tabic compiled from departmental records gives approximate figures for the rejection by United State inspectors of mutton in which pathological lesions of all kinds have been found, compared with total imports of mutton from Australia.
  1. No information is available on the disposal of rejected meat or on the price at which it was sold.

page 1982

QUESTION

PETER MITCHELL PRIZEMEN AWARD

(Question No. 1559)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Can naval servicemen only be nominated for the Peter Mitchell Prizemen award by a commanding officer; if so, will the Minister investigate the possibility of allowing any naval servicemen to submit a nomination for the award?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

Whenever a Commanding Officer has occasion to render a report on one of his officers or sailors it is normal practice for him to seek the opinion of those officers and senior sailors for whom the person being reported upon works. This practice will normally be followed in considering nominations for Peter Mitchell Prizemen.

page 1983

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS, TOWNSVILLE

(Question No. 1461)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. What orders, or requisitions, placed by the Commonwealth Department of Works at Townsville with Department of the Army, stores are currently outstanding.
  2. What was the period of delay by Army stores in fulfilling each order or requisition made out by the Department of Works at Townsville during the last 12 months.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. No orders or requisitions for spare parts have been placed by the Commonwealth Department of Works at Townsville with the Department of the Army Stores. Department of Army provides parts as set out in the reply to Question No. 1460.

As at 15th October, spare parts listed as mentioned currently outstanding are shown in the schedule which I have this day sent tothe honourable senator by letter.

  1. The period of time between a request for spare parts and delivery, being made through Army supply channels is outlined in the schedules provided by the Minister for the Army of whichI have this day sent copies by letter to the honourable senator. It is seen that the long delays relate to parts for items which were World War II manufacture and are now out of production, namely Cookers Military (Wiles Cooker) and Diamond T Wrecker.

page 1983

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS, TOWNSVILLE

(Question No. 1460)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

Will the Minister table in the Senate a copy of all orders or requisitions for spare parts which have been made out to Department of the Army stores by the Commonwealth Department of Works at Townsville during the last 12 months.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Department of Works does not place orders or requisitions for spare parts with the Department of the Army. The Department of Works indicates to the Department of the Army in Townsville, its requirement for parts for the repair of. Army vehicles by means of an Army form titled ‘Parts Requirement List’, known shortly as ‘B’ sheets. From consideration of these sheets the Department of the Army determines which parts it will supply and advises Department of Works accordingly.

The Minister for the Army has advised that if the parts required are to be obtained through the Army’s supply system, the information contained in the ‘B’ sheet is transcribed by, Army onto indents which are accountable and traceable documents. The ‘B’ sheets are not always fully inscribed with the dates of receipt and delivery of parts to Commonwealth Department of Works, as any necessary follow-up action is taken on the indents.

Arrangements have been made by the Minister for the Army for copies of the ‘B’ sheets and the associated indents to be made available in the Library for perusal by honourable senators for a period of four weeks.

page 1983

QUESTION

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SOUTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 1549)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. What was the source of an invitation to a Senator of the Australian Democratic Labor Party to observe the recent Presidential election in South Vietnam, and why were representatives of the Australian Liberal, Labor and Country Parties not invited.
  2. Why was the invitation restricted to such a narrowly based section of Australian political opinion.
  3. Was any part of the cost of the visit to South Vietnam by the Senator met by the Australian Government.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. I understand that the Government of the Republic of Vietnam extended personal invitations to at least 2 members of the Australian Parliament to observe the Presidential election in the Republic of Vietnam. According to my information, those invited included a Senator of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, who was able to accept, and a member of the Australian Liberal Party in another place, who was unable to do so.

The question of extending invitations to observe elections in any country is a matter entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of the Government of that country. In respect of the Presidential election in the Republic of Vietnam, President Thieu on several occasions issued a general invitation to foreign political and Press figures who were interested in the elections to go to Vietnam to observe them. A large number did so.

  1. See (1) above.
  2. No.

page 1984

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

(Question No. 1364)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the Minister representingthe Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Did Sir John Crawford, Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, state recently that he hopes that the Australian National University will start an inter-disciplinary degree in the science of man.
  2. Will the Government give thefullest possible encouragement to the establishment ofsuch a vital study, not only at the Australian National University bin in every university in Australia.
  3. Will the Government consider initiating research into existing curricula in primary and secondary schools to establish what reforms in such curricula should be recommended towards equipping every young person with a better understanding of Man.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Sir John Crawford. Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University did say at a Conferring of Degrees ceremony on 10th September that there were moves in the University towards the establishment of ‘a degree in the Study or Science of Man, which will call for the cooperation of the biologist, sociologist, psychologist, economist, anthropologist and historian’. He expressed his own support for this proposal.
  2. It is a matter for individual universities to decide whether they wish to propose the establishment of such studies.
  3. The Government recognises that improvement in the quality of Australian education depends to a considerable extent on devising curricula and associated materials which reflect the changing needs of Australian life.

Consequently the Government has made known its, willingness to consider requests for direct supportfor curriculum development proposals put forward by the States. As a result of this policy, the Commonwealth is involved, jointly with the Slates, in two cirriculum development activities relevant to the Honourable Senator’s question.

Firstly, the Commonwealth and all the States are financing the Australian Science Education Project which is developing instructional materials in science for use by teachers and students in secondary schools throughout Australia. This project is committed to an environmental approach which is concerned withthe future of Man on this planet.

A second important area of the curriculum which seeks to equip students with a better understanding of Man is the Social Sciences. The Commonwealth is providing support in this important area by supplying the secretariat and meeting the expenses of the National Committee on Social Science Teaching. This Committee arose from the UNESCO Seminar on the Teaching of Social Science at the Secondary Level held in Burwood,

Victoria, in 1967. It was established in 1970 after consultation with the six State Education Departments, the Social Science Research Council, the Australian Teachers’ Federation, the National Council of Independent Schools and the Australian Council for Educational Research.

This Committee is charged with the task of examining goals and suggesting desirable content areas for inclusion in new Social Science curricula to suit Australian conditions. Through exchange of information on directions taken in the development of curricular materials in the States, it will exercise a co-ordinating influence on these materials and will be in a position to suggest ways in which production and trial of new materials may be assisted. The deliberations and suggestions of the Committee are being reported from time to time toEducation Departments and the other agencies represented.

page 1984

QUESTION

BUTTER

(Question No. 1449)

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

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

  1. What was the Australian production of butter in 1970-71.
  2. What orders for butter were received by the Australian Dairy ProduceBoard in 1970-71, and were all orders filled; if not. which countries had their orders unfulfilled.
  3. What ordersfor butter and milk were received by private companies, were they met, and whattonnage was involved.
  4. Was milk powder imported from New Zealand or from any other country; if so,at what price.
  5. Were there imports of cheese in 1970-71; if so, from which countries, and at what price.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. The commercial butter equivalent of butter, butteroil and ghee produced in Australia in 1970- 71 was 199,881 tons.
  2. and (3) Sales of butter to markets outside the United Kingdom are made on a trader to trader basis and there are no reliable records of the extent to which overseas orders and enquiries made either direct to private firms or throughthe Australian Dairy Produce Board were filled.

Trader to trader exports were curtailed in the last quarter of 1970-71 because of the need to ensure that adequate supplies were available for the domestic market.

Butter shipments to the United Kingdom are made by the Board on a consignment basis and not against orders. Australia supplied 56,443 tons of butterto the United Kingdom against its import quota entitlement of 67,600 tons for the year ended 31st March 1971. All milk sales to overseas countries are made by private traders and as in the case of butter there is no reliable record of orders received and how they were processed.

  1. According to the Commonwealth Statistician imports of milk powder including dried buttermilk, skimmed milk and whey in 1970-71 were as set out in the following table. The average unit values of imports from the respective countries are also shown.
  1. According to the Commonwealth Statistician imports of cheese in 1970-71 were as set out in the. following table. The average unit values of imports from the respective countries are also shown.

page 1985

QUESTION

ARMY WORKS AT TOWNSVILLE

(Question No. 1439)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What was the cost and nature of work carried out by each private contractor on behalf of the Department of the Army at Townsville during the past year, and what firms were involved.
  2. If this information is not readily available, will the Minister undertake to obtain it as a matter of urgency.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

In general, the Army uses private contractors in cases where the repair work involved cannot be handled, firstly in its own workshops, or secondly by, making use of any spare capacity in other Commonwealth Department Workshops.

I should like to make it clear that the fullest co-operation exists between officers of my Department and the Commonwealth Department of Works (CDW) in Townsville. In fact, a Resident Trade Repair Supervisor on the staff of the Department of the Army Workshop at Townsville is located at the CDW workshop for purposes of liaison, inspection and acceptance of completed jobs, and determination of the parts to be supplied by the Army.

Clearly the Army Supervisor is aware, on a day to day basis, of the capacity of CDW to undertake Army repair tasks. Similarly, CDW is aware of the volume of repair work to be done for the Army. In this situation it will be apparent that the capacity available within CDW is taken fully into account by the Department of the Army before work is let out to private contractors and that CDW is aware of the nature and extent of the Army’s repair commitment.

The Minister for the Army has forwarded to Senator Keeffe a detailed schedule of the expenditure and nature of work undertaken on vehicle trade repair in Townsville for the period from 15th October 1970 to 15th October 1971.

page 1985

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1203)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What has been the amount spent by Australia in foreign countries in each of the last 5 years on the purchase of (a) dramatic television programmes; (b) variety television programmes; and (c) educational or documentary television programmes.
  2. What was the amount spent by Australia in foreign countries in each of the last 5 years on the purchase of films for cinematograph purposes.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answers:

  1. and (2) The following table shows allocations of overseas exchange which I am informed have been authorised for the last five years for the purchase of films for television programme material and for other exhibition purposes. Statistics relating, to payments for films for use on television do not permit dissection by type of programme involved.

In 1970-71 an additional sum - equivalent to $A4.1m - was remitted overseas from Australia in payment for imported films. However, details of the proportions of these remittances which relate to films for use on television and for other purposes are not available.

page 1986

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

(Question No. 1589)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What is the Australian Government’s attitude to the re-admission of Taiwan to the United Nations Organisation should free elections be held in Taiwan in order to ensure that native-born Taiwanese obtain the major role in governing that country.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The question is of a speculative nature and I do not propose to answer it other than to note that no question of ‘re-admission’ exists as ‘Taiwan’ has never been a member of the United Nations. The recent decision of the United Nations General Assembly dealt with the representation of China.

page 1986

QUESTION

APARTHEID

(Question No. 1349)

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Do many countries in Africa practise apartheid between their constituent races.
  2. Does the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics practise apartheid in preventing its citizens from leaving the country, and does the same situation apply in Czechoslovakia because of the actions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  3. Did the trade unions of Australia play a major role in bringing into existence the ‘white Australia policy’.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The Republic of South Africa is the only country which has adopted apartheid as its official policy.
  2. There are many countries which impose restrictions on the emigration of their citizens. Such restrictions are not generally regarded as a manifestation of apartheid which is concerned with the separation of races within a community.
  3. I have referred this question to my colleague the Minister for Immigration.

page 1986

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

(Question No. 1595)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Was a liquor licence granted in the Gove Peninsula area after an in camera court hearing, and following a procedure, which did not permit all the interests concerned to express an opinion, contrary to accepted court practice.
  2. Wasthe granting of an open licence, and not a club licence contrary to the expressed wishes of the Aboriginal people in the area.
  3. Were Aboriginal elders unable to express their views before the court because of its in camera hearing.
  4. Will the Minister withhold the issuing of a licence until an opportunity has been given for all interested persons to have their views heard.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. to (4) On 6th September 1971 a Licensing Magistrate sitting in Chambers granted a publican’s licence for the hotel at Nhulunbuy owned by Walkabout Hotel (Gove) Pty Ltd.

This followed sittings of the Licensing Court in October and November 1970 at which the application for a licence and objections from the Yirrkala people were heard. At the conclusion of the hearings the Court decided that a licence would be granted subject to certain conditions including satisfactory completion of the buildings and the provision of additional car parking spaces.

The proposition that a club licence only be issued was raised at the preliminary hearings.

The licence concerned was granted following public hearings before the Licensing Court in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory. Therefore, the question of withholding the issue of a licence does not apply.

page 1986

QUESTION

TOURISM

(Question No. 1570)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minister representing the Ministerincharge of Tourist Activities, upon notice:

In view of the serious shortage of first class hotel accommodation in Australia, particularly in Sydney, will the Government give immediate consideration to the following of numerous overseas examples, and establish a number of such hotels in suitable centres, so that Australia may not be deprived of valuable overseas tourist income.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The following answer has been supplied:

Representations were made earlier this year to both the Minister for Trade and Industry and myself on the need for more international class hotels, especially in Sydney.

As a result we took proposals to the Government last July which were designed to encourage the construction of international class hotels and also to assist the development of tourist attractions and facilities in areas outside the cities.

However, since these proposals would have added to Government expenditure at a time when there was a need to curtail that expenditure it was decided not to proceed with them. We expect to submit further proposals in the general area of tourism development when the circumstances are more suitable.

page 1987

QUESTION

MINERALS INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1564)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Has the Minister directed the Department of National Development to prepare a White Paper on Australia’s policy towards the minerals industry, and has publication of this While Paper been postponed because of objections from the Minister for Trade and Industry.
  2. Can the Minister indicate how long this ministerial disagreement is likely to continue and when this important White Paper islikely to be published.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I did direct my Department to prepare a Paper on Australian policy towards the development of natural resources including the mineral industry. The original document has been revised and is currently the subject of interdepartmental consideration. The question of whether and when any such document will be published will be decided by the Government.

page 1987

QUESTION

DRINKING SURVEY

(Question No. 1551)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will an investigation into the drinking habits of Canberra people commence in the Australian Capital Territory on 2nd November 1971, and will some 3,500 drivers of motor vehicles be stopped at random in carrying out the survey.
  2. Will the persons carrying out the survey be unqualified civilians, and what will be thelegal rights of a motorist who refuses (a) to stop or (b) to submit to questioning or breath tests.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The survey is being carried out by specially trained civilian officers of the Department of the Interior. A policeman is also to be present at the interview site but his duty is only to direct motorists to the side of the road to prevent disruption to other traffic.

Motorists are under no obligation to either answer questions or supply the interview team with a sample of their breath. The Australian Capital Territory Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936- 1971 requires motorists to stop when requested do so by a member of the Police Force.

page 1987

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

(Question No. 1533)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

When will Senators, and particularly those who served on the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, receive copies of the report of the London meeting ofthe Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

It is not expected that the official text of the resolutions passed atthe seventh session of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation held in London from 5th to 15th October 1971 will be received from I.M.C.O. until early in December.

I have made arrangements throughthe Minister for Shipping and Transport for each member who served on the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution to be given a copy of the relevant resolutions.

page 1987

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

(Question No. 1532)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Will Commonwealth Electoral Office staff man polling booths at Gove for the 1972 House of Representatives election, or will Nabalco managerial staff be seconded for this purpose.
  2. What electoral roll facilities are there at Gove for persons who have settled there permanently.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The polling place appointed to serve electors at Gove for the next House of Representatives election will be staffed by persons selected by the Returning Officer for the Northern Territory. There is no arrangement whereby Nabalco managerial staff could be seconded for this purpose.
  2. Claims for enrolment are available at Nhulunbuy Post Office. During1972 it is proposed that the Returning Officer for the Northern Territory will arrange either for a house to house check of the electoral roll for the Gove area or alternatively he will appoint an Electoral Agent to furnish information about the movementof persons entitled to enrolment.

page 1988

QUESTION

QUARRYING IN A.C.T

(Question No. 1523)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Inter ior, upon notice:

  1. Has Farley and Lewers Ltd sought permis sion to extract aggregate for concrete from land south of the Tuggeranong area of the Australian Capital Territory, at Enchanted Hills in New South Wales.
  2. Does the firm’s proposal involve quarrying the north-west face of the hill within clear view of the proposed Tuggeranong urban area.
  3. Dues the Minister agree that such an enterprise should not be located in a highly visible location where it would detract from the appearance of the area; if so, will he ensure that this principle is followed in regard to the proposal to quarry Enchanted Hill.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Farley and Lewers have sought approval from the Department of the Interior for access from the proposed quarry site on Enchanted Hill in New South Wales to the Monaro Highway in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. The present proposal envisages that the quarry face will be located in a north-easterly direction and future operations will be partly screened from the Tuggeranong development by the intermediate land form.
  3. It is agreed that such an enterprise should be developed in ways which will not detract from the environment. The senator will appreciate that the proposed quarry operation is completely within the State of New South Wales and as such is a matter for the New South Wales authorities.

page 1988

QUESTION

PRESERVATION OF BIRDLIFE

(Question No. 1481)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What indication is there in the 1970 Report of the River Murray Commission of recognition of the preservation of wet-land habitation for bird lite such as the ibis.
  2. When was the last conference held between the River Murray Commission and the New South Wales and Victorian Governments’ Wildlife Services.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. I am not aware of any such indication.
  2. There has not been, at least in recent times, any such conference.

page 1988

QUESTION

PRESERVATION OF BIRDLIFE

(Question No. 1490)

Senat or MULVIHILL asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Is there an agreement between New South Wales, Victoria and the River Murray Commission to provide suitable habitatfor ibis or other wildlife; if so, how many such habitats have been created or preserved under the agreement.

If this subject is under discussion by the River Murray Commission, are the New South Wales and Victorian Wildlife Services co-opted on such discussions.

Dues the River Murray Commission have quarterly conferences with the New South Wales, and Victorian Wildlife Services. If not, why.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. No. (2)Thesubject is not under discussion by the River Murray Commission.
  2. No.This is a matter primarily for the appropriate State authorities which are responsible forthe use of water made available by the Commission.

page 1988

QUESTION

TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

(Question No. 1516)

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia that transport systems in Australia’s major cities will soon reach strangulation point and so render the cost of essential community services prohibitive.
  2. Does the Chamber suggest that urban renewal will become a massive problem, affecting the lives of more than 60 per cent of Australians in the major cities, and that it is unrealistic to expect the States to shoulder the full responsibility for decentralisation.
  3. Will the Government heed the plea of the Chamber and give immediate priority to the development of co-ordinated decentralisation policies in order to relieve the pressure on land prices, and alleviate other social problems in the urban areas-
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The statement was made in a Press release by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia on 12th October.
  2. Yes. The Associated Chamber of Commerce claims that urban renewal will become a massive problem affecting the lives of over 60 per cent of Australia’s population living in the major cities.
  3. I understand that a Committee of Commonwealth and State officials has been studying decentralisation and that a report on the broad analysis of the economic facts that lie at the heart of the decentralisation issue is nearing completion.

page 1989

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 2nd November 1971 Senator Lillico asked the following question without notice:

In the absence of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is correct as reported in one newspaper that the Ukraine and one other State of the Soviet Union - I forgot which but there are 2 of them - are both fully pledged members of the United Nations? If so, would it not be justice to apply this principle to the membership of Taiwan and Red China instead of the unworthy, despicable decision to expel a country which has done nothing to deserve such a fate?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question-

Two constituent Republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, namely the Byelorussian S.S.R. and the Ukrainian S.S.R., are original members of the United Nations, together with the U.S.S.R. itself. The terms of General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) emphatically rejected such a solution in the case of China, and I think it is fair to say that an arrangement along the Soviet lines is at present not acceptable either to the People’s Republic of China or to the Republic of China (Taiwan).

page 1989

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

- -Senator Lillico asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Is it correct that, as one correspondent states, the United Nations is carried on in the main by the United States of America’s largesse and that many other members, particularly the Soviet Union, have failed to meet their financial obligations to the organisation and that the United Nations is hence drifting into a slate of bankruptcy? What is the constitutional position regarding votes taken in that body of countries failing to meet their membership obligations?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

It is true that the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations budget. Its present contribution to the regular budget is assessed at 31.52 per cent of the whole, in comparison to 14.18 per cent by the Soviet Union, 5.90 per cent by the United Kingdom and 6.0 per cent by France. Also in the past the United States has paid about 40 per cent of the voluntary programmes of the United Nations to which it contributes.

There are two aspects to the current indebtedness of the United Nations. These were referred to by the Secretary-General in his introductory statement in the General Assembly on 6th October last on the budget estimates for 1972. He said that by the end of 1971 the unpaid contributions duc from member governments would be in excess of $US65m. There was in addition an amount of $US50m of debts owing as a result of the peace-keeping operations of the United Nations. In addition (he Working Capita! Fund of $US40m has been fully utilised.

The financial year of the United Nations is a calendar one and the question of having governments pay their contribution early rather than late in the year is .-.[ways one of concern to the United Nations. Though member states may be in arrears for short and sometimes long periods, they ire seldom in arrears for two years or more because this would result in the loss r>f their vote in the General Assembly (Article 19 of the Charter) The latest figures (21st September 1971) available tn ns show that those countries most in arrears with regard to their contributions to the regular budget are:

(it must be noted that these amounts will be reduced by the end of the calendar year).

The second aspect of indebtedness relates to the cost of peace-keeping. In 1965 the United Nations experienced a crisis when Article 19 was invoked against the Soviet Union. France and others for their refusal to pay heir assessed share of the United Nations peace-keeping operations iin ‘he Congo and the Middle East. These costs had been properly accounted as part of the expenses of the organisation and their refusal to Day had brought these States two years in arrears in their budgeting payments.

This crisis was overcome only when a ‘concensus’ was reached whereby Article 19 would not henceforth bc invoked on account of these two peace-keeping operations. It was hoped that this indebtedness would be reduced by voluntary contributions, especially by the Soviet Union and

France, but this has not eventuated. Hence these debts remain a serious factor in the financial situation of the United Nations. The main countries listed under this heading are:

The current peace-keeping operation of the United Nations, namely the United Nations Force in Cyprus, is financed on a voluntary basis, but is also in arrears to an amount of approximately $US20.9m.

page 1990

QUESTION

TRADE WITH CHINA

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 10th November Senator Primmer asked the following question:

In view of consistent reports of potential markets for Australian produce in China, what endeavours have been made or are contemplated by the Department of Trade and Industry to assess such market potential, particularly for dairy produce and dried fruits, which are affected by the loss of British markets7

The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following reply:

The Australian Government is continually endeavouring to discover new overseas markets for Australian products. It is difficult to assess the market potential in the PRC for individual products as the PRC does not publish foreign trade and detailed economic statistics. However, the Department of Trade and Industry has undertaken a study of other countries trade with the PRC and has compiled a list of products for which it is considered there may be potential in the PRC market. This list is set out in the Departmental Publication, ‘Guide to the MarketPeople’s Republic of China (PRC)’, recently prepared for the information of Australian businessmen. Studies of the relevant statistics reveals that the PRC is a substantial net exporter of both dairy produce and dried fruits and therefore there does not appear to be a potential export market for these products in the PRC except perhaps for certain types of product not produced in the PRC. The prospects for marketing Australia’s range of agricultural products in the PRC is constantly under review.

page 1990

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 14th October 1971, Senator Little asked the following question, without notice:

As it has been ascertained by Mr President that the fountains immediately in front of Parliament House have been closed down for cleaning and maintenance, can the Senate be informed as to how much more time will be required to complete such maintenance. Is it likely that the investigation which is taking place or the accumulation of leaves will be concluded before the autumn fall, or are the investigators waiting to examine the evidence that will be provided by the trees next April.

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

The fountains are being overhauled and cleaned. Despite regular cleaning it is difficult to prevent blockages from leaves which interfere with the spray pattern of the fountain and the opportunity is being taken to assess whether improvements can be made in the mechanical system to ensure better performance. Pending review of this blockage problem every endeavour is being made to have the fountains in operation for the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

page 1990

QUESTION

HOUSING IN NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 27th October 1971 Senator Donald Cameron asked the following question, without notice: ls it a fact that the Commonwealth Government subsidy on homes built in the Northern Territory by the Northern Territory Housing Commission has not been increased since 1962. Is the Housing Commission in Darwin now required to purchase land and meet costs of servicing building sites which amount to approximately $3,000 for each home. If the answers are in the affirmative, will the Minister recommend a substantial increase in the Commonwealth Government subsidy to ensure that rents on these homes are maintained at a reasonable level.

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

The Commonwealth subsidy for homes built in the Northern Territory by the Housing Commission has not been increased since 1962. The Northern Territory Housing Commission is now required to pay the reserve price for land made available to it in Darwin. The price is designed to cover the cost of servicing the land. The average reserve price being charged to the Commission at present is about $2,000 per lot. Any variation in the present subsidy will be decided after an examination of certain subsidy proposals recently put forward by the Housing Commission has been completed.

page 1991

REPORT OF ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I present the report from Estimates Committee A on the estimates for the year 1971-72, together with a Hansard record of the Committee proceedings.

Ordered that the report beprinted.

page 1991

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Income Tax Bill 1971.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1971.

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill(No. 2) 1971.

Matrimonial Causes Bill 1971.

Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1971.

Pyrites Bounty Bill 1971.

Western Australia (South-westRegion Water Supplies) Agreement Bill 1971.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill 1971.

Stevedoring Industry Bill 1971.

Railway Agreement (Tasmania) Bill 1971.

page 1991

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by SenatorMurphy) - by leave - agreed to:

That leave of absence from the Senate for1 month be granted to Senator O’Byrne on the grounds of absence overseas.

page 1991

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– I move:

There are 6 notices of motion before the Senate, 2 each in the names of Senator Byrne and Senator Murphy, and1 each in the names of Senator Willesee and Senator Douglas McClelland. We have in contemplation that the Senate will rise after this period of the sittings early in December. Be that as it may, we still have a very comprehensive legislative programme in front of us. I make that point as one of the considerations for moving the motion I have moved. The Senate has resolved that it has no desire - I concur completely - to sit inordinate hours, a reasonable time for rising being 11 p.m. There is an agreement which we all understand that to meet a particular situation we might transgress a little beyond that hour for a short time to dispose of a Bill or something of that nature. We have also a strong inclination not to sit on Fridays. We are in contemplation of sitting for a period of 3weeks which would take us to 9th December. A sitting of 4 weeks would take us to 16th December. Then we are getting perilously close to the Christmas period.

In the light of that background, I now come to the overwhelming reason why I suggest it is inappropriate to deal with these 6 notices of motion during this period of sittings in 1971. I have in mind that, with the indulgence of the Senate, up to the present time, these notices of motion have been postponed on several occasions to the next day of sitting. The plain, cold, blunt fact about the various committees to which these matters are sought to be referred is that almost without exception, they already have references and work which will take them well beyond the time when we re-assemble, presumably in late February or March of next year. I am not arguing the substance or the merit of any of these references. What I am arguing is the fact that it is pointless at this time to make references to the committees because, in truth, we will be debating the merits of 6 questions which, I suggest, even if in the judgment of the Senate they were to be referred to the Committees, would not, in the nature of things, be likely to be considered by the time we return in 1972.

In that sense,I want to give some information that I have gleaned, not in any spirit of aggression. They are the facts asI see them. The Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, of which Senator Buttfield is the chairman, has before it a reference dealing with all aspects of repatriation. The Committee commenced to consider that reference in September. It also has a reference on the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. The judgment has been made - I have conferred with the chairman of the Committee - that the first reference on repatriation may well take the Committee up to the Budget session in 1972.I remind the Senate that we are now in the Budget session of 1971. It is estimated that the Committee would not be able to complete the second reference dealing with a national superannuation scheme before at least the middle or possibly the late period of 1973. That is the case in regard to one Committee. Any further references to that Committee would be made without any prospect of their receiving early consideration.

Another committee involved is the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade, the chairman of which is Senator Prowse, the Chairman of Committees. It has before it a petition relating to the supply of liquefied petroleum gas to the Australian market, and a reference for the promotion of trade and commerce with other countries. I think there is a very comprehensive reference to the Committee by Senator Murphy which in contemplation would take the Committee, it believes, probably to the Budget session of 1972. In my own modest judgment of the way in which Senate committees work, the investigation could easily go on ad infinitum having regard to the breadth and width of the reference. Nevertheless, let us assume that those references will take the Committee to late 1972. Then we come to the Senate Standing Committee onSocial Environment, of which Senator Laucke is chairman. It has before it a referenceon the continuing oversight of the problemsof pollution, notice of which was gives in March 1971. It has another reference before it dealing with the environmental conditions of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the preservation of their sacred sites. The Committee holds the judgment that it has enough work to keep it going for 12 months, possibly 18 months.

The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has before it a reference for the abolition of the death penalty. This is one which tomes very readily to mind. It is a special reference in relation to the Death Penalty Abolition Bill, as I understand it. Although the Committee is not clear about what time would be required, the reference in relation to discrimination against Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders certainly would be all the Committee could cope with within this series of sittings, so it would not be ready for any other references before we returned in 1972. The Senate Standing Committee on Education. Science and the Arts, of which Senator Davidson is the chairman, has before it references in regard to teacher education, and all aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programmes. The judgment is that the Committee would not finish consideration of those references before the end of 1972. The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, of which Senator Lawrie is chairman, has before it a reference on the effects of estate and like duties on the public revenues and the economic circumstances of individuals and communities, and the social consequences of such duties. The estimate at the present time is that the Committee would not complete consideration of that reference until the middle of 1972. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, of which Senator Sim is chairman, has just started consideration of a reference on Japan. The judgment there - they are only judgments; they are not opinions - is that the Committee would not finish consideration of this reference until November 1972. What I am saying to the Senate is that the overwhelming evidence suggests that we would not be prejudicing any of the references in the names of any of the honourable senators if we stood them over to the first day of sitting in 1972, whenever it is. If that were done the effect would be that there would not be the necessity then for us to have debates on the matters of substance of these proposed references before the end of this year. Quite frankly, as I look at the position - I am expressing a personal opinion - some of the references are very good but the value of others is arguable and inevitably they would be argued.

I come to the final point in relation to this. We have created a committee system in the Senate. Our Parliament since federation has had a form based on the mother of Parliaments. It is to the everlasting credit of the Senate - those of us who sit here - that it has created and ironed out with some differences of view as to procedures, a function for the second chamber which relates to the administration of committees. We cannot claim that we did not have committees earlier. After all,I was a member of a committee very early in my 18 years of experience in this place. The committees have all done a good job.

Party politics do not enter into the considerations of the committees. That is one of the wonderful things about us here. The committees function to get facts and to produce knowledge for the good of the nation. What I want to put to the Senate with all the weight of significance that I can is that if we overload the functions of these committees, we will be setting about to destroy something that has been created in the interests of good government.

I appreciate that difficulties exist for members of the Opposition but it is worse on this side because from our 26 senators we provide 2 Presiding Officers and 5 Ministers, thereby cutting the number eligible for committee work back to 19. In addition to the standing committees senators me required to work on the statutory committee; such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee, as welt as the Foreign Affairs Committee. The weigh! of work in the commitee field is reaching the stage where it is exhausting for senators, lt means that we cannot give, the effort or undertake the research lh;ti would be provided otherwise. 1 want to ensure, if I can, that we do not overload our committees without proper regard for the significance of the situation. We must avoid a tendency to weaken what h;is been created and that matter has to be looked at very seriously. That is why I have moved my motion today, regardless of what the result may be, I hope lt* ‘-ave the motion carried, but regardless of that, I want to emphasise the terrible dangers we will run into if we continue to refer matters to the committees which will involve them in work up to IS months or 2 years ahead. We must give them :tn opportunity to he more deliberative by a more selective system of reference to them.

I may have spoken a little long on this matter, but I have sought to emphasise that we must not challenge the efficacy of commit lee work. I have sought to point out to honourable senators that the subjects of the references proposed will noi bc dealt with, in any event, before we return in February or March of next year. Rather than consume time in dealing with mutters of substance now. we could have them made orders of the day for the first day of sitting on our return. In the meantime the committees could clear their decks and would be in a better position for deliberative hearings. We would be able to debate the merits of cases in times contemporary to those at which the judgments will be made. For that reason 1 have moved my motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We are appreciative of the way in which the matter has been put by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). I agree with his observations that we should be careful not to overload the committees of the Senate. We arc all anxious to see that the system operates efficiently, and f understand that to be the spirit in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate has moved his motion. However. 1 suggest that there may he ways of dealing, with the problem other han those in his proposal. He has fairly said that if the references are made now senators will not be dealing with the substance of them until we return in 1972. For the most part 1 accept that that is a fair statement. However, if we were to make the references now rather than to wail until we come hack in 1972 there would be one important advantage in that the committees could sei the staff working on them.

The committees could invite submissions from various quarters. The process could be started whereby interested organisations and persons would begin to prepare their submission-. There is work to he done in connection with these references. The committees invite submissions from al1 sorts of interested organisations and persons with a point of view to put. They would have time to prepare submissions incorporating f heir points of view. If we were to start the process now a great deal of work could he done not only by the staff of the committees but also by persons outside who are interested in the subject matters. I therefore see some virtue in having the references made now. although I appreciate the view of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the substance of the work to be done by senators and the hearing of evidence would not commence before 1972. 1 accept that proposition.

The Senate should realise that if we are to continue the committee system it is imperative that most of the work be done by the staff of the committees. They will be working full time on these references. It is impossible to expect individual senators to cope with hearing all the matters in detail in the way that perhaps has been done by some select committees.

Senator Wright:

– Are you suggesting the replacement of parliamentary committees with bureaucrats?

Senator MURPHY:

– No, but there are techniques which have been used elsewhere, such as in the United States.

Senator Wright:

– I would not favour that.

Senator MURPHY:

Senator Wright speaks adversely of the committee system in the United States. I have had some occasion to observe what is done there and I have been extremely impressed by the quality of the committee work and the arrangement of procedures so that evidence is collated from all interested persons and organisations. Adverse points of view are collected and steps are taken to ensure that there is not an immense repetition of the same kind of evidence, A lot of this work can be done, and I have no doubt it will be done in the future, by the staff of the Senate committees. It is only natural that this will be done. I do not think there is very much difference between Senator Wright and myself on this matter. It may be only a question of language. I would not want or expect the decisions of the committees to be made or the real investigations to be done by other than the committees, but a great deal of the load can be taken off committees by effective staff work. I do not think Senator Wright would disagree with that.

I suggest to the Senate, and especially to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that none of the committees has taken advantage of the provision enabling them to set up sub-committees. It may well be that some of these subject matters ought to be referred to sub-committees. I have in mind matters already referred and matters suggested for reference. It is not mandatory that every reference involve investigation completely by a committee. Some work could well be done by a subcommittee and advantage should be taken of that provision. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson referred to the strain on honourable senators on his side of the chamber.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– And on your own members.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. The strain on honourable senators opposite arises particularly because of the practice of appointing to committees either a majority or a notional majority of Government supporters. This has increased the strain on the Government side because it must provide more committee members than the Opposition provides. Perhaps this problem ought to be met. There is no real reason for that practice to continue in the future because the committees have not divided on political lines in the past. Perhaps a simple formula could be devised to solve that problem. I do not agree with the motion but, because of the way in which the matter has been put forward by the Leader of the Government, I am not anxious to oppose it. Perhaps the matter should be adjourned until after private discussions are held. Perhaps the matter should be given further consideration in the light of the views expressed today. But the Opposition would not be disposed at present to agree to the motion. If there could be an amicable resolution of the matter the Opposition certainly would be anxious to arrive at it. Perhaps we will be able to arrive at an amicable resolution of the matter after other honourable senators have spoken in the debate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I am aware of the problems as presented by the Leader of the Government in theSenate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) which confront the members of this chamber.I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) that we should be able to arrive at an accommodation which will satisfy the demands of all members of this chamber. However, there are one or two observations I would like to make. First of all, I do not think we have to regard the priorities of references to standing committees as immutable. Many of the present references are quite unequal. The first reference to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts relates to the Commonwealth’s role in regard to teacher education. That investigation is now concluding. Therefore, I do not think that it should be accepted as a tenable ong0i0g investigation. The next 3 references are in relation to petitions. Petitions fall into a different category to explicit references from the Senate to a standing committee for investigation. Therefore, I do not think that they should be necessarily regarded as substantial business before standing committees.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not argue about that, but 1 think it was the intention to refer them in that way.

Senator BYRNE:

– It is a matter of emphasis and priority. However, that is something to which the Senate has not particularly given its consideration and made an explicit reference. Petitions are propositions coming from the good people outside which honourable senators have decided should not be lightly put aside without some inquiry. But whether that inquiry should rank in priority over explicit references from the Senate is another matter. Leaving aside those petitions, the only other reference to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts is all aspects of television and broadcasting in Australia, including the Australian content of television programmes. I would therefore take that one as being the measure of the most explicit reference before that Committee. When one goes through the matters which are before the other standing committees one finds the same thing. One finds that, due to the manner in which the references to those committees are s>et out, many matters are listed that have been concluded. For example, a report has been presented by the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in relation to mentally and physically handicapped persons in Australia.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– 1 do not want to interrupt the honourable senator but I would point out that in my’ speech I referred to current references. The honourable senator is dealing with past references.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am saying that anybody who looks at the notice paper will gather this impression. I think the Leader of the Government may have referred to one reference which has concluded. The reference to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade in relation to the operation of the Australian National Line’s shipping services to and from Tasmania has been concluded. The next matter referred to that Committee is a petition relating to the supply of liquefied petroleum gas to the Australian market. I think it is current knowledge that that inquiry is concluding, although a report on it has not been presented. That leaves only one reference to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade, that is, the promotion of trade and commerce with other countries, the operation of Australia’s international trade agreements and the development of trading relations. In other words, the work load on these committees is perhaps not as great as might appear from a quick reading of the notice paper.

Senator Young:

– The reference which is at the present time before the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade could involve an inquiry which will go on ad infinitum. The reference states that the inquiry is to continue from time to time.

Senator BYRNE:

– But that does nol mean everything will have to be put aside by that Committee until the overall inquiry has been concluded. If the reference involves an on-going inquiry the Committee can pick up various aspects of it from time to time. It is obvious that other matters are entitled to be intruded while references which involve an on-going inquiry are put aside. I think that would be the logical way for such a committee of inquiry to operate. In other words, one reference should not be permitted to monopolise everything else. 1 think the Leader of the Opposition’s proposition is a valid one. I think administrative procedures could be embarked on prior to the opening of an investigation and, in many of these fields, it seems to be most appropriate for that to be done in the parliamentary recess. I think it would be wise if this matter were to be stood aside until a report from the Clerk was presented to the Senate through the Leader of the Government as to the administrative structure which is available and whether the parliamentary recess could be profitably used in doing the preliminary work necessary to support an investigation of the matters standing on the notice paper and which we are now discussing, namely, Notices of Motion Nos 1 to 6. That appears to me to bethe logical thing to do. The Clerk might well advise the Leader of the Government that the necessary administrative staff is available and would welcome the opportunity to do and would be well occupied during the parliamentary recess doing preliminary work on the proposals put forward. I know that the work load on honourable senators is particularly heavy. It is perhaps heavier on no section of the Senate than on members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. That is because there are only 5 of us and we try to serve on as many committees as possible. Perhaps there are a few honourable senators in this chamber who have a heavier committee work burden than we do. But we do not complain about having such a heavy burden. We are merely saying that we are conscious of the work situation.

I hope the Leader of the Government will agree to this matter being adjourned to a later hour in the day. He may be able then, with the assistance of the Clerk, to advise the Senate as to whether the administrative staff is available to do the work I have suggested and whether the administration would welcome the opportunity presented by the parliamentary recess to do the preliminary work that otherwise might have to be crowded into next year after the Senate reassembles. If my proposition were accepted it could in the long run assist the operation of the committee system and assist honourable senators rather than have the contrary affected. I would urge upon the Leader of the Government to inform the Senate of what the administrative position is and whether this type of alternative would be welcomed by the administrative staff.

I do not think that we should allow to be laid aside matters which may well deserve priority over references which are now before the various standing committees. I do not think references which have already been made to standing committees should necessarily take first place in the queue. References may arise which are more important than ones which are already on the list. It is in the nature of the committee system that standing committees may often have to look at matters ad hoe and urgently. For example, a Bill which has been referred to a committee should receive priority over other matters. It is in the very concept of the standing committee system that such committees shall always have available to them the opportunity to consider any matters referred to them. I think that the standing committees should be conscious of that fact and should be prepared to lay aside references considered to be less important than references which come along subsequently. I would urge the Leader of the Government to adjourn the debate on this motion until he has acquainted’ the Senate with the response of the administration to the suggestion I have made.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Health and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · LP

-I rise to ask the Senate to give very serious consideration to the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) regarding the referring of further references to Senate standing committees. I speak as one who has studied this matter closely and as one who was Chairman of 2 committees over a period of18 months.I do not wish on any member of the Senate the job of chairing 2 public inquiries or of working hard on 2 committees of inquiry at the same time as that honourable senator is taking part in the debates and procedings of this chamber and also representing and spending some time in his State, particularly during a year in which he is facing a Senate election. It should be remembered that, as the Parliament is constituted at present, we are in the throes of a Federal election or a threatened Federal election nearly every year. In considering this question honourable senators should have in mind how much time is available forcommittee work - I refer not just to the hours of meeting of committees; how much time is available in the Senate - and we come here for at least 26 weeks in a year to attend sittings of the Senate; and how much time there is for the electorate and for elections.

Let us consider the situation as it works out for a person who is chairman of a committee trying to arrange meetings. I must say that honourable senators have cooperated to the greatest degree. The months of December and January are out so far as meetings of the committee are concerned. Then there is February, March. April and May during which the committee might meet but the Parliament is sitting during that period. Then there is a break in June and July. Most honourable senators would honourably, sensibly and fairly say: ‘We want to be relieved of committee work in either June or July.” Then we come to the Budget session.

Senator Murphy said thai some of these references could be submitted to 2 committees so that, the staff could do preliminary work. I suggest that a close examination of the references and work before the legislative and genera! purpose standing committee* reveals that it is such that no new references could be started by them until 1973. There is perhaps one committee of the 7 committees which would finish the work now referred to it in time to start another reference before 1973.

The number of times on which a committee can meet is very limited. Let us take Government senators, for example. Al least 3 Government backbenchers have lo be on 2 of the standing committees. If we want committees to be well attended we have to be careful that 2 committees do not meet at the same time if one senator is a member of both. The official Opposition - the Australian Labor Party - is in a little better position, lt has sufficient backbench senators to man the 7 general purpose committees, with the help of the Democratic Labour Party and the independent senators. But it is fair to say that when the Parliament is in session a standing committee can meet once a week at the most, particularly when you lake into consideration other committees of the Parliament and of the Senate. the scarcity of committee rooms and the fact thai the have to be handled and serviced by staff and by Hansard. Therefore in a sessional period of 3 weeks the most that a standing committee can meet is for 3 days. Members of committees like to have the week off in between the 3-week sitting periods so that they can work in their electorates. Therefore while the Parliament is sitting it will take standing committees with big references such as those we have put already to the committees a long time to complete their work.

There is only one other reference I desire to make to Senator Murphy’s statement. He suggested that the committee staffs can get on wilh considering the framework, the research and the early submissions to the forward references. I suggest, for 2 reasons, that this would be placing a very great difficulty on the committee staffs, lt is my sincere opinion that once a reference is before a committee and the inquiry starts the staff is completely occupied full time. Staffs’ provided for committees are not large and I believe they are engaged full time on the references before them. .It. is very hard to foretell when a report of a committee is finally to bc placed before the Parliament. Therefore it is difficult to judge when to call for submissions. I appreciate the point made by Senator Murphy that it lakes time and that it is beneficial in a way to give people as much time as possible to prepare their submissions to Senate committees. But it will not be beneficial if committee staffs call, for submissions in June and you then find that because of parliamentary business and because of elections and other factors unknown at the time the hearing of the reference cannot start until the following calendar year. I suggest (hat the research work done and the submissions prepared could be wasted.

I believe that we should not give more work to the committees because we would not be making progress; we would be overloading them. Also I suggest that between now and then other matters may arise that the Senate, in its wisdom, feels should be put to a standing committee. Perhaps I was ignorant or naive but 1 thought that the original purpose was lo have committees to which we could refer matters of importance for quick examination by a committee of the Senate so that it could report back to the Senate and so that the Senate could then consider the matters not in detail but in principle. That idea seems to have gone by the board. The Senate, in its wisdom or otherwise, has referred to the committees subjects that could almost be said to be interminable. At least they are subjects which, in my estimation, will take over a year. Therefore I say we should agree not to give any more references at this stage to the standing committees of the Senate.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I rise to speak because I have a great concern about this matter. What was a very encouraging and exciting development in the Senate seems now to me to be signposted for disaster. This flows out of the enthusiasm we all have for a great range of inquiry over a wide field but one’s personal wish takes pre-eminence in his mind over the view of everybody else. It reminds me of this famous comment: All men are equal but some are more equal than others. That is similar to one’s view on matters of concern to individuals. A matter has priority to an individual but the Senate as a whole has to consider where it is heading so far as its committee examination process is concerned.

I refer honourable senators quickly to the last pages of today’s notice paper. I invite them to do a simple sum. In the notice paper there appears a heading Committees’. There are 7 standing committees, 7 legislative and general purpose committees, 5 select committees, 5 Estimates committees, 3 joint statutory committees and 4 joint committees, a total of 31 committees in which honourable senators are engaged either with other senators or with members of the House of Representatives. But when we analyse the situation even further we find that there are 21 references before the 7 legislative and general purpose standing committees. So really honourable senators are involving themselves in the work of a total of 45 committees, partly, totally, exhaustively or slightly.

Let us look at the references to the legislative and general purpose standing committees. One subject covers all aspects of television and broadcasting and another is Japan. Goodness, what are we looking for in the Senate? In the end do we want to present to the Australian community worthwhile, well thought out, consequential and serious examinations of affairs? If we are then quite frankly we are not going to do it with the work load we have given ourselves and this disturbs me very much indeed. I have heard the idea canvassed that the way to overcome this problem is to give the job to the staff, and if the staff is not adequate to have more staff.I suggest to honourable senators that it would be a negation of our responsibilities if we were to pass to outside people, to the staff, the burden of doing all the work substantially, and that is what it would mean.

Senator Murphy:

– I was not saying-

Senator Byrne:

– That is not whatI am saying.

Senator COTTON:

– I know whatboth of you are saying. I am talking about the consequences of your proposals.

Senator Byrne:

– It is not my suggestion at all. My suggestion merely is to see whether the present staff structure could do the preliminary work, not to give it over at all.

Senator COTTON:

– MayI put my view. I have no wish to offend Senator Byrne or Senator Murphy. I am concerned about the work load we have taken upon ourselves. I have quoted the references to honourable senators; they are all here on the notice paper. This inevitably must mean a long period with no more jobs for the committees, or a job not well done, or a job passed off to other people because of the work load. It is for those reasons thati support the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). But I support him out of another sense of great concern. As I began by saying, an exciting and most important phase in the life of the Senate appears to me to be heading for disaster. I seek leave to continue my remarks at another stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1998

SENATE COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That at 6 p.m. the sitting of the Senate be suspended until the ringing of the bells at approximately 10.45 p.m. this day to enable Estimates Committees B and D to meet.

page 1998

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I wishto make a short personal explanation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator WILKINSON:

– Yes. I would not take up the time of the Senate on what appears to be a minor point but. unfortunately, last week I was reported in the Western Australia Press with a statement which 1 was supposed to have made in this chamber. I immediately drafted a letter to correct the statement which appeared in the newspaper and which said, quoting from my speech on the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill when I was dealing with some farmer:

He sold 150 bales of wool at an average of 20c per lb.

When I checked the Hansard report I found that this is actually the way in which I had been reported. What I said at the time was ‘26c’. I immediately telephoned the Hansard office but I found that the time allowed for correction to proof copies had expired and the printing of the permanent copy had been made. The only way I can right this matter is by bringing forward a personal explanation. What I said - this was substantiated by other people who heard me because the debate was broadcast - was that this person sold 150 bales of wool at an average of 26c per lb. I just want to put the matter straight.

page 1999

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1971

In Committee

Debate resumed from 11 November (vide page 1956).

The Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– This debate was adjourned very late in the evening on the last night of the last week in which we met. At that time there was a need for clarification in answers to some questions on clause 4. That clarification has been obtained and I have precise details. I will cause to be handed to honourable senators a statement which will give them information on all defence loans arranged with the Export-Import Bank of the United States under the authority of the Loan (Defence) Acts. This statement should put honourable senators in posses sion of accurate information. But I have some additional notes. These flowed out of a few questions raised by Senator Brown and, in addition, some comments made by Senator Cavanagh. Clause 4 of the Loan (Defence) Bill - the Bill wilh which we are dealing here - authorises the borrowing of up to $US90m in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement with thi Export-Import Bank which is shown as a schedule to the Bill.

It is clear from the terms of the agreement that the loan will only be dispersed by the Export-Import Bank provided the loan money is spent on defence articles, equipment and services of at least 95 per cent United States content. Orders for defence equipment to be financed under this loan are approved of in the first instance by our Service departments and the Department of Defence and then by the United States Defence Department. These arrangements have applied to all loans arranged in the United States for the financing of defence equipment. Of course all these loans have been authorised by the various Loan (Defence) Acts. Two loans have been arranged under the authority of the Loan (Defence) Act 1966 and the Loan (Defence) Act 1968 to assist tn the financing of the purchase of the Fill aircraft. The source of each of these loans has been the Export-Import Bank of the United States. In each case the loans have been specifically for the financing of the Fill aircraft and for no other purpose. The first loan was negotiated in 1966 when Australia concluded a credit sales arrangement with the United States Government under which the United States Government undertook to provide credit of $US80m at 4 per cent interest. No commitment fee was payable on this loan which was to be drawn by Australia as required. Repayments of disbursements were to be made over 5 years.

The United States Government chose to make this loan available to the ExportImport Bank. The technical arrangements for this loan were as follows: For each of the financial years 1966-67, 1967-68, and 1968-69 Australia, the United States Defence Department and the ExportImport Bank concluded note purchase agreements. Under these agreements Australia issued promissory notes to the United States Defence Department for disbursements against the, loans. The promissory notes carried an interest rate of 4 per cent per annum and were repayable over 5 years. The United States Defence Department sold those notes to the Export-Import

Bank at a discount to produce a yield to the Export-Import Bank of5½per cent per annum. These sales imposed no added costs on the Commonwealth. The note purchase agreement entered into for the financial year. 1968-69 was extended with the agreement of the parties to 30th June 1971. At. that date Australia had issued notes amounting to $US78.9m under the 3 agreements. In October 1968 Australia concluded a credit agreement directly with the Export-Import Bank for the provision of a further $US75m loan specifically to finance the purchase of the F111 aircraft. The agreement for this loan is set out in a schedule to the Loan (Defence) Act 1968. The loan carried an interest rate of 6 per cent per annum on amounts drawn, with a commitment fee of one half of one per cent per annum on the undrawn balance. The loan was to be drawn by 30th June 1 97 1 but at that date no drawings had been made. The availability date ofthe loan was therefore extended with the agreement of the Export-Import Bank pending a decision by the Commonwealth Government on whether to accept delivery of the F111 aircraft. Since 30th June 1971 drawings of $US178,000 have been made. The Auditor-General in his report has referred separately to the individual amounts of the 3 note purchase agreements concluded with the Export-Import Bank as well as to the amount of the second loan of $US75m. The attached table gives details of the individual note purchase agreements as well as details of all other loans arranged under the authority of the Loan (Defence) Acts. I seek leave of the Senate to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator COTTON:

– It would be really difficult for me to quote all the figures. If honourable senators refer to the table they will see on the left hand side the amount of the individual agreement in United States dollars, the total United States loan amount, the interest rate struck, the commitment fee, the maturity date, the amount drawn as at 30th June 1971, the amount outstanding as at 30th June 1971 and the amount drawn from 30th June 1971 to 31st October 1971. That amount is shown in the last column. The comments made here are that the unused balance of this loan - this refers to item No. 1 - which is a 1970-71 loan will be drawn to finance payments on defence orders already placed in the United States. If honourable senators turn to the $US89m loan for 1970-73 they will see from footnote No. 2 that the unused balance ofthis loan is earmarked for additional procurement. Then if honourable senators turn to the 1970-74 loan issue they will see from footnote No. 3 that$US74.2m of this loan has been cancelled and the unused balance of $US21.7m will be drawn to finance payments on defence orders already placed in the United States. Notes (a) to (e) refer to the relevant legislation, commencing with the Loan (Defence) Act 1966 and ending with the Bill we are now considering - the Loan (Defence) Bill 1971. That will provide Senator Brown and honourable senators generally with as much information as is available to me on the subject referred to under clause 4.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

– I am afraid that the Minister’s reply to the questions that I raised on the last occasion on which this Bill was before the chamber docs not satisfy the objections I raised to our being asked to agree to the terms of this Bill. Since that occasion I have asked, as obviously the Minister has done, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Stat istical Service to provide certain information to me; and I must say that it does not accord completely with the document that has been circulated by the Minister. Because the limitations of time will not permit me to discuss it fully, I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Cotton:

– It is a Legislative Research Service tabulation, is it?

Senator BROWN:

– Yes.

Senator Cotton:

– Purporting to answer the questions that you asked me?

Senator BROWN:

– Yes, and additional questions. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:

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

Senator BROWN:

– I draw attention to the loan for $US75m. It was the subject of an agreement made in 1968: The interest rate was 6 per cent, plus a commitment fee of 0.5 per cent. At 31st October 1971 only$US1 78,000 had been drawn, leaving $US74,822,000 outstanding and available to be drawn on. Secondly, I draw attention to the loan for$US39.4m. It was raised in 1970 at an interest rate of 4.75 per cent There was no commitment fee. At 31st October 1971 an amount of $US20,787,000 was still outstanding. Thirdly, I draw attention to the loan for $US89m. It was the subject of an agreement made in 1970. The interest rate was 7.125 per cent and the commitment fee was 0.5 per cent. At 31st October 1971 an amount of$US52,401 , 000 was still available to be drawn on. Fourthly, I draw attention to the loan for $US123m.It was the subject of an agreement made in 1970. The interest rate was 7.375 per cent and the commitment fee was 0.5 per cent. At 31st October 1971 the amount remaining to be drawn on was$US2 1,704,000.

In respect of those 4 loans the amount outstanding and available to be drawn on for defence purposes is no less than $ US 169,7 14,000. On those 4 loans- one of them goes as far back as 1968 - we are paying a commitment fee of 0.5 per cent. It is true that there are notations on the table that has been supplied to me.In respect of the amount of $US20,787,000, which is part of a loan that was raised in 1 970, the notation reads:

The unused balance of this loan will be drawn to finance payments on defence orders already placed in the United States.

In respect of the amount of $US52,40l,000, which is the amount outstanding and available to be drawn on under a loan that was raised in 1970, the notation reads:

The limited balance of this loan is earmarked for additional procurement.

In respect of the final amount of $US2 1, 704,000. which is outstanding and available to he drawn on and which is part of an original loan of$US123m, the notation reads: $US74.2m of this loan has been cancelled and the unusedbalance of$US21.7m will be drawn to finance payments on defence orders already placed in the United Stales.

So. although the last 3 amounts available to be drawn on appear to have earmarked, that does not account for the $US74,822,000 which is outstanding as part of a loan raised in 1968 and upon which we are still paying a commitment fee. In seekingto ascertain the amount of money that we borrow from the ExportImport Bank of the United States from lime to time. I asked the Library to supply me with additional information. The information supplied to me indicates thai about $US39,265,000 is still available to be drawn on for the purchase of aircraft for Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines. I appreciate that they are corporate bodies and that those loans arc separate and distinct from the subject matter of which we are speaking.

Notwithstanding the fact that at this stage$US169,714,000 is still outstanding and available to be drawn on from the Export-Import Bank, on this occasion we are being asked to approve the further borrowing of $90m. I believe it is reasonable to say that honourable senators are entitled to have precise information on the hardware or defence equipment that the Government intends to purchase. The 2 points that have been made by my colleagues in respect of our opposition to this Bill are valid, in my humble opinion. But, in addition, Ibelieve that the statistics that honourable senators have been good enough to allow me to have incorporated in Hansard show that the Department of Defence and the Government do not have a firm objective in view, in terms of the types of equipment that we require for the defence of this nation, at the times when they are seeking approval of these loans.

This also raises the question of the arrangements we have with the ExportImport Bank of the United States, from which we seem to be seeking loans continuously. The money probably never leaves the country because under clause 7 of the bill we are committed to making the appropriate payments in respect of the moneys borrowed, commitment fees and interest payable on these loans out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I believe that the Government should supply much more information to us before we can be expectedto approve a loan for $90m when there is such a large amount which is standing to the credit of the Commonwealth of Australia with the same source and on which we can draw.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to say a few words in an endeavour to achieve some clarity. I am much disturbed by the figures Senator Brown has supplied. There seems to be some difference between them and the figures the Minister has supplied. I am wondering whether different calculations have been made and whetherthe figures of amounts remaining undrawn have different meanings. In the table the Minister has supplied the amounts of the individual loans are all set out in millions of United States dollars. Under, Itake it. the first Act.The total loans for 1966-67. 1967-68 and 1968-71 were$US80m. The table then refers to the interest rate, the commitment fee, the maturity date and the amount drawn at 30thJune 1971. Thetable would suggest that, other than the 1968-71 loan, the loans were all drawn at 30th June 1971. I take it that the amount drawn is the amount which Australia has received from the United States under the authority of this loan. I am concerned about the amount outstanding at 30th June 1971. What is the amount outstanding? ls the amount remaining the amount that we can further draw upon? Is it the amount that we owe on account of such loans? I take it that it is an amount that we can further draw upon, but it is not the difference between the original amount and the amount drawn.

The final column in this table shows in United States dollars that between 30th June 1971 and 31st October 1971 only $US13m was drawn. I take it that after the figures in the other columns have been made up to 30th June 1971 we have drawn an additional SUS 13m. Perhaps before proceeding further on this point the Minister could tell us what was the amount outstanding at 30th June 1971. Was it the amount that we had available in America for drawing upon loans which had been authorised by the various Acts which the Minister has very fully detailed at the bottom of the table? Perhaps before taking the matter any further we might solve the riddle as to why there is disagreement between the figures of Senator Brown and those of the Minister.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I think we will always be in some slight difficulty when we have detailed and accurate figures prepared by the Treasury and set out as they are, and we seek te contrast those with figures purporting te be the same figures prepared by the Legislative Research Service but not necessarily structured in the same fashion. I would imagine that the Legislative Research Service has access to the same source of information as the Treasury, but it may tabulate it in a different fashion. Many of us would have had this experience in other areas in the past. Seeking to draw this kind of comparison presents a great range of problems. I would think that both sets of figures were quite accurate. They would cover the situation and the questions asked. Interpretation of the figures and the structural forms of the tables will produce the problem. I am advised by the Treasury advisers I have with me, in regard to Senator Cavanagh’s comment about the total loan of $US80m for the Fill aircraft, that the amount outstanding al 30th June 1971 is net of repayments to that date. That accounts for the difference between the columns. There is nothing available for further drawings.

I have a couple of notes here in regard to matters raised by Senator Brown. The amounts undrawn which were mentioned by the honourable senator all accord with the amounts undrawn and shown in the table which has been presented. As noted in the table, these amounts are committed by orders already placed in the United States. The amount available to be drawn on the $US75m loan referred to by the honourable senator can be drawn only and is specifically to be drawn for the FI 1 1 aircraft. The precise details of the drawings on these defence credits and the purpose for which the drawings are made are presented to the Parliament annually in the report of the Auditor-General. Further details are contained, also in the annual Defence Report of the Department of Defence. So there is no attempt by people not to make the information available, lt is simply made available in the normal form, in the normal pattern, at the normal time.

We discussed this matter when we were dealing with this Bill previously, f think it is covered fairly well on page 1954 of the Senate Hansard. I think perhaps it had better be canvassed again in order that we may be quite clear. The Hansard report reads:

Various matters have been, referred to. Clause 4 of the Bill refers to moneys in the currency of the United States of America noi exceeding $90m. The Government considers it prudent to finance the expenditure on defence equipment by borrowing from the Export-Import Bank in this way. By borrowing, the Government can spread over 7 years the burden of the cost of these mainly capital purchases which otherwise would have to be met out of current revenue. The Export-Import Bank specialises in providing finance for purchases of this kind. The terms of the loan, including the interest rate of 61- per cent, are very reasonable. The equipment to be procured under this loan relates mainly to .equipment of a type already in service and currently not manufactured in Australia. The intention of the purchase is to increase the capability of the defence Services. The equipment that we desire for our purposes is available only from the United States of America.

The kind of equipment envisaged is for the 3 arms of the Service. For the- Department of the Navy, it covers armament stores including MK46 torpedoes, rockets, armaments for Skyhawks, etc., naval stores including equipment’ for fittings in new ships, minesweeping equipment, sonar and radar equipment, aircraft spares and additional equipment lor Skyhawk and ‘tracer aircraft. Kor the Department of the Army it includes armoured personnel carriers, spares and truck*, cryptographic equipment, radio and telegraphic equipment and special types of ammunition. For the Department of Air it includes VH1H helicopters, one Phantom F4E replacement, modifications lo existing aircraft, SAR beacons, air surveillance repairs, air frames, air engines and spares and communication.’ and electronic equipment.

That is the information that I was able to make available when we were considering this mailer on a previous occasion, updated with the latest information which has been made available to me by the Department of the Treasury. I observe only that we are really dealing here nol with an argument as to defence policy, which is argued elsewhere in other places, in other fashions and on different occasions, but with the financing of a defence programme which has been agreed to. The Treasury has made information available in accounting terms. L doubt very much whether I can add anything at this point of time in answer to the questions that have already been asked of me. However, I stand ready to try to answer any further questions thai may come along but 1 do not feel that I should involve myself or the Government in a debate on general defence policy. I do not think this is the place for that.

Senator WEBSTER (Victoria) (5.2 1> - I wish to ask a question of the Minister in relation to loans from the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Can the Minister advise me whether interest is payable on any unused balance?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– If one refers to the table - the honourable senator will probably have it on his desk - one finds that this occurs in the commitment fee area. If the honourable senator looks at the ‘Commitment Fee’ column he will find that commitment fees occurred on the October 1968 loan, the 1970-73 loan, the 1970-74 loan, and the 1971-75 loan. It is on those loans that I would understand that a commitment fee would apply to an undrawn balance, but it is a commitment fee of a fairly low order.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for his explanation. Possibly it explains the differences between the figures of Senator Brown and the figures of the Treasury. The thing that Senator Brown was concerned about - 1 think we are all concerned about it - is whether it is necessary to borrow at the present lime §US90m from the ExportImport Bank at a rate of interest which I believe is 6 per cent. Senator Webster’s question referred to unused money; an amount is payable on the moneys we do not use. In verification of the Minister’s figures as against those submitted by Senator Brown, the Minister stated that these matters are the subject of a report by the Auditor-General each year. Referring to the report of the Auditor-General for thi current year. I ask whether we do not nave available in the United States by decision of this Parliament sufficient unused morey on which we are now paying ( per cent interest. We desire to add $US90m lo ‘he reserves that we have and cannot use in the United States at the present time, apparently for no other reason than a desire to pay the Export-Import Bank i per cent interest on an extra $US90m.

Paragraph 34 on page 39 of the AuditorGeneral’s report for the financial year 1970-71 indicates that the Loan (Defence) Act 1966 made preparations for the borrowing of $US450m. The AuditorGeneral’s report of 18th August 1969 is referred to. The current report states that during 1970-71 a iota! of $US1,704,372 was borrowed under the agreement. The agreement referred to is the one which ran from 1st July 1970 to 31st December 1970. The report refers to instalments commencing to be repaid on 31st December 1970. li states:

Disbursements made under the Agreement between 1st January 1971 and 30th June 1971 are being repaid in 7 approximately equal semi-annual instalments.

The report points out that only $US1,704,372 has been borrowed. It continues:

A further Agreement was entered into pursuant lo the Act whereby the Export-Import Bank of the United States agreed to finance payments, not exceeding $US35,05 1,734, required to be made by the Commonwealth to the United States Department of Defense and other suppliers of defence equipment.

The interest rate was 41 per cent. The borrowing under the agreement during the year amounted to $13m. Of the $US35m whichthe Government could borrow, during the year its borrowings amounted to $13,969,000. The Report continues:

Paragraph 33 of my report dated18th August 1969 referred to an Agreement approved bythe Loan (Defence) Act 1968 (Act No. 133 of 1968) for the borrowing by the Commonwealth of up to $US75m. to be repayable over 7 years with interest at 6 per cent per annum. There have been no amounts advanced under this Agreement.

Paragraph 34 of my Report dated 25th August 1970 gave details of an Agreement authorised by the Loan (Defence) Act 1970 (Act No. 37 of 1970) for the borrowing of up to$US89m, to be repayable over 7 years with interest at 7 l/8th per cent per annum. During 1970-71 a total of $US34,635,221 was borrowed under the Agreement.

Has the Government a surplus, which it is not using at present, under all the relevant Actsthat the Parliament has passed and under the agreements that it has entered into with the United States. We have been told that one loan was not drawn on. What is the purpose of borrowing another $US90m at present if the Government has money accumulated under Acts passed by this Parliament? Why is the Government committing itself to a further borrowing of $US90m from the Export-Import Bank? At no time in his second reading speech did the Minister show the need for the loan. Has the Government no money available in the United States? As I indicated during the second reading debate, should not the Government be financing its defence on a pay-as-we-go basis? Why should it he relying on borrowing? Could the Minister give some information on that aspect of the Auditor-General’s Report to which I referred, particularly as to how much is available in the United States at present under previous agreements and which has not been used?

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria.

– Could the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) verify the comment that he made to me previously? Perhaps, in my ignorance, I am not familiar with what the term ‘commitment fee’ means. The Minister has indicated that it is 0.5 per cent per annum on the undrawn amount, that when the loan is drawn upon the various rates of interest which are acknowledged apply and that the 0.5 per cent is committed only to the unused proportion. I ask the Minister to advise the Committee why certain loans bear the 0.5 per cent commitment fee and why others do not. Is this an arrangement into which the Government is forced in some instances? In other instances does the Government have available loans without that obligation? One might think that the commitment fee applies to some loans protected to certain years ahead - loans which have a maturing date after 1976 or 1977. I know that it does not apply to all loans in that category. A loan of$350m. maturing in 1978, has no 0.5 per cent commitment fee.

I again question whether the Minister can satisfy us that what the Treasury is doing is certainly in the best interests of this country, when it appearsto me that the Government is paying at least$1, 000 a week as a minimum for unused portions of. money available on loanthrough the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Can the Minister satisfy me that the Government is doing that which is absolutely financially correct, in the way in which it is handling this money?

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I might make general observations based not on advice but on my appreciation of the subject. The defence programme of this country is a huge one. It rests a great deal upon equipment purchased and supplied from the United States of America, for obvious, good, sensible and wise reasons. The Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) had attached to it a table headed Summary of Commonwealth Expenditure and Receipts, 1961-62 to 1970-71, and 1971-72 (Estimate)’. The expenditure for Defence Services in the year 1961-62 was shown as $409,353,000. For the year now being considered, of which this Billwould form part of she general appropriation, the Defence expenditure is estimated at $1,252,383,000. The $US90m to which this Bill directs itself, as spelt out inthe second reading speech and in the explanations being given progressively, although a large amount, in the total is not really an immense sum.

To my knowledge, the Government is involved in another set of circumstances. It has to produce a forward programme for equipment. If a country is to defend itself it must make some value judgments. The value judgments it makes are these: What proportion of the national resources it will devote to defence as against the other competing priorities and how much it will be prepared to forgo other things to defend itself. It strikes a sum which it believes is competent and wise for it in the allocation of its total resources. The Government, seeking to defendthe country, has struck a figure 3 times what it was10 years ago. If the country were not defended there may be nothing that any of us would get out of it anyway. Out of the moneys appropriated for defence the Government looks at the defence situation and obviously makes decisions on what equipment it will purchase and how it will spend that defence resource. Its decisions are based largely upon being able to buy the equipment that it needs from the people who make it and upon being able to be quite sure that in the event of trouble its supply lines will not be cut off, for various reasons - ideological or because of treaties or things of that character. Fundamentally, therefore, for various reasons its defence or supply train links it to the United States.

Those honourable senators who have travelled and seen other countries, as most honourable senators probably have, have had opportunities to see someof these factories and the establishments that make equipment of this kind. They will appreciate that it is necessary for those establishments to have forward orders for their programming and that they require money to be put down to finance those orders. A programme of this kind obviously requires a continuity of finance. That programme of financing must be organised by Treasury. Obviously they could not work on some system in which we were able to say that we would keep all the money in Australia and would send them payments when they had a tank ready for delivery. These operations do not work in that way and a factory cannot be run on the basis that it will finance production in that way. This is the general explanation of the use of reserves.

A factory has to find money to do its own job, to purchase all kinds of supplies and to pay its men, so it must have a programme of orders and it needs to know that it will be paid when the orders are ready. This is part of the reason for forward financing.I should inform honour able senators that all this is coming out of my head and remind them that I am not the Minister for Defence.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How much have we in reserves in America at the moment?

Senator COTTON:

– I am getting all the figures. Senator Webster would be familiar with the practice which has developed over the years of paying a commitment fee on the unused portion of an overdraft. This applies in the case of governments.It is standard practice for anybody with an overdraft to pay a commitment fee. People like myself who use their overdraft to the full are not so concerned about this, but in America the practice is that money is allocated to a person who can draw that money by cheque at any time. Because of this the money is not available for some other person, so a commitment fee is charged on the unused portion of the overdraft. This applies equally to individuals and companies. When governments borrow from other governments, particularly in the case of the United States, they also pay a commitment fee - in this, case½ per cent. When the loan is drawn the net interest rate is 6.5 per cent - not 7 per cent - and the commitment fee becomes payable on the unused portion of that loan. Is that explanation satisfactory to the honourable senator?

Senator Webster:

– The only point is that it is costing us about $1,200 a week, on the figures we have been given.

Senator COTTON:

– That is because we have access to their money when we want to use it.

Senator Webster:

– But we are not using it.

Senator COTTON:

– This is a matter of the procurement programme, the supply programme and the defence supply train. I doubt whether these things could be set precisely day by day. It is necessary to allocate resources and set money aside so that money is available ready to be acquired when the time comes. The rate which I have mentioned is not bad, really. I have been advised that the Export-Import Bank adopted a policy of placing a commitment fee on all loans arranged after 1968 for all purposes. A commitment fee applies now in the case of all loans from the United States, whether from commercial resources or from the Export-Import

Bank. Those loans which do not carry a commitment fee and which extend from before1 968 were agreed to by the ExportImport Bank before the date on which the bank adopted a policy of charging a commitment fee.

Senator Cavanagh was looking at the accuracy of the 2 sets of figures and trying to reconcile them in his own mind - avery useful exercise, I thought. The undrawn amount is already committed for other equipment which is not covered bythe present Bill. Orders are in hand with the United States suppliers for the full amount of the credit which has already been arranged and the actual disbursements are lagging behind the orders. However, the full amount of the credits will be used over the years.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How much isthe credit?

Senator COTTON:

– There is no surplus available or accumulated for new defence orders proposed for 1971-72.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I asked how much credit we had and I was told that the credit is committed already for defence procurements this year. I wonder at the accuracy of that suggestion. I have never been told how much credit we have or what our commitments are. An examination of the report of the Auditor-General seems to reveal a practice of the Treasurer’s paying whatever he likes from United States loans. At page 361 of the report we find that in relation to the procurement of munitions and aircraft productionthe following was said about credit arrangements with the United States of America:

Procurement of certain items for production undertakings was financed as a charge to the Loan Fund in 1970-71 under the credit arrangements referred to at paragraph 34. Expenditure for this purpose amounted to$286,762 … In accordance with a Treasury requirement that amounts equivalent to the expenditure on such procurements be paid to Revenue from the relevant Trust Accounts when items have been received, amounts totalling$ 1 17,930 . . . were paid to Revenue …

I think it will be found that the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury and Woomera in South Australia had an expenditure of about$35. 5m and that in addition $92,048 was chargedto the loan fund under the credit arrangement with the United States. Because of some shortage, apparently. Treasury arranged for $92,000 to be taken from the credits that we have in the United States. On the question of Aeronautical Research Laboratories. which come under the Department of Supply, we find that in addition to the expenditure on that project about which we have been informed.$23,094 was charged to the loan fund under the credit arrangements that we have with the United Stat es of America. How much this expenditure is associated with defence I am unable to say, but I suppose that defence is one of its purposes. When it comes to an allocation to a department for a particular project it would appear that additionally we had these reserves whichcan be used for payments tothe United States. There is no rhyme or reason for using that method of payment; it is used merely because we have a credit with that country.

I have been trying to find out what credit we have in the United States on the loans that have already been authorised. As Senator Webster mentioned, we are not using the loansto the full extent, yet we are paying exorbitant rates of interest for not using them. Should we arrange for another$90m on which we will haveto pay½ per cent until such time as we need it? What credit do we have in the United States? If our credit with that country is committed, for what purpose is it committed, when was it committed and when is it likely that we will make use of that credit? The Auditor-General reported that one loan which was arranged was never used. Is that likely to be the situation in this case? In no case have we used the total loan. Is it necessary for us to add another $90m to our credit in the United States during this session of the Parliament? Could it not be done in the February session and save the½ per cent on the$90m that we would be required to pay inthe intervening period?I think the Parliament is entitled to know all this detail before approving the measure.

We are engaging in huge expenditure which we are told is essential expenditure. We opposed the second reading of the Bill because in our view this finance should be raised in Australia. We are not attempting to prevent the expenditure of money for defence purposes,but we suggest that we should be fully informed on whether the expenditure is for essential purposes. We should be told whether we have credits in hand in the United States and whether it is likely, as has been the case in ; he past, that we may not need those resources. If we are committed, let us be told what our commitments are. Let us be told also when it is likely that we will need to have additional money available in the United States to meet further commitments.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I answered Senator Cavanagh earlier when I made the comment that the undrawn amounts that have been referred to are already committed for equipment which has been ordered but the payment for which has not been covered by the present Bill; that is, orders already in hand with the United States suppliers will require the full amount of the credit which has already been arranged. The actual disbursements lag behind the orders. However, the full amount of the credits will be used for these orders. I repeat the information that I have for honourable senators. There is no surplus available or accumulated for the new defence orders proposed for 1971-72. It is used up or committed. The new money we are talking about is the new amount of $90m that is proposed to be acquired through this. Bill. That is the best information that I have for honourable senators. It is the accurate information. Of course, Senator Cavanagh and the Australian Labor Party oppose the motion for the second reading of this Bill because they believe that the money ought to be provided from Australian sources. This is a straight out argument on a philosophical base. The Government believes it is wise to acquire the money in this fashion. It has acquired money in the past in this fashion. It believes it is wise to do this. This is a matter of Government decision and, so far as I am concerned, 1 support it.

If honourable senators look at pages 20 and 21 of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) - what I call the full version, the one with the published accounts at the back - they can see the kind of programme envisaged for the defence services. I think some of the items arc worth referring to because this is becoming an area of some discussion outside its normal ambit. I did not begin the discussion, so therefore I thinkI am entitled to make a few comments in relation to this broad area. Total expenditure on defence services is expected to increase in 1971-72 by$117,400,000 or by 10.3 per cent. This includes an increase of. $66,491,000 for pay and salaries of which $29,700,000 is the estimated cost of the adoption of the Kerr Committee recommendations for new pay rates for other rank members of the forces. The remainder of the$36,791,000 reflects the additional pay day this year, the cost of awards and determinations made in 1971 and expected changes in the strength of the forces and civili an staffs of the departments in the defence group. Other increases in estimated expenditure include $8,254,000 for naval construction, and $1 0,084,000 for increased stores for the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do any of the items the Minister has read requirethis American loan money?

Senator COTTON:

– I know that Senator Cavanagh is trying to help me, but it is very difficult to see how and why.I am just trying to go through the defence situation to illustrateto the honourable senator the gigantic size of the defence programme and to point out quietly,I hope, that substantially the equipment is obtained for good and sensible reasons in the United States of America because this suits our weapons and equipment programme, and also our arrangements with allies. We decided as a Government that the best way to acquire this equipment is to finance it on these borrowing programmes. This has been the pattern of Government policy for a long time. Senator Cavanagh has every right not to agree with it, but he cannot persuade me, speaking for the Government, that he is correct. I do not think he is. As I have mentioned, other increases in expenditure include $8,254,000 for naval construction, and$21, 043,000 for arms, armament, and equipment for the Army.

I ask honourable senators to look atthe size of the general programme. There is reference in detail to the naval construction programme, and to the cost of the Skyhawk aircraft. The same position applies in relation to the Caribou and Canberra aircraft squadrons in the Royal

Australian Air Force. There are increases in the Department of Supply expenditures such as for fixed light wing aircraft and project N. This is a huge programme.

Senator Brown:

– For what purpose does !he Government want this S90m?

Senator COTTON:

– I have now read it twice to the Senate, and the items of equipment are in Hansard twice. I will read the information for a third time so that it will appear in Hansard for the third time. The kind of equipment envisaged - this is part of the $90m loan - is for the 3 arms of the Services. For the Department of the Navy it covers armament, stores including MK46 torpedoes, rockets, armament for Skyhawk aircraft, etc., naval stores, including equipment for fitting in new ships, minesweeping equipment, sonar and radar equipment, aircraft spares and additional equipment for Skyhawk and tracer aircraft. For the Department of the Army it includes armoured personnel carriers, spares and tracks, cryptographic equipment, radio and telegraphic equipment and special types of ammunition. For the Department of Air it includes 25 BH1H helicopters, one Phantom 4E replacement aircraft, modifications to existing aircraft, SAR beacons, air surveillance repairs, air frames, air engines and spares, and communications and electronic equipment. That is the equipment which is proposed to be acquired by the $90m loan covered by this Bill. I could read it again but I do not think any useful purpose would be served. As I mentioned, it has now been referred to for the third time. That is the programme of equipment for which the Bill is designed to provide money.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

– 1 am still concerned about the reasons for expenditure given in the statement that has been circulated by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). I refer specifically to item (b), namely a $US75m loan for Fill aircraft. Evidently, that loan was approved and we had access to it in or about October 1968. The interest bearing charge is 6 per cent and there is a commitment fee of .5 per cent. I ask to be corrected if 1 am wrong, but I understand that the commitment fee is payable on what is described as the undrawn amount of the loan available to the borrower. The loan matures in 1978. According to the statement the Minister has presented to the Senate, there is no reference to this in the column headed ‘Amount drawn at 30th June 1971’, and nor is there reference to it in the column headed ‘Amount outstanding at 30th June 1971’. So far as I can ascertain from the information that I have obtained from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Statistical Service there is still §74.822m outstanding. Why are we committed to pay not only the interest bearing charge of 6 per cent but also the 0.5 per cent continuously for that undrawn amount when we have been informed already in answers to questions addressed to the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) that we have not a firm, final figure although in an answer to a question from me last year he did indicate that the latest figure of cost to the Australian Government for the purchase of the FI 1 1 aircraft was approximately $265m. Why are we still allowing that amount of loan available to us to lie idle while we pay the extra 0.5 per cent interest bearing charge?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to prolong the debate on this matter but I want to make one comment on the Minister’s statement. I asked him what credit we have in America at the present time, regardless of the purpose for which we want to use it. I have not received an answer. The Minister has detailed the hardware for which the $US90m is required. As he stated, it will appear in Hansard 3 times, so we have a clear statement that the credit we already have in America is not for the purchase of hardware. It is obvious that we will not get an answer in the committee stage of this debate as to the credit we already have in America and the purpose for which that credit is committed. We will have to seek that answer from the representatives of the various defence departments during the debate on the Estimates in the Committee of the Whole. We should first know what credit we have in America, and where it is committed. The Minister has told us what the $US90m is for. Therefore, we can justify that if we cannot obtain $US90m from some of the other credit available to us in America. While the Minister has assured us that it is all committed, this is contrary to the report of the AuditorGeneral on previous expenditure on loans that have been made, because we have not utilised them. We apparently take some delight in paying the 0.5 per cent interest on the unused portion of the loan.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

Senator Brown has again expressed concern about the commitment fee. This is a matter which always seems to excite interest. It is true that a commitment fee is a commitment that a loan will be taken up. If an arrangement is made for credit of a given amount of money, it is necessary to pay the commitment fee from the day the agreement is signed to acquire the loan, irrespective of whether the money is to be borrowed by a person, a company or a country. The borrower agrees to pay the commitment fee. In this case the fee is i per cent for the loan covered by the sum appropriated. If the loan is not taken up or is cancelled the commitment fee of i per cent must be paid. When the loan has been used the rate negotiated - in the case referred to by Senator Brown it is 6 per cent - is the rate that is paid because the loan has been drawn iri full. I would think that there would always be an opportunity by a potential borrower to cancel a loan arrangement if he did not wish to proceed, but that has not been the practice of countries which have borrowed money and it has not been the practice in this country. A borrower knows that he wants money for a certain purpose and he acquires it for that purpose.

I referred a little earlier to the commitment fee situation. With this type of transaction, as was explained earlier, various commitment fees are paid. I also explained the times at which they come into force. The Export-Import Bank is simply following the normal pattern of procedures for this type of transaction. Since 1966-67 the rate of interest ‘ on these credits has been reflecting the high rates of interest on governmental and commercial borrowings on the United States capital market. However, the interest rate of 6i per cent for the current credit is lower than that operating on the previous 2 credits. That ought to be noted. It is still about 2 per cent or 3 per cent lower than would be available to the

Government for other purchases overseas. That is essentially the matter with which we are dealing.

In this Bill the Government is seeking the approval of the Senate - the House of Representatives has already approved - for the borrowing of $90m at the rate of interest stated to acquire the equipment referred to. That is the purpose of the Bill before the Senate. I asked for some information to be taken out as to the allocation of moneys out of the undrawn balance that is interesting Senator Cavanagh and Senator Brown. That commitment is to be apportioned approximately as follows: Fill aircraft, $74.8m; medium lift helicopters, $37m; and Skyhawk aircraft, $20m. Those figures have been given to me as representing the situation.

I do not think I can say much more to either Senator Cavanagh or Senator Brown. I have explained the commitment fee situation as best I can. It is a fact of commercial borrowing in the United States, and indeed in some other countries now. I have mentioned that several times. I cannot name the other countries, but that practice is adopted there for transactions of this type.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

– It is not my intention to delay the Senate, but the Minister has still, not answered my question. I am not querying at all the commitment fee. We are not querying at this stage the purpose of the Bill because it has been explained to us. I am concerned about whether we can be confident that the explanation given by the Minister in seeking approval for this Bill. will, in fact be carried out. My doubts arise, from the fact that in 1968 a similar Bill was introduced to gain approval to borrow $75m for payments on FI 1 1 aircraft. On 28th June last year I was informed by the. Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) that $252m had been authorised for purchase of FI 1 1 aircraft. That figure corrects a figure I gave earlier. I am seeking’ to find out why that sum of $75m has been allowed to lie there and to commit the Australian taxpayers to an interest charge of i per cent since’ October 1968. It could have been paid and we could have been relieved of that charge. .

I disagree completely with the Minister’s suggestion that it is a question of philosophy whether you should raise money in your own country to purchase military equipment, or should raise it elsewhere.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 10.48 p.m.

Senator BROWN:

– Prior to the suspension of the Senate for dinner and the meetings of the Estimates committees I had commented again on the 1968 loan of 574.822m which was still outstanding and available to be drawn upon. I had asked the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) why this loan had not been -availed of and why it remained available to the borrower “when we were sill paying the 0.5 per cent commitment fee on it. The Minister referred in passing to the proposed loan dealt with in the Bill now before the Committee and mentioned that the interest charge of 6.5 per cent and the commitment fee of 0.5 per cent were, in his words, a very reasonable charge to be made for borrowing that amount ot money.

Senator Cotton:

– A reasonable rate of interest.

Senator BROWN:

– He said thai it was a reasonable rale of interest for borrowing that money. The Minister referred to the difference between the philosophy of the Government on the matter of financing our defence requirements and that of the Opposition. According to this philosophy, evidently, it is more favourable for the Commonwealth to obtain long term loans from other sources than to raise them within the Commonwealth itself. I point out to him that in August 1970 f asked a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer about the 2 loans raised for the purpose of purchasing the Fill aircraft, namely, the loan in 1966 of $US80m and the loan in 1968 of $US75m: I asked what would be (he aggregate” of all loans plus interest when repayments were completed. The reply I received from the Treasurer was as follows: lt is not possible to calculate precisely the amount of principal repayment plus interest, since it is nol known whether or when further drawings will be made. However, on the assumption that the full amounts of both loans are fully drawn repayments plus interest would total approximately $US181m.

This means in effect that the original loan of $US155m is to cost the Commonwealth $US26m. Total repayment will amount to $US181m. From my calculations I understand that this represents something like a 161 per cent charge for the use of this money.

Senator Cotton:

– 1 think you misunderstand the calculation. You should seek elucidation.

Senator BROWN:

– This is something that the Minister might look at further. This is not cheap money. I repeat that I believe that the Government should be prepared, when seeking approval for this Bill, to disclose to honourable senators the reason why loans entered into as far back as 1968 have not yet been drawn upon and why we should be required to approve a loan for a further S90m tonight when there is still something like $170m outstanding and available to be drawn upon. 1 say that notwithstanding the fact that there has been some indication that some part of those undrawn loan moneys has been committed to defence orders already placed in the United States. Part of it has been earmarked for additional procurements. However, that is a rather vague statement, to say the least. Some additional drawings will be made to finance payments for defence items for which orders already have been placed with the United States.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

Senator Brown has done some calculations which produced for him an interest rate of 163 per cent. I think the problem he faces is that he has not done his calculations accurately. The real reason for all this is that the effective interest rate over the life of the loan is about 5 per cent. One has to work out the interest burden throughout the life of the loan, depending on the time one draws the money and the rate of repayment. The true effective interest rate on the money borrowed is 5 per cent.

I have some further information here which, I hope, will resolve some of the doubts that Senator Brown has. The point I made earlier is that philosophically [ believe it is sensible to borrow money to purchase defence equipment at this rate of interest rather than apportion the Australian resource for that purpose, bearing in mind that the Australian resource of reserves itself earns interest. Senator Brown asked why the loan from the Export-Import Bank of $US75m for the Fill aircraft had not been used and why a commitment fee on the loan has been paid since October 1968. The agreement with the Export-Import Bank for this loan was shown as a schedule to the Loan (Defence) Act 1968 and the obligation to pay a commitment fee is set out in the agreement. At the time the agreement was concluded with the Export-Import Bank it was envisaged that the loan would be fully drawn by 30th June 1971, the final availability date of the loan.

These points were drawn to the notice of honourable senators at that time by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson when he made his second reading speech on behalf of the Treasurer. Subsequent deferment of the decision to accept delivery of the FI 1 1 meant that no drawings were made on the loan by that date. The problems encountered with the early performance of the Fill led to a slowing-up of billings from the United States Air Force, which handled the matter on behalf of the Royal Australian Air Force. This caused the $US80m loan at 4 per cent to bc drawn on at a slower rate than was first anticipated. When the question arose of delaying acceptance until a certain performance requirement could be guaranteed, the matter of retaining or cancelling the $US75m loan at 6 per cent was examined carefully. However, it was considered prudent to keep the loan available to assist in the financing of the aircraft in the event that delivery of the aircraft was accepted. The availability date of the loan was therefore extended with the agreement of the Export-Import Bank. Honourable senators have raised the matter of commitment fee on this and other loans on a number of occasions during this debate. The fee of one half of 1 per cent per annum on undrawn amounts is quite small. When it is spread over the life of these loans it, in fact, adds no more than a few tenths of 1 per cent to the interest rate. Senator Brown, that is as much information as I have been able to obtain in the short time I have had available.

Senator Poyser:

– What does it mean?

Senator COTTON:

– Perhaps the honourable senator could read the information carefully in the Senate Hansard report tomorrow. 1 have been able to obtain that information since the Senate sitting was suspended for dinner, while the Senate Committees have been at work.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2014

ADJOURNMENT

National Service: Television Programme This Day To-night*

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I desire to take a few minutes of. the Senate’s time because I think the lack of answers from the Department of Labour and National Service justifies some protest. Today there is a concern in the public mind as to whether the allegation is correct that a few who defy the National Service Act are picked out for prosecution but not anywhere near the majority of those who are in breach of the Act are prosecuted. Looking at the records I find that since April this matter has been agitating the minds of honourable senators. There was some desire to obtain the number in breach of the Act. Today I protested in the Senate about the lack of replies given by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who in the chamber represents the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). I was asked to put my question on notice. Already on 3 occasions questions have been put on notice and on each occasion the reply evaded the question. Whether the Minister thinks it is smart or proper to play around with honourable senators without giving them the information to which they are entitled, I do not know. Today the time of the Senate was taken up by questions relating to certain draft resisters who had taken on some scheme for the purpose of publicising their case and with the inability or lack of desire of law enforcing officers to detect and enforce the penalties.

Last week when the Senate was not sitting I had a visit from Mr John Scott who is a draft resister. A warrant is out for his arrest. He is one of the 4 persons whom 100 police were engaged in trying lo find at the Melbourne University for the purpose of sending to gaol for 2 years. I do not know whether it was my responsibility to telephone the Commonwealth Police and tell them that he was in my office. However. 1 exempt myself because I did not know their telephone number. John Scott’s claim is: ‘Why should we be picked out when so many defy the Act and no prosecution is conducted against them?’.

Senator Poyser:

– What is the number?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Perhaps 1 can give some numbers. I stated that I had asked this question. In searching around 1 find that, on the last day of the last sitting week - 11th November - in the back of the Hansard report there ;s a reply to a question of mine on this very matter. The Minister commenced the reply:

  1. 1 refer me honourable senator to my detailed answer to Senate question No. 870 (Hansard, pages 805 and 806, 7lh April 1971) earlier this year on the same matter.

One would think from that that we had the complete answer - that the Minister had discharged his obligation and given the figures. If we look at the Hansard of 7th April upon which the Minister relies as having answered the question we find that it was question No. 870 asked by Senator O’Byrne. lt had been put on the notice paper some 3 months previously. The answer was given on 7th April. Senator O’Byrne asked:

  1. Do over 1,100 young men now face prosecution for various breaches of the National Service Act
  2. ls only one man now in gaol for refusing to bc conscripted despite this wide-spread defiance of the Act.

There are 2 other questions which only introduce Senator O’Byrne’s particular propaganda on the subject rather than seek information. The Minister’s detailed reply takes almost 2 columns. To the first question the Minister replied:

  1. Since some in the community are seeking lo confuse the situation regarding breaches of the

National Service Act it may help if 1 explain matters in some detail.

The more serious areas of default under the national Sen-ice Act are threefold: e failure to register al the proper time; a failure to attend for medical examination; failure to obey a call-up notice and render service.

Those are the 3 main breaches of the National Service Act. The Minister goes on to say that prosecutions have not taken place where those who have failed to register may be away, in prison or in hospital. Bui he states:

Where no mitigating circumstances exist, however, and the men failed lo register at the proper time, they are denied the benefit of the ballot. In addition, particularly where the men have registered only after coming to the notice of the Department or have refused to register . . .

The Minister states that where there are no mitigating circumstances they are denied the benefit of the ballot. But nowhere do we find in the reply to the question that there are 1,100 men now facing prosecution. The Minister goes on to state that during the last 3 years to 31st December 311,853 men registered for national service and that 5,039 men or 1.6 per cent of those registered were denied the benefit of the ballot for failing to register at the proper time. So there we see that 5,039 men had no mitigating circumstances. They failed to register and they were denied the benefit of the ballot. The Minister goes on to say that 727 were prosecuted. Who made the selection of the 727 for prosecution out of 5,039? Is there some, justification in the accusation that there is a selection made for the purpose of prosecution? About 5,000 men are without any circumstances which’ justify their being considered in the ballot according to their birthday dates. They were guilty and therefore they had to be called up. Only 727 were prosecuted. But still we did not receive a reply to the question of whether 1,100 men were awaiting prosecution. Tn regard to the second breach, failure to attend for medical examination, we find that the Minister again illustrates circumstances in which no action will be taken. They are circumstances which are understandable, such as that a man cannot attend at a particular time. The Minister stated in that regard:

Again the great majority of men attend for medical examination when required to do so. Over the past 3 years lo 31st December last 66,780 men had been medically examined;50 men, or less than 0.1 per cent, have been prosecuted.

We are there given the figures of how many attended for examination and how many were prosecuted, but nowhere can we get the figures of how many should have attended for examination and how many were not prosecuted. The Minister continued:

Men who have been medically examined and found to be fit, or have refused to undergo a medical examination and been prosecuted for that offence and persist in their refusal, are called up for Army service.

On the Minister’s figures we cansee by calculation that 311,853 did register and 5,039 failed to register, of whom 727 were prosecuted. Therefore, 316,892 were eligible for examination. The figures given by the Minister in relation tothe second reason for breach of the National Service Act show that the overwhelming majority did attend for medical examination. The Minister says that 66,780 men had been medically examined. Ofthe 316.892 who should have attended for medical examination. 250,112 failed to do so. Honourable senators should think about these figures. According to the Minister’s statement. 250,112 men are known to have failed to attend for medical examination.

Senator Wright:

– How do you deduce that figure?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Minister’s figure for those who registered was 31 1,853. There were 5,039 who missed out in the lottery but were called up because they failed to register. So the total of those who did register and those who failed to register but were called up because they bad an obligation to register is 316,892. In his reply the Minister says that 66,780 attended for medical examination in the same 3-year period, whereas 316,892 should have attended for medical examination. This leaves a balance of 250,112.

Senator Wright:

– That implies that all men who register are required to attend for medical examination.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Even though they register, I presume that some although I know of none, get out of national service without having a medical examination. If there is an explanation of this, it is not revealed by the figures supplied by the Minister. These are the only figures we have to go on. We have been searching since April for the figures. If there are alternative figures, the Minister should make them available to us.

Senator Wright:

– What figures do you want?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will come to that. They have been asked for, as reported in Hansard, and the question has been evaded on 3 occasions since that time. In relation to the third aspect of this matter, those who fail to attend for callup, the Minister states:

Over the past3 years of the national service scheme to31st December last,11 men have been convicted of refusal to obey a call-up notice to render service, or 0.04 per cent of some 25,487 who have been called up and enlisted during this period. . . .

Two men are currently imprisoned following conviction of failure to obey a call-up notice and render service.

Although I have not readthe full reply, I have referred to the main figures. Where in the Minister’s reply can we find reference to the fact that 1,100 men are now facing prosecution for various breaches of the National Service Act? Not being satisfied with the Ministers reply, on 22nd April I put on the notice paper question No. 1091. On 18th August, after 3 months, I received a reply - and the Minister now asks what questions I seek to have answered and what informationI want. On 18th April I received a reply to question No. 1091 which, as I stated, had been-

Senator Wright:

– You just said that the question was asked on 22nd April and you received the reply on 18th August. Now you say you received it on 18th April.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, it was 18th August. The question which I asked and which was given 3 months consideration was as follows:

How many eligible persons failedto attend for medical examination as required by the National Service Act during the past 3 years?

Honourable senators can see that the information I am seeking is how many failed to attend for examination. The reply which the Minister took 3 months to compile is as follows:

Men who fail to at tend when required for medical examination without prior notification to the Registrar for National Service, are normally sent a notice to attend on a later date together with advice of the penalty for non-attendance provided in the National Service Act. Cases of continued failure or refusal are investigated and men prosecuted where this is warranted.

In the 3 years to 30t*i June 1971, 69,408 men were medically examined and 55 prosecuted for failure to report for medical examination.

We are told there how many attended and how many were prosecuted, but we are not given the information for which I specifically asked. I asked:

How many eligible persons failed to attend . . .

On the following day I showed my concern at not having received a reply, after waiting 3 months for it, by asking the following question: 1 desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. I ask: Why did the Minister not answer properly question No. 1091 I asked of him concerning how many eligible persons had failed during the past 3 years to attend , the medical examination that is required to be undertaken under the National Service Act? I received yesterday what purported to bc a- reply to that question. It informed me how many people were prosecuted. The question 1 asked was how many people had failed to attend a medical examination. A similar question was asked previously by Senator O’Byrne. On neither occasion has the information sought been supplied; instead some other information has been given.

How much stronger could one protest against a reply that has never been received? The Minister replied:

Because I have not had any notice at al) of any complaint as lo the answer which has been given, 1 tlo not have the text of the answer before me. 1 shall comment on it when I have a chance to peruse the question and answer.

The Minister has been waiting since 19th August until the present date to have a chance lo peruse the question and the answer so that he can give me the reply that he promised. The Minister keeps his promises. He must be greatly overworked in his Department if he cannot peruse an answer given the previous day. I waited for a reply until 26th August when I placed a similar question on notice. I got a reply on 11th November. I asked:

  1. Have more than 11,000 persons been liable for prosecution, up until 31st December’ 1970, for failure to register under the National Service Act?
  2. Have only 1,007 persons been prosecuted?
  3. Do these figures indicate that the likelihood of a non-registrant being prosecuted is less than the likelihood of a registrant being called up for national service?

From 26tb August until today I have received the following informative answer:

  1. 1 refer the honourable senator to my detailed answer to Senate Question No. 870.

That is the question which I asked on 7th April. The Minister continued:

  1. Up to 30th September 1971, 1,337 persons had been prosecuted fox the offence of failure to register for national service.

I suggested- that 1,007 persons had been prosecuted up until 31st December 1970. The Minister continued:

  1. No. This is part of the propaganda put out by some elements in the community opposed to national service who, for their own purposes, endeavour to mislead young men into thinking they can break the law of the land with impunity.

It obviously makes no impression on the vast majority of young men, almost 700,000, who have registered as required. All cases of apparent default are thoroughly investigated and prosecution action taken wherever this is warranted.

Since April I have repeatedly asked how many are in default. On no occasion have I got a reply. Those who are making an ass of the National Service Act - the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) and the Commonwealth police - today are jetting public support to justify their action in victimising sections of the.. community selected out of great numbers. If certain sections, are not being victimised, why does not the Minister give me the information I seek? Why is there this secrecy about how many are in breach of the Act? On each occasion that we ask we are told only how many are being prosecuted. The situation has been reached today where the newspapers are holding the Act up to ridicule. I am indebted to Senator James McClelland for handing me a cutting from the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 18th November 1971. An article in that cutting states:

The system of selective conscription - where only one out of eight eligible males is drafted - was complemented by a system of selective enforcement, where only 3 of the thousands of evaders, infringers and resisters have actually been imprisoned. fs this true? That is the information that we are seeking. The article continued:

That position is reflected in the figures. In the 5 years’ operation of the Act to December last year the Government had prosecuted and convicted only 1,007 young men-

That figure, is not correct, as the Minister said - for failing to register. There were 43,960 cases not finalised.

Perhaps we can start from there. The figures quoted were taken from a document stolen from the Department of Labour and National Service in Melbourne when it was raided by draft resisters. The document was marked ‘only preliminary figures’. The article continues:

In throwing into relief the Government’s lack of real interest in enforcing the National Service Act, the guerilla tactics of draft resistance groups in Melbourne and Sydney are beginningto pose an election issue of major importance.

That the Government is going easy on the Act is beyond question.

Since February, when the accompanying document was stolen from the statistics section ofthe Department of Labour and National Service in Melbourne, it has been known that the Government was slowing down on prosecutions.

It is unfortunate but it appears that the only way in which we can get the figures is by theft. When an elected politician cannot get the figures from the responsible Minister and when those who think that they have some claim under the Act cannot get them, there is no alternative. I do not think there is a conflict, but the figures set out in the document which was stolen from the statistics section of the Department of Labour and National Service, which I have quoted, show the number of persons who have failed to register. The article in the ‘Financial Review’ states:

Only about 17 men each year are prosecuted for failure to register. Of the 10,000 investigations carried out each year for failure to register only 200 or so result in convictions.

Is there any justification for this? Is there a case to be made for the individuals who are evading arrest today? Why should they be treated like martyrs when the Act is not policed, when the Government has not the courage to enforce its own Act? The Government knows that the Act is not popular with the people and that it cannot put large numbers of people into gaol before an election. The Government had to wait until it could get together 100 policemen and a bus load of implements to be used to break in before it could make some sort of demonstration against 4 youths at the University of Melbourne. It waited until 15 to 30 minutes before someone was to appear on a television programme before it took any action against that person, but he has not been arrested.

The Government is falling down on this question. Today there are men who are escaping the provisions of the National Service Act. There are men who are unable to follow useful occupations. Their skilled services are lost to society while they play this game of cat and mouse with the Government which is not prepared to act and which has no desire to enforce its Act, and I do not think that the public believes that it should be enforced, either. The Government is keeping this Act on Australia’s statute book in order to create fear in the minds of the public about a threatened invasion and to justify its stand that we must have national service. I have been told - these are other figures that have been suggested - that the Government has failed to prosecute 11,823 men who have failed to register for national service, 451 who have failed to attend for their medical examination and 80 who have failed to obey a call-up notice. It is believed that these are the figures. Why will the Government not give us the figures? Is it ashamed of them? The Government should not say that we have not made any effort to obtain the figures, and it should not say that there have not been deliberate attempts made to avoid giving the figures to the Parliament.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to raise the question of the future and the effectiveness of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s current affairs programme This Day Tonight’ having regard to the events that took place at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s studios at Gore Hill and in Canberra last Tuesday. As a result of answers to questions this afternoon I think we now all know the circumstances under which the programme was produced. According to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood), his office was rung at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of that day and told that a draft resister was going to appear on that programme. According to him, no mention was made of the fact that a Mr Matteson was going to appear on the programme. According to the Attorney-General, a draft resister was going to appear on that programme. The Attorney-General thereupon accepted the invitation extended to him to appear on the same programme. At the same time he stipulated that he should not be in the same studio as the draft resister because, apparently, that might prove to be embarrassing. He notified the Commonwealth

Police. Two Commonwealth Police officers went to the Australian Broadcasting Commission studios at Gore Hill in Sydney and. according to the Minister, arrived there a quarter hour or half hour before the programme went to air.

The draft resister, for whom a warrant was in existence, appeared on the programme. He hurriedly left and Senator Greenwood was left sitting in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation studio in Canberra. Senator Greenwood, as AttorneyGeneral, obviously agreed to appear on the programme and, therefore, I take it that he condoned the legality of the programme being presented. I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s legal officers had been consulted about the programme going on air and that apparently they agreed that from a legal point of view there was nothing wrong with the programme being presented. The Commonwealth Police went to Gore Hill and, according to the Minister, tried to enter the studio but could not do so. Mr Matteson got away. Then, suddenly, the hue and cry from the Government broke out.

May 1 say at the outset that we of the Opposition do not mind how frequently the Attorney-General appears on television because the more he does so the more he shows up the lamentable paucity of constructive thought on the part of the present Government. It suits the opposition to have Ministers like the Attorney-General, and others whom we see from time to time on television, displaying their lack of talent. However, the events that have occurred since - perhaps I should say the events that have not occurred - disturb me particularly because either the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not fulfilling its responsibilities under the Act to the Parliament or the Government is interfering in the programming arrangements of the Commission. Alternatively, the Commission is being influenced by statements made from time to time by Government Ministers, backbench members and other influential members of the community. I say that because as soon as the programme became public property we found Ministers, police commissioners and backbench Government supporters running around as though they were playing a came of tiggy touchwood.

Firstly, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) was calling hysterically in another place for the dismissal of Sir Robert Madgwick, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and also for the dismissal of Mr Duckmanton, General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, because of the implications of the ‘This Day Tonight’ programme. According to a Press report he sent a telegram claiming that the police had been held up to ridicule while Mr Matteson was ushered out of the building. I ask Senator Greenwood, either in his capacity as Attorney-General or as Minister representing the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme), to state affirmatively here and now that the Commonwealth Police were not hindered in any way by officers and staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission at Gore Hill on that evening in executing a warrant of arrest on a person against whom it had been issued.

The honourable member for Mitchell claimed that he wanted ac’ ion to be taken under the Crimes Act against officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Askin. told the New South Wales Parliament that the New South Wales police commissioner had called for an urgent report on the incident. The PostmasterGeneral asked the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for a full report on the indicent, not for himself but so that it could be presented to Cabinet. Surely that in itself is an indication of an attempt to coerce the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I am suggesting that because nothing else on this matter, the subject of dispute, has been broadcast in any programme of the Commission, ‘This Day Tonight’, ‘Four Corners’ or any other programme, the Commission has succumbed, if not to direct control, then certainly to pressure, political and otherwise. I am rather amazed that with this background the Commission should say iri its annual report that it has sought )o preserve the independence of the ABC from outside pressures. I wonder whether the Commission will be able to make the same comment in its next annual report. I also wonder whether this, is the type of incident the Postmaster-General had in mind when he said .in. this Parliament on 27th May 1970: ‘almost ‘ complete autonomy’ - and I emphasise the words ‘almost complete autonomy’ - ‘in programming is granted to the Commission’.

Bearing in mind that background, the general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as recently as 1 2th October 1971 when addressing the Tenth Annual Australian Gas Association Convention in Melbourne said that the process of government was being made more difficult by the development of the mass media, and by television in particular. In The Australian’ on 12th October 1971 he was reported as having said:

The more the mass media discuss current events the more difficult will he their relation-hips wilh the possessors of power . . . . . This was because the media “often don’t make the work of people in high positions an. easier”.

J would like to know why States other than New South Wales and Victoria were not given an opportunity of seeing the programme which has been referred io. We have just been told in a Senate Estimates Committee that the Australian Broadcasting Commission does not buy certain sporting programmes because it has not :i coverage in all States. But here is a situation where an important public affairs programme is produced and is shown in 2 States, lt obtains national headlines in the newspapers throughout the Commonwealth and the programme is withdrawn from display in the other States. Why has there not been a follow-up programme on ‘This Day Tonight’? 1 can imagine what would have happened had the programme under discussion been televised by a commercial channel. A sensation has been disclosed, a first class news story, and the Commission apparency drops ii because it is considered to be a hot potato. The Australian Broadcasting Commission acted to kill the story. It acted lo kill the programme rather than to promote the programme. I ask the Attorney-General to ascertain why the programme has been killed. 1 want to know whether the producers of the programme have been told that no other such programme related to draft resisters is to be sho>n under any circumstances unless it ha.- i’.k prior approval of the management of the Commission. This Day Tonight’ is being muzzled and I suggest that it is as a result of pressure, direct or indirect, that has come from the Government. I deplore the situation and I trust that steps will be taken to ensure that the public interest is protected by allowing the public to see programmes which often do not make the work of people in high positions any easier.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I would like to follow Senator Douglas McClelland because question lime has been limited - and I understand the reason for it - but in being limited honourable senators have not been able lo continue questioning on a matter of extreme public interest. For this reason we have to take time on the adjournment debate to seek the clarification of points that we were not able to seek during question time. I am appalled at the situation in which the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) placed himself in l his interview that took place on ABC television. 1 indicated that at question time and you, Mr President, said that 1 should not make imputations. The programme was not broadcast to Queensland and, if I recall correctly, I also asked why this was not done. According to the information which Senator Douglas McClelland has revealed, it was broadcast only to New South Wales and Victoria. The Attorney-General came to some rather extraordinary arrangement whereby he accepted an invitation to appear on the programme ‘This Day Tonight’ together with a draft resister. It is apparent to me, if it is not apparent to someone else, that he must have had some reservations about appearing on this programme with that draft resister because it was obvious, from the events that lead up to the programme, that it might have been a draft resister who was under a threat of arrest.

To my mind, a draft resister is a person who is in opposition to the National Service Act directly, not a person who is opposed to the Act. Many of us are opposed to the Act. The Attorney-General is irving io slip away from the question by saying that when they mentioned a draft resister he thought it was someone who was opposed to the Act. But it was fairly obvious from the precautions that were taken that the Attorney-General was aware of the possibility that the draft resister was one who was in direct conflict with the Act and, in effect, was a pt-.’son who was subject to arrest. For some reason, the AttorneyGeneral sought to take part in the interview in a separate studio. Information was given to the Commonwealth police. That information apparently was not given to the State police although I think the State police have some responsibility to carry out Commonwealth law. The information went to the Commonwealth police to be there at the studio. Someone in the Attorney-General’s office - it has been admitted it was his office that gave the information to the Commonwealth police - must have anticipated that the draft resister would be someone subject to arrest. If that was the case, why then did the Attorney-General agree to such an interview? Why then did the AttorneyGeneral agree to have the interview in a separate studio? Was he afraid that if he appeared in the same studio with a draft resister subject to arrest he might find himself in the embarrassing situation of having to carry out the advice which he handed out to the interviewers on the programme that they should carry out a citizen’s arrest? Was he afraid that he might have to carry out that advice himself? Did ke avoid that situation by being in another studio? To my mind, the whole thing is a fiasco. The Press in Queensland on the Sunday indicated that it was a fiasco. It indicated by comment that it was a situation in which the Attorney-General ouch not to have placed himself, and 1 agree. The position arose today that some ( my colleagues felt that the approach to this whole problem indicated that a series «f Attorneys-General trying to carry out Government policy were not, in effect, serious in their attempts to arrest those who were in direct conflict with the Act. Looking back over the figures that Senator Cavanagh has given, I would say that a reasonable conclusion might be that the Government is embarrassed by the Act which it has inflicted upon young men and is embarrassed by the tremendous task that faces the authorities in imposing the provisions of that Act on many thousands of young men. One conclusion could be that all of these attempts are just attempts to satisfy the militants within the Government parties, to show them that the Government, through the Attorney-General, is making some attempt to arrest draft dodgers. The result is that as the Act is selective, so are the Commonwealth Police selective as to those whom they arrest.

I am of a different opinion. My questioning today seems to indicate that my opinion is correct. I have the feeling that the person who now, after a series of changes, holds the office of AttorneyGeneral is a person who is determined to impose the law against thoi-e who resist the Act and who is determined to treat these young men as criminals in breach of an Act. He is determined to treat these young men in the same way as those who are guilty of an indictable offence are treated. As this offence carries the penalty of 1 8 months’ imprisonment - the period of imprisonment once was 2 years - one would have thought that the offence was an indictable one. But it is not an indictable o-Tence; it is a summary offence. Gauging it by the actions of the AttorneyGeneral, one would say that it ought to be an indictable offence, that he considers it to be an indictable offence and that he considers the offence to be an outright crime.

The Attorney-General has never properly considered, nor does he understand, the position of young men who are strongly opposed to the selective type of conscription which has been imposed upon them by this Government. The Attorney-General would be wiser not to impose his will upon these young men but to advise the Government to scrap the ..’hole Act. The Opposition has suggested time and again that the whole of the Act be scrapped because it is unjust.

What are the consequences which are flowing from attempts to impose the provisions of the Act? The immediate consequence in this instance is pressure against or, should I say, oppression pf the Australian Broadcasting Commission for endeavouring to present, news that, is in the public interest. The Government seeks to prevent the ABC from presenting the news as it happens. In other words the Government, through the Attorney-General and by pressure on the ABC, seeks to prevent the news from standing on its own feet because it is not to the advantage of the Government if the news is expressed freely.

The other matter which concerns me also is that, by endeavouring to impose the law in this restrictive way, the whole character of the Commonwealth Police Force is being changed. Where once the Commonwealth Police was a supervisory police force charged with protecting the interests of the Commonwealth and its property, it has now become, under this Attorney-General, a punitive force which does not exercise the discretion which it used to exercise. This is evident not only in this case but also in the manner in which the Commonwealth Police carried out certain raids against University students in southern universities and in the treatment of protesters against apartheid in South Africa.

A change - it is a regrettable change - has occurred in the whole attitude of the Commonwealth Police mainly because of the way in which that police force is being used by the present Attorney-General. Might 1 impress upon him the consequences which flow from the methods which he has been using. Might 1 suggest to him that he gains very little credit and that his standing is affected by the manner in which he is beginning to pursue these young men who seek to expose the Act for what it is.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– We have heard sonic interesting contributions in the debate this evening on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. Why is it that representatives of the Australian Labor Party object to having the law enforced? Why is it that representatives of the Labor Party are concerned to protect those people who run away from the obligations adhered to by 99 per cent of the young people in the community who are required to register for national service? Why is it that the Labor Party wants to help these people who are doing nothing more than - and I use an expression that J have heard used many times in this chamber and while 1 do not approve of it the Labor Party will understand it on this occasion - scabbing on their mates. That is what members of the Australian Labor Party are doing in supporting these 10 young people in Australia who have decided not only to refuse to obey the National Service Act but also to refuse to accept the penalty to be imposed on people who do not obey their lawful obligations.

Where are the principles of equity? Where are the principles of justice upon which, from my reading of history books, I understood the Labor Party to be founded? Surely if it is good for some people to have to undertake national service it is good for all. But no, Mr President. The people whom the Labor Party defends today are not the 99 per cent of the young people who are prepared to do their national service and to defend their country, even though it goes agains! the grain for many of them. The sympathies of members of the Labor Party are with the few young people who are prepared to abandon their colleagues and to deny any sense of obligation to their country or to their fellows who are doing a job of work for them.

There is a lol of so-called holy talk from some members of the Australian Labor Party, but it cannot hide what they are doing. The spokesmen for the Labor Party on this issue in Victoria hold very prominent positions in the Party. I refer to the President of the Victorian Branch of the ALP and to one of the 2 representatives from Victoria on the Federal Executive. They are to be seen on more demonstrations than not when there are national service objectors who are refusing to do their national service. We find Mr Crawford, President of the Victoria Branch of the ALP, going into places where the police are not permitted because he is making common cause with these resisters. Mr Hartley, the former Victorian Secretary of the ALP and a Victorian representative on the ALP Federal Executive, was demonstrating outside the Melbourne City Court last week with a draft resister. Then he escorted him across the way to a hotel where eventually the person who was wanted was arrested by the Commonwealth Police.

Where does the Labor Party stand on these issues? Where do the spokesmen for the Labor Party in this chamber stand? I challenge any member of the Labor Party to say that he is prepared to go out and to do what he can to assist the police to apprehend these people for whom warrants of arrest have been issued. I will wait to hear one member of the Labor Party say that he is prepared to do that. If members of the Labor Party are not prepared to do that, what entitlement have they to put themselves before the people of Australia as an alternative government? They just would not obey the laws. They would not seek to enforce the laws. They would engage in that selective enforcement of which they make so bold as to accuse the Government.

Senator Murphy:

– If you believe in law and order why have you brought into this debate the name of a man who is facing trial in Victoria, other than to prejudice him in his trial?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The interjection of Senator Murphy has absolutely no relevance to what is being urged here. I am forced now to speak above the noise which so often characterises the Opposition whenI seek to put a reasoned point of view. This behaviour is typical of the idea they hold that you shout down anybody with whom you disagree. Tonight we have heard imputations from senators who heard me many times during question time today state over and over again the same facts as to what happened on the occasion of the interview in the programme ‘This Day Tonight’ last Tuesday night.

Senator Georges got up, disregardedas it would appear everything thatI have said, and imputed to me the same motives and intentions which can only be sustained by him on the basis that I have been a liar and expected that to be a cogent argument which the Senate ought to accept.I can only say that if one can stand in this place and state the facts and not have them contradicted, I would regard that as a standard which ought to be accepted by anybody in this Senate. But apparently it is not good enough for Senator Georges. I believe that this sort of tactic is engaged in because in its results it simply suggests to anyone who may read the record or who may hear what is being said that there is a point of view other than that which has been stated. Yet, there is no evidence whatever to support the view which is being put forward.

Senator Milliner:

– Did Senator Douglas McClelland state the facts, senator?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I have not come yet to what was said by Senator Douglas McClelland. AllI want to say is that the people of Australia ought to recognise that what is involved in this issue is the basic question of whether laws should be enforced. When will one member of the Australian Labor Party who holds a responsible position in that Party indicate that he is prepared to support the police forces of this country in apprehending these people for whom warrants have been issued instead of belittling every effort which the police make to arrest these people, instead of criticising everybody who says they should be arrested, and instead of seeking to denigrate anybody who believes that these people are not doing the right thing by their country or by their colleagues? These are the basic issues.I am prepared to state this on as many occasions as are warranted because the more it its stated the more it will shame the more responsible members of the Australian Labor Party into recognising the sort of situation which they are avowing. When these people who have avoided their national service obligations run away from what is their duty and run away from the police whenever the effort is made to arrest them their action I think characterises quite clearly the sort of people they are. In my judgment it characterises the attitude of the Labor Party when it supports them.

Senator Douglas McClelland raised some questions about whether or not the Australian Broadcasting Commission was doing its job or whether in some way it must be said that there was a government intereference with the programming arrangements of the Commission. That is a question which is posed on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The honourable senator knows, because he is probably one of the best informed people in this chamber on what are the powers and the statutory duties of the Commission, that it is an independent Commission.I have a copy of the Broadcasting and Television Act with me. The honourable senator knows the provisions which are contained in the Act. He knows that section 59 gives a complete power to the Commission to determine its own programmes. The honourable senator will find other provisions that give a similar autonomy to the Commissioner in regard to the activities in which it engages. He knows also that there are specific provisions in the Act which indicate what the PostmasterGeneral may do with regard to requiring matters to be televised or not to be televised. Also, the honourable senator knows that if the Postmaster-General gives any direction to the Australian Broadcasting Commission as to what is not to be televised he must report his action to the Parliament within 7 days of giving this direction. That is a procedure which has been laid down by the Parliament as the limit to what should be the political interference at any time with the programming of the Commission. This provision has commended itself to this Government and the fact that it has commended itself to this Government is, I think, the surest indication that we believe in the autonomy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

There is absolutely no warrant for any argument that the Commission in this issue has been subjected to political pressure. The reason why there is no warrant for such an argument is that there is no evidence at all which would give basis to it. Senator Douglas McClelland, striving as he was to make a case, was unable to point to any evidence at all. He suggested that the ABC had succumbed, if not to direct control, to political pressure. What did he mean by that statement? Was there any suggestion or evidence of direct control? If there was none, why did he use the expression ‘if not to direct control’? Was it simply because he wanted to create some headline? And where was the evidence of political pressure? There has not been any evidence at all.

Senator Douglas McClelland or some other honourable senator asked today why this segment of the programme ‘This Day Tonight’ was not broadcast in Western Australia last Wednesday night when ordinarily it would have been broadcast. Whoever asked that question did not know the reason. In my capacity as the representative in this chamber of the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) I asked for that question to be put on notice or said that I would obtain the information. Until that information is forthcoming, who knows the reason? But apparently that is not good enough for Senator Douglas McClelland. Apparently he has some information which he does not deign to give to the Senate that the Postmaster-General or some other political figure has stopped this independent Commission from televising this particular segment of the programme in Western Australia. Where is the evidence? If he has got it why has he not produced it? If he cannot produce it why did he make the allegation? It ought to be obvious to everybody that any decision which was made not to televise this segment of the programme in Western Australia on a particular night was made within the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that it is naturally within the autonomy and therefore wthin the authority of the ABC to make such a decision. Until someone has something more than just the mere wish that what he says be true and can point to the facts upon which he makes his allegation he should be quiet because what he is doing, if he will only realise it, is demeaning the character of the Commission itself. If the Commission is as weak as Senator Douglas McClelland suggests it is, he ought to be urging that the Commissioners be replaced. But he does not put forward that argument for the reason that it does not fit in with the political line which he is seeking to pursue.

All that which I have witnessed and observed over the past week is but a red herring or a smoke screen to cover the real issue. There has been an attempt by those who recognise there was an impropriety or a failure in what the ABC did to serve the public interest, to try and change the character of the issue and make it appear as if what is involved is an issue of censorship, an issue of intimidation, or an issue of political pressure. Those people think that if they can build up their argument they can change the brunt of the attack from an issue they fear to an issue upon which they believe they can score more successfully. I hope that those who know the facts will constantly reiterate, notwithstanding the blandishments which come from the Opposition, that what really is at issue here is whether people who are prepared to abandon or deny their obligations under the National Service Act ought to be given the support of institutions like the Australian Broadcasting Commission by the way in which they publicise them, and whether they ought to be given the support of the Australian Labor Party, which fondly believes that it is a responsible party in this country.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise briefly to refer to the remarks which were addressed by Senator Cavanagh to me as the representative in this chamber of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). I shall refer to them but briefly because although I listened with my usual patience and painstaking care to what Senator Cavanagh said I only found myself in confusion, no doubt due to my misunderstanding. Nevertheless. I had no notice that I would be questioned on statistics and I found the honourable senator tonight to be unusually lacking in coherence. I give the honourable senator the assurance that I shall submit the text of what fell from his lips, as reproduced in Hansard, full consideration at the earliest opportunity and endeavour once more to reach his understanding by a full and clear statement on the statistics.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I want figures, not statements.

Senator WRIGHT:

– You are not going to get any figures tonight. I shall give them carefully, because it is quite obvious that the honourable senator neither understood the figures nor understood the provisions of the statute to which they related. All I want to say in conclusion is that we listened to Senator Cavanagh’s tenseness of mind on this Act when our national service troops were engaged in Vietnam. We heard applications made to conscience on the basis of a particular war. But the preoccupation and obsession linger on, even to the stage of persistence to subvert the Act. accompanied tonight by snide insinuations that the theft of documents should be condoned. That is the degree to which some members ofthe Opposition go in their opposition to national service in this country.

Wednesday, 24th November 1971

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is far too late in the night for the over-excited and evasive rhetoric that we have had from the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood). The simple point that we are putting to him, incase he does not understand it, is this: We say that all of the noise and all of the fanfare which he has been kicking up over recent weeks about draft resisters is a sham and a pretence. We say that the Attorney-General does not want to have draft resisters arrested; he merely wants it to go out to the world that he wants them arrested. Are we seriously to believe that, when Commonwealth police arrive at a television station half an hour before they know a draft resister is going to be there, those Commonwealth police are not able to apprehend him? Are we to believe that the great squad that was sent into the University of Melbourne to catch 4 or 5 people could not have caught them if they hadwanted to? Instead they went into the university and acted like vandals in order to drive home the Attorney-General’s point that he wanted the public to think that this Government wants to arrest draft resisters.

I ask the Attorney-General and, seeing that he has bought into the argument, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) whose contribution, apart from a few remarks, has been to sitthere all night with an asinine smirk on his face, and any member of the Government whether they will or will not give us a clear answer to this one simple question: Is it a fact that in the 5 years in which the National Service Act has been in operation more than 11,000 people who failed to register for national service and who had no reason for not registering for national service have not been prosecuted? We have asked this question in various forms dating back to last April. The Minister for Works’ took comfort in a small error that Senator Cavanagh made in his statistics. It is no part of the case being made by the Opposition that 250,000 people have evaded national service and have not been prosecuted.

I will spell it out as clearly as I can because obviously the Minister for Works and the Attorney-General do not wish to understand it or do not wish to give us an answer. Our case is this: It has been asserted in the newspapers and it has been asserted by us in this House that in 5 years 1 1,000 young men who have failed to register for national service and who have no legal reason for not registering have not been prosecuted. I ask again: Is this or is this not a fact? This is the only question we want answered tonight. It is not a matter of whether some people down in Victoria who happen to have opinions that rouse the reactionary ire of Senator Greenwood may have done something of which he does not approve. We are not necessarily supporting any of this action ourselves.

Senator Wright:

– Not necessarily?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We want to know from Senator Wright, if he chooses to answer the question, whether it is a fact that the Government has failed to prosecute 11,000 people that it could have prosecuted.

Senator Wright:

– You have not given even one hour’s notice of the question.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister has had 6 months’ notice and he will not tell us. If he looks back at the record to be found in Hansard he will have to admit that he and every other Government spokesman has evaded the question that we asked and which we ask again for the final time: Is it a fact or is it not a fact that 11,000 men who have evaded national service have not been prosecuted? If it is a fact it makes everything that Senator Greenwood says or does on television or in this chamber about law and order a hollow farce. It proves that this is a catch-cry which he and the Government wish to use for electoral purposes and that it has nothing at all to do with enforcing law. Can we ever hope for an answer to this question? That is the simple matter that we put tonight to the Government.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) has set himself up as the champion of law and order since he took occupation of his present office. Tonight I think he has shown us precisely what he means by law and order. It means the exercise of his office as Attorney-General to slander his political opponents and, more particularly, deliberately to prejudice the trial of an official of the Australian Labor Party which is to take place shortly in Victoria. Tonight Senator Cavanagh put quite specific questions to the AttorneyGeneral. They were questions of which the Government has had notice for some 6 months. Is it not a fact that there are some 11,000 persons at present in Australia who have failed to comply with the provisions of the National Service Act; that this is known to the Government; that the Government has refrained from prosecuting them; and that it has deliberately victimised certain other individuals and prosecuted them? These are the questions which have been put repeatedly for the past 6 months by Senator Cavanagh and other members of the Australian Labor Party.

The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said that he can answer them if he has one hour’s notice. We are looking forward to his answer when we come in here tomorrow. That will allow him considerably more than one hour in which to provide an answer. The fact is that the Government has had 6 months’ notice.

What was Senator Greenwood’s reply to this? His reply that it is the purpose of the Australian Labor Party to assist people to evade the National Service Act. I will not speak for the Australian Labor Party but I will speak for myself. I would be prepared to assist someone to evade the National Service Act. I regard it as an iniquitous Act, an Act brought down not for any honourable purpose but as part of an election gimmick by men of military age. who would not dream of serving in Vietnam themselves, in order to conscript young men to go away and kill and maim or to be killed and maimed. There are no Australians for whom I have higher respect than those young Australians who have refused to comply with this vicious Act.

Senator Greenwood referred to the history of the Australian Labor Party. I think that the most honourable chapter in the history of the Australian Labor Party was the resistance it put up to conscription in the First World War when John Curtin himself was sent to gaol for sedition. It is no use Senator Greenwood appealing to the history of the Australian Labor Party. Here he is speaking about law and order. While so doing quite gratuitously he introduced into this debate the name of Mr Hartley, a former secretary of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. He found this very amusing. No doubt he does because he can attack a man in the sanctity of the Senate knowing that that man is awaiting trail at the present time. What did Senator Greenwood do? He introduced the name of Mr Hartley. His name was not included in any of the questions asked by Senator Cavanagh or anyone else. His name was not introduced into this debate by the Opposition. He is not a member of this chamber and so cannot answer in person ‘ the allegations that Senator Greenwood has made against him, but Senator Greenwood, should and, I am sure, does know, that Mr Hartley is at present awaiting trial for an offence alleged to be related to what took place at a certain demonstration against the South African rugby team which Senator Greenwood so ardently supported. He well knows that Mr Hartley is awaiting trial, and yet he deliberately introduced his name into this debate and made allegations about his allegedly unlawful conduct for no other purpose than, under privilege, blackguard this man who is awaiting trial.

This is the man who sets himself up as the Attorney-General, the champion of law and order. How does he use this office which should be one of the offices of the greatest honour amongst lawyers in this country? He uses it to engage in a blackguardly attack on a man who cannot defend himself in the same way as he used this office to engage in blackguardly attacks on young men throughout Australia who have had the courage of their convictions in refusing to go to Vietnam, while Senator Greenwood and his colleagues of military age have shown their lack of courage by not going to fight in the war in Vietnam to which they have been sending these young men. But these young men we have been speaking of tonight have shown great courage in refusing to go and I for one applaud them.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I rise to speak in this debate because of the reference by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) to 2 members of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, Mr Crawford and Mr Hartley. I thought that Senator Wheeldon handled the reference to Mr Hartley very well, and I concur with what he has said in relation to it. But the Attorney-General has made an attack on Mr Crawford in relation to his entry into a Commonwealth building, an action for which he was charged and on which charge a court in Victoria found him not guilty and freed him, a charge that the Attorney-General now reintroduces into the Senate tonight. This is a most contemptible act for any man in office in any Parliament. He used this place to attack a man on a matter about which he has been charged and on which he has been found to be not guilty.

The Attorney-General has also, as Senator Wheeldon has said, introduced another matter which would, if it came from this side of the Senate under any other circumstances be declared completely subjudice - but not as far as the AttorneyGeneral is concerned He is hoping by these references that he will influence a jury in Victoria, if he can get sufficient publicity to find guilty a man who is not guilty and who will be proved to be not guilty when he goes before the court.

Senator Wheeldon:

– That is law and order for you.

Senator POYSER:

– This is the law and order campaign that the Attorney-General is conducting tonight in a debate which started by virtue of the fact that Senator Cavanagh sought certain information about the number of persons who have evaded their obligations under the National Service Act. lt has been said repeatedly by speakers here, in Press reports and reports from many sources, that at least 11,000 young men have refused to carry out their obligations under this Act. Up to this stage the Government has taken action to the extent of gaoling for the maximum of 2 years - now 18 months - fewer than 10 individuals. What is happening today is almost comic opera. Either Senator Greenwood is playing games, as suggested by other speakers on this side, or the Commonwealth police force is incompetent enough to be reminiscent of the Mack Sennett cops in comics made in the old still movie days.

I believe that the original position - the first position - is the case. The Government is playing games to try to look as though it will do something but it does not want to do anything because if it took action it would have to take action against many thousands of people, lt would have to build new gaols to put them in or concentration camps like the ones it has helped to build in Vietnam. This is called pacification of the people. The people are taken from their villages, their homes are burned and the people are put behind barbed wire somewhere else in the country. That is the type of action the Government will have to take in this country.

Senator Douglas McClelland spoke about another aspect of this matter. He referred to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and challenged the Minister to declare affirmatively that no officer of the ABC put any impediment in the path of any Commonwealth policeman in relation to the execution of his duty. The AttorneyGeneral very conveniently forgot to mention that matter when he replied. Yet when he is replying to the debate on a Bill which he is handling in this chamber he needs an extension of time to tell us all the facts. If I suggest that a comma has been left out of a sentence it takes him 20 minutes to tell us why it was left out. But tonight he conveniently forgot.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What if a Commo was left out?

Senator POYSER:

– The Minister would be carried out of the place and given a glass of water. Tonight he conveniently forgot to face the challenge from Senator Douglas McClelland in relation to this charge. Obviously no impediment was placed in the path of any Commonwealth policeman at the ABC studios in Sydney. We hear all this talk about the ABC and what a terrible thing it has done, but no mention is made of the fact that Mr Michael Matteson appeared on channel 0 and another channel in Melbourne. Did the Attorney-General send the Commonwealth police to those stations when Mr Matteson appeared? Did the AttorneyGeneral miss him again? He could not catch a mouse if it was caught in a trap. It is obvious that the Government does not want to catch these people.

Last Sunday night in Melbourne on the news service I saw an interview between Senator Greenwood and 2 gentlemen from channel 7. One of those reporters was able to tell the Minister that he had had a long conversation with Mr Matteson. Will the Attorney-General charge that reporter under the Crimes Act because he talked to one of these boys whom apparently everyone can find except the Commonwealth police and the Minister? People can ring them on the telephone, have a discussion with them and make arrangements with them to come to the television station to be interviewed or to the radio station and have a chat. They can obtain a report in any newspaper they desire but the Attorney-General cannot catch them. Who is he kidding? He must be kidding himself in relation to this matter. Either it is palpable incompetence or the Minister is not trying.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.19 a.m. (Wednesday)

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711123_senate_27_s50/>.