Senate
9 December 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2553

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: What action is being taken to implement the indication by a former Prime Minister that the franchise would be extended to 18-year-olds before the next Federal election? In particular, what is proposed to be done about those 18-year-olds who are already entitled to vote in the elections which take place in South Australia and Western Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The responsibility of certain States in relation to extending the franchise to 18-year- olds is a matter for their own executive decisions as sovereign States. The Leader of the Opposition has asked me about a statement purported to have been made by a former Prime Minister. Clearly this is a matter of Government policy. 1 can foresee some problems arising because of the normal practice in some States of having State electoral rolls geared to the Commonwealth electoral rolls, and because in some States the franchise has not been extended to 18- year-olds. Nevertheless, this is a matter of Government policy. I would hope to be able to get a reply as soon as decisions have been made on the matter.

page 2553

QUESTION

MARRIAGE GUIDANCE COUNCILS

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether his Department has withdrawn financial support from the conference of marriage guidance organisations. Does the Government intend to continue general support for the operating costs of marriage guidance organisations?

Sena:or GREENWOOD- It is a fact that in the general restraint on expenditure which the Government was forced to impose on various sections of the administration earlier this year the amounts which were requested by the various marriage guidance organisations were not able to be complied with in terms of the allocation which the Department made. In short, they got less than they were seeking. Speaking from recollection, I understand that never theless the amount they did receive was greater than the amount which had been provided the previous year.

One of the matters which has concerned the organisations is that a national conference which they were planning to ho:: in February next year cannot now be held and I have received representations from them. I have informed them that it is not possible to increase the amount which is being allocated in the appropriations currently before the Senate. The Government believes in the value of these organisations and proposes to continue to support them to the best of its ability.

page 2553

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the

Minister representing the Minister tor Immigration enlighten the Senate on ;he apparent muddling of metal trades classifications involving Mr Etheridge in Victoria?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I first became aware of the affairs of Mr Etheridge - of Mildura, I think - from this morning’s Press. I have not had an opportunity to receive any information from the Minister whom I represent. I shall inform him of the honourable senator’s interest in this matter and arrange for the Minister to supply hn:i with some material as soon as it can be obtained.

page 2553

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I do so to provide the Minister with an opportunity to respond to a question which I asked him yesterday concerning the new arrangement for scheduling the Australian National Line shipping in Bass Strait. I do not see on the answer sheet any indication that the Minister proposes to give me an answer but he said that he would endeavour to get the information yesterday and supply it to me. I now afford him the opportunity to respond to that question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the question whether the Minister will reply to the question asked yesterday?

Senator DEVITT:

– Yes.

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

– I can help the honourable senator by telling him that the information is available now. It is being typed out for him. It will be given to him in letter form.I could not get it organised in time to give it at question time. That is the problem.

page 2554

QUESTION

PHARMACISTS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Health say when pharmacists last received an increase in dispensing fees for prescriptions dispensed under the national health scheme? In view of the considerable increase in the earnings in recent times of other sections of the community, will the Minister give consideration to a review of the fees payable by the Commonwealth to pharmacists under the National Health Act?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The professional fee paid to chemists for dispensing national health scheme prescriptions was increased by 2c per prescription from 1st July 1970. That increase was made on the basis that any further increase would only follow a survey on pharmacy earnings, costs and profits. There have been continuing discussions between my officers and representatives of the Pharmaceutical Services Guild of Australia over a period of many months. Indeed, as recently as 23rd November lastI received a deputation from the President of the Guild and we had discussions on these issues. The latest proposals submitted to me by the Guild are being closely examined by my officers so that this rather complex matter, we would hope, may be settled to the mutual satisfaction of the Guild and the Government. Honourable senators may be assured that this matter will continue to receive ray close attention.

page 2554

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I recently asked the Minister whether consideration would be given to the possibility of using inferior wool such as locks and crutchings as an alternative to jute for industrial purposes. I now ask whether an investigation has yet been made into this matter.

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

– When the honourable senator asked me this question I said that I would take the matter up with the Minister for Primary Industry, which I did. He raised the question with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.I understand that that body has now advised the Minister that the Wool Research Laboratories are already examining this possibility in the research programme into the overall use of wool. I understand that the CSIRO already has made an investigation into the possibility of increasing the use of wool in upholstery fabric but its investigations so far show that the plastic fabric which is at present used in the car industry is very much cheaper. The CSIRO is now looking around for further uses of wool. However, it is a little early at this stage to give any further information than that.

page 2554

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

(Question No. 1520)

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Have negotiations taken place relating to the agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments, which will provide the basis for construction of a standard-gauge railway to link Adelaide with the east-west standard-gauge railway?
  2. Can the Minister advise when the necessary legislation will be introduced and the projected date of commencement of the work?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Negotiations have taken place and agreement in principle has been reached by the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments for the provision of the standard gauge line.
  2. The consultants, Maunsell and Partners, are being appointed to provide a detailed master plan for construction of the project. It is expected this plan will be completed by mid 1972. When it has been completed legislation will be introduced and the project commenced.

page 2554

QUESTION

OIL TANKERS

(Question No 1599)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many oil tankers operated around the Australian coast during the past 12 months, and how many of them were owned by members of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation?
  2. Which oil companies used oil tankers which were not owned by members of the Federation?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Sixty-five (65) oil tankers operated around the Australian coast during the past 12 months of which fifty-one (51) were owned by members of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. The remaining fourteen (14) tankers were not used for the carriage of persistent oil but for the carriage of white oil which is not classed as an oil pollutant by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil.
  2. No oil company operating in Australia used oil tankers not owned by members of the Federation for the carriage of persistent oil.

page 2555

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1610)

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

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

What is the number of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners who lost their partservice pension as a result of the increase in the Repatriation pensions, and the operation of the tapered means test?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

As statistics on service pension variations taken out following the recent war pension increases did not distinguish the figures for totally and permanently incapacitated pensions from those for other pensioners, I am unfortunately unable to give the exact figure that the honourable senator seeks.

However, the following information may be of some assistance.

Out of a total of approximately 77,000 service pensioners, 1,336. lost their part service pensions as a result of the war pension increases payable under the last Budget. The number affected includes some pensioners on lower rates of war pension, as well as some wives and widows, all of whom had other means additional to their pensions.

All single T. & P.I. pensioners (about 1,000) lost their part service pension but the maximum part service pension that any such pensioner could have received previously was$1 a week, so that the net increase for these pensioners would have been at least $2.50 and they would still retain their entitlement to various fringe benefits, for they received these as T. & P.I. pensioners, not as service pensioners.

Some married T. & P.I. pensioners who had private means in excess of the permissible maximum would also have been affected but, notwithstanding, all would have received an overall increase as a result of the increase in war pensions.

page 2555

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1620)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

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

It is true that, despite intensive investigation, no evidence has been found to implicate the Mataungan Association of New Britain in the murder of District Commissioner Mr J. Emanuel? If so, will the Minister make an immediate and unequivocal statement clearing the Association of complicity in this crime.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

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

Various persons have been committed for trial on charges arising out of the murder of Mr Emanuel. The matter is therefore sub judice.

page 2555

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1623)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. Will the Minister make available a copy of the summary of recommendations by Professor R. Salisbury in relation to the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain?
  2. Were any of Professor Salisbury’s recommendations acceptable to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Administration?
  3. Does the Minister agree with a statement by Professor Salisbury, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30th August 1971, that he was convinced that the Tolai leaders were progressive men? If so, why is the Administration unable to reach agreement with the Mataungan Association?
  4. Does the statement on 30th September 1971 by Mr T. Newman, the Deputy Administrator of the Territory, that the Administrator’s Executive Council considers the first priority to be a political settlement, imply dissolution of the Mataungan Association? If not, what does it mean?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Professor Salisbury was a consultant to the Administration of Papua New Guinea. A summary of the recommendations made by Professor Salisbury and of the Administrator’s Executive Council’s reaction to them was presented to the House of Assembly on 30th September 1971. Debate on the motion that the House take note of. the Paper was adjourned. The contents of the report have been made public by its tabling in the House of Assembly and I have therefore arranged for a copy to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of senators and members.
  2. Yes. Many of them stated existing policy.
  3. Yes. All Tolai leaders are of course not member of the Mataungan Association.In the concluding sentence of chapter VI of this report Professor Salisbury said: ‘The Tolai people must solve their own problems; the Administrator can only help’. This is in line with the altitude of the Administrator’s Executive Council.
  4. No. The Administrator’s Executive Council considers that the Tolai people must agree among themselves and freely elect representatives to advise the government of the precise wishes of the people regarding the future shape of local government in the Gazelle Peninsula.

page 2556

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(QuestionNo.1624)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. Did the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 3rd September 1971 report a statement by Mr Oscar Tammur, M.H.A., for Kokopo on the Gazette Peninsula, New Britain, that he had been told police were forcing people, at gun-point, to pay taxes to the Local Government Council? If so, does the Minister agree that it is the responsibility of an elected member of the Territory of Papua New Guinea House of Assembly to make known matters of this nature.
  2. Did the Secretary for Law in the Territory, Mr L. J. Curtis, tell the House of Assembly that Mr Tammur’s statement would be investigated and, if it was found to be untrue, a careful examination would be made to ascertain whether Mr Tammur had infringed any laws of the Territory? If so, has Mr Curtis carried out such an examination, and what was its outcome?
  3. Was the statement by Mr Curtis a threat to and intimidation of, an elected member of the House of Assembly, and was it designed to prevent Mr Tammur from discharging his responsibilities?
  4. Did Mr Tammur’s patronage of the

Mataungan Association in any way influence Mr Curtis in making his statement to the House of Assembly?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)yes, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 3rd

September 1971 did report such a statement by Mr Oscar Tammur, M.H.A. for Kokopo.

An elected member of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly should make known matters of this nature but in making statements of this kind he should exercise the degree of responsibility expected of an elected representative of the people.

  1. The Secretary for Law did answer in the manner outlined although the word actually used were ‘if they (i.e. the allegations) are found to be untrue then we will carefully examine the statement to see whether it has infringed the laws of this country’.

At the time the Secretary for Law was replying to a question without notice in the House of Assembly asked by Mr Lussick who drew to his attention the statement allegedly made over the air the day before by the Member for Kokopo, to the effect that police were collecting council tax at the point of a gun. Mr Lussick asked whether he would have this matter investigated and, if true would he take appropriate action, and would he, in the event that the allegations were untrue, also take appropriate action in the context of spreading of false rumours causing unrest in the area. The latter part of this question was understood to be a request for an investigation to ascertain whether an offence had been committed against section 30(b) of the New Guinea Police Offences Ordinance. That section makes it an offence for a person to spread ‘false reports tending to give rise to trouble or ill-feeling amongst the people or between individuals’.

Subsequently the Secretary for Law investigated both the allegations made by Mr Tammur and the question whether the statement infringed the law. There was found to be no substance in the allegation that police were collecting council tax at the point of a gun. What appeared to be the incident referred to by Mr Tammur occurred in a village where officers of the Division of District Administration while on patrol accompanied by armed police, stopped to talk to some villagers and reminded them of their obligation to pay council tax. All officers concerned have denied that any tax was collected or that the villagers present were threatened in any way with guns. The police were present solely to ensure the safety of the patrol.

The Secretary for Law is also satisfied that the statement made by Mr Tammur did not in any way infringe either the civil or criminal law. The member for Kokopo is not to be proceeded against in respect of this matter.

  1. No.
  2. No.

page 2556

QUESTION

OMEGA NAVIGATION STATION

(Question No. 1641)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government decided on a site for an Omega navgation station in Australia.
  2. Isthe Nattai River, 30 miles from Sydney, under consideration as a site; if so, would selection of this site make Sydney a prime nuclear target.
  3. Will the Prime Minister make a statement on all the imlications of siting an Omega station in Australia.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport as the Minister responsible for the establishment of the Omega station in Australia, has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question originally directed to the Prime Minister:

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. In agreeing in principle to a U.S. proposal in 1969 that an Omega station be established in Australia, the Government has consistently viewed the project as a worthwhile contribution to general worldwide navigation for all shipping and aircraft, regardless or whether they are civil or military. For technical reasons the Omega system requires one planned eight stations to be located in the Australasian region and, if it were not provided, a navigation facility which will be generally available in the rest of the world would have seriousgaps in coverage in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Government considers, therefore, that establishment of this station is an act of international co-operation, and will, moreover, benefit all shipping passing to and from Australia.

It has been pointed out on several occasions that the system maybe used by ships and aircraft of any type fitted with the appropriate equipment. Ithas only moderate accuracy appropriate to ocean navigation and as such provides no specialized advantage to military craft over the anticipated more general usage by commercial shipping and aircraft.

The formal Agreement with the United States is currently being negotiated and concurrently a preliminary engineering study is being made of suitable areas for site selection. The Prime Minister has already indicated that, whententative sites have been selected, the Government would consult with the State authority or authorities concerned. An announcement will be made when a site has been found which is acceptable to all concerned.

page 2557

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1639)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Will the Minister give an assurance that any agreement arrived at for the amalgamation of the Governoment Aircraft Factory and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation will be subject to ratification by the Parliament.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

An in-depth study of the practicability of a merger of the two organisations is now in progress. The study is a complex one however and it is not expected that any firm recommendations will be made to the Government until the early months of 1972. At this stage it is too early to say how the matter will be dealt with following Government consideration.

page 2557

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

(Question No. 1665)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What percentage of oil tankers operating in the Australian trade during the past 12 months were owned by members of both TO V A LOP and CRISTAL, and who were the owners.
  2. How many tankers operating around the Australian coast during the past12 months were owned by non-members of TOVALOP and CRISTAL.
  3. Would the Commonwealth Government seek reimbursement under its legislative powers or would it use the avenues of TOVALOP and CRISTAL in the event of a major oil spillaga in Australian waters.
  4. Would TOVALOP and CRISTAL have provided aggregate damages comparable with those achieved under Commonwealth legislative powers in the case of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ oil spillage.
  5. Does the Government propose imposing a ban on oil tankers whose owners refuse to become members of TOVALOP and CRISTAL.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

    1. 5 per cent. The following were tho owners:

Hunting (Eden) Tankers Ltd

Texaco Panama Inc.

B.P. Tanker Co. Ltd

Hanover Steamship Corp. of Panama

Esso Transport Co. Inc.

Trafik A/B Grangesberg-Oxelsound

San Juan Carriers Inc.

Petrofinia S.A.

London and Overseas Freighters Ltd

Summit Carriers Inc.

A/S Haanes Rederi

International Navigation Corp.

Clyde Charter and Co. Ltd

Shell Tankers N.V.

Salenrederierna A/B

Shell Tankers (U.K.) Ltd

Magnolia Shipping Line Inc.

Alkes Shipping Corp.

Shell Tankers N.V.

Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd

Texaco Overseas Tankship Ltd

Esso Tankschiff Reederi G.M.B.H.

Marvia Cia MTMA S.A.

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd

Ina Tanker Corp. Panama

Transmarina SN C.

A/S Kollbjorg and Odd Bergs

Salenrederiena A/B

Nippon Yushen Kaisha and Shinwa Kaiun Kaisha Ltd

Astir Nav. Co. Ltd

The Shell Co. of Australia Ltd

Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd

Ampol Petroleum (Qld) Pty Ltd

Ampol Petroleum Ltd

Associated Steamships Ply Ltd

Esso Standard Eastern Tankers Ltd

Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd

  1. W. Miller and Co. Pty Ltd

B.P. Australia Ltd

    1. However, these vessels carried only white oil and in no case carried persistent oil to which the International Convention For ths Prevention of Pollution Of The Sea By Oil applies.
  1. While the Commonwealth would have a right to claim under the Navigation Act, if the tanker owner was a member of TOVALOP most likely an opportunity would be given for him to act through that body and only in default would the Navigation Act be involved.
  2. Yes.
  3. It is doubtful if such a ban could be imposed. However, in the light of the previous answers, it hardly seems necessary to consider it, particularly in view of the probable coming into force not only of the Brussels Private Law Convention but also of the International Fund Agreement currently being considered at Brussels.

page 2558

QUESTION

ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS

(Question No. 1717)

Senator BROWN:

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

  1. Did an important meeting of Foreign Ministers of Thailand, The Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia take place in Kuala Lumpur on 25th November 1971, and is it a stated objective of the meeting to create a zone of peace and neutrality in South-East Asia, which will include these 5 nations, Burma, and the whole of Indo-China.
  2. Has the Government made any attempt to obtain membership of, or consultation with, this group of nations; if not, why.
  3. Will the Minister send to this momentous conference a message of fraternal greetings and best wishes.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. A meeting of Foreign Ministers of member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations - Thailand, The Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia - which took place in Kuala Lumpur on 26th-27th November 1971 adopted a declaration stating that they would seek to secure recognition of, and respect for, SouthEast Asia as a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality, free from any form or manner of interference by outside powers. In a joint communique the ASEAN Ministers further agreed to bring their declaration to the attention of other countries of South-East Asia and to encourage them to associate themselves with its aspirations and objectives. A public statement after the meeting by the Malaysian chairman, Tun Abdul Razak, indicated that it was the intention of the meeting that the proposed zone of peace, freedom and neutrality should include, in addition to the participants, Burma, Laos, the Khmer Republic, the Republic of Vietnam and North Vietnam.
  2. It has not been suggested either by the Governments which met at Kuala Lumpur or by the Australian Government that Australia should be included in the proposed zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. Australia has, however, been in close consultation with all the participating governments in connection with the recent meeting.
  3. On 25 November 1971 the Minister for

Foreign Affairs released the text of a personal message to Tun Abdul Razak, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Malaysia, who was to be chairman of the meeting. The text of the Minister’s message was as follows: The Australian Government has been following with close interest the preparations for the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN countries in Kuala Lumpur this week. Australia welcomes the initiative of the ASEAN countries in carrying forward on a regional basis the consideration of issues affecting peace, security and stability in the South-East Asian region. Naturally we shall be keenly interested in the outcome. We wish you all every success.

page 2558

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

(Question No. 1475)

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Does the Government expect the People’s Republic of China to be admitted into the United Nations Organisation and to be seated in the Security Council.
  2. Will the Government consider the possibility of arranging a Parliamentary delegation to China in order to establish friendly ties and to facilitate Australian trade with the most heavily populated country in the world.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The honourable senator will be aware that, since he placed his question on the notice paper, the United Nations General Assembly decided on 25th October that the People’s Republic of China should be seated in the General Assembly and in the Security Council.
  2. This question raises a matter of policy on which I do not propose to comment.

page 2558

QUESTION

TRADING STAMP COMPANIES

(Question No. 1584)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Have all States except New South Wales banned the operations of so-called trading stamp companies.
  2. Has the New South Wales Government announced plans to legislate against some of the practices of trading stamp companies.
  3. Has the Minister considered taking steps to ban the use of trading stamps in all Commonwealth territories.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

    1. The N.S.W. Government hasindicated that It intends to ban third party trading stamps. (3)Iidation banning the use of trading stamps in the Australian Capital Territory will be introduced at anearly date. The use of trading stamps is already banned in the Northern Territory.

page 2559

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1585)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Hasthe Territory of Papuaand New Guinea House of Assembly carried a resolution urging the early establishment of a national broadcasting authority for the Territory.
  2. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission expressed the belief that the integration of the two existing broadcasting services in the Territory should not be long delayed.
  3. Does the Minister agree that the control of broadcasting in the Territory should pass to a local statutory authority which is represent ative of all sections of the community, and free of direct control by the Government of the day.
  4. What action has been, or is being taken,to establish a national broadcasting authority forthe Territory, and when is such an authority likelyto be established.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) following extensive consultation with interested departments and authorities, the Government authorisedthe tabling in the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly of a White Paper on broadcasting. The. White Paper has been made public by its tabling inthe House of Assembly on 24th November.I have therefore arranged for a copy to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the informationof Senators and Members.

page 2559

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1607)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Willthe Minister make available the report by Professor Richard Salisbury on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Professor Salisbury’s report has been made public by its tabling inthe Papua New Guinea House of Assembly on 8th November, 1971. I have therefore arranged for copies of it to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2559

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 1614)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Are up to 80 percent of averagehouse buyers in the Australian Capital Territory compelled to pay an extra amount of at least $2,500 above the reserve price under the present system of land auctions in the Territory?
  2. Will the Ministertake immediate action to have the National Capital Development Commission release sufficient land for home building so that the purchase price for a building block will not exceed the reserve price?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. No. Of the 2337 residential blocks offered for lease this year: 771 were sold at the reserve price. 613 sold at less than $1,000 abovethe reserve price. 730 sold at between$1,000 and $2,000above thereserve price. 159 sold at between $2,000 and $2,500 above the reserve price. 44 sold at more than $2,500 above the reserve price. 20 other blocks passedin at auction are still available for lease at the reserve price, upon application.
  2. The National Capital Development Commission has increased the number of residential blocks passed to the Department forsale each year. The number of blocks each year has shown a steady increase: viz: 1968-1,781 blocks 1969-2,049 blocks 1970- 2,274 blocks 1971- 2,337 blocks.

This year the Commission will service 3,600 blocks which could eventually accommodate 11,600 people. About 2,600 blocks will be available for sale at auction and virtually all of the remainder will be used for Government housing.

page 2559

QUESTION

OYSTERS

(Question No. 1648)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Are oysters from the Georges River in Sydney consumed in Canberra.
  2. Do such oysters contain bacteria which may cause typhoid or hepatitis due to sewage pollution of the GeorgesRiver, and does the Department of Health lest such oysters in this regard.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The transmission of typhoid through oysters could occur as a result of sewage pollution of the waters in which the oysters were grown. My Department carries out regular sample tests on oysters offered for retain sale in the A.C.T. These tests would reveal the presence of organisms of the typhoid group, but no such organisms have been detected. It is not possible to determine the presence of hepatitis virus in shellfish by laboratory testing.

page 2560

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1676)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. When was the Co-ordinating Committee on Broadcasting in the Territory of Papua New Guinea established.
  2. Who are the members of the Committee and from which Departmens did they come.
  3. On how many occasions has the Committee met in each of the years since it was established.
  4. When did the Committee last meet and when will it next meet.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. March 1966.
  2. The Committee comprises representatives of the following Departments and Authorities:

Department of External Territories

Postmaster-General’s Department

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Australian Broadcasting Control Board

Papua New Guinea Administration

Depending on the subject matter discussed, different officers have represented the various departments and authorities mentioned.

  1. The Committee has met on five occasions since it was established: Twice in 1966, twice in 1967 and once in 1969.
  2. The Committee last met on 2nd September, 1969. In September, 1970 the House of Assembly passed a motion calling for the establishment of a single broadcasting authority for Papua New Guinea. This led to detailed consideration of future arrangements for broadcasting in Papua New Guinea and the tabling in the House of Assembly of a White Paper on broadcasting. As all the authorities represented on the Coordinating Committee on Broadcasting have been closely involved inthe consideration leading up to the White Paper, formal meetings of the Committee have not been considered necessary. The White Paper has been made public by its tabling in the House of Assembly and I have therefore arranged for a copy to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of Senators and Members.

page 2560

QUESTION

HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

(Question No. 1680)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What consideration has been given by the Department of Health to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare relevant to the problems of the physically and mentally handicapped.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

An inter-departmental committee has been formed to consider the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. The Committee consists of representatives of- the Department of Health (which provides the Chairman); the Department of Social Services: the Department of Labour and National Service; the Repatriation Department; the Department of Education and Science; the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Treasury; the Department of the Interior; and the Public Service Board.

page 2560

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1700)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many applications for widows’ pensions have been refused in each of the last 5 years under the provisions of each of paragraph (1) (a) and paragraph (1) (b) of section 62 of the Social Services Act.
  2. How many applications for age pensions have been refused in each of the last 5 years under the provisions of each of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of section 22 of the Social Services Act.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There is no record of any application for widows pensions or age pensions having been refused during the last five years under these provisions.

page 2560

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1755)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Has the independent inquiry into Repatriation problems commenced; if so, how many witnesses have been examined.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A notice appeared in newspapers throughout Australia in mid-November in which the Honourable Mr Justice P. B. Toose, C.B.E., invited writen submissions from interested persons or organisations who wish to place information or representations before the Enquiry. Such persons and organisations are to indicate whether they wish to attend before the Enquiry. Submissions are to be lodged no later than ‘11 February 1972. No witnesses have been examined to date. For the information of the honourable senator the formal opening of the Enquiry took place at 10 a.m. on 6th December 1971, in Sydney and was given advance publicity in the National Press.

page 2561

QUESTION

OIL

(Question No. 1761)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Is Ampol Petroleum Ltd, by virtue of the Government’s indigenous crude oil policy, obliged to pay more for Gippsland produced crude than any of ils international competitors with the one minor exception of Amoco Australia Pty Ltd; if so, does this represent a policy of assisting wholly overseas owned companies in competition with their Australian counterparts.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Gippsland crude oil is sold to all Australian allocation holders (that is refiners and marketers) at the one price.

Purchases of Gippsland crude oil are made on an FOB basis with delivery from Westernport in Victoria. This arrangement stems from the 1965 Tariff Board Report on Crude Oil which recommended, inter aiia, that the assessed value of crude oil of Australian origin be the value FOB at the Customs port at the refining centre nearest to the producing field.

This principle, in common with international practice of the oil industry, requires the producer to bear the cost of transporting his crude to the appropriate loading port and the purchaser to pay onward freight from that port to his own refinery..

Ampol and Amoco, who each have a refinery in Brisbane, do incur additional costs in sea freight on Gippsland crude in comparison with refiners based in say, Melbourne or Sydney. However, it is known that refineries negotiate refined products exchange arrangements and in some other cases crude oil exchange agreements, which are designed to minimise interstate distribution costs. These arrangements, which are negotiated on an inter-company basis, are confidential to the companies concerned and their effect on any one refiner’s costs is not known.

page 2561

QUESTION

EGGS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 24th November 1971 Senator Little asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate the following question: ls the Leader of the Government iti the Senate, as a representative of the Prime Minister, aware that large surpluses of egg powder have accumulated with State egg boards? Does the Federal Government recognise the suitability of this product, being light in weight and of high protein and nutritional value, for shipment to assist in relieving the starvation of Pakistani refugees in India? Will the Government take positive steps to acquire portion of these surpluses as part of our assistance programme and arrange with the Indian Government tor acceptance of this form of aid? If, as rumoured, this form of aid is not acceptable to India, will the Government explain the reason to the Senate? - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Government is aware that Australia possesses large stocks of surplus egg powder and recognises its suitability as a dietary supplement. The Government’s policy is, however, to provide aid in accordance with priorities established by the authorities on the spot for items which are readily available in Australia. We do not supply commodities simply, because they are surplus in Australia. On 5th November the Indian Ministry of Rehabilitation listed the following priority requirments: woollen blankets, shelter materials, milk powder, medical supplies and sugar. As well as helping wilh the airlift of blankets collected through the Austcare appeal, the Government has sent a full load of blankets by RAAF Hercules. We are also sending sugar and shelter materials and have offered milk powder. In discussions about the need for foodstuffs, the Indian and United Nations officials have been informed of the availability of high protein foods, such as egg powder, from Australia. The Government has not been informed that this form of aid is unacceptable to India but other forms of assistance are needed more urgently.

page 2561

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 13th October, 1971, Senator Douglas McClelland asked me the following question:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. I ask: ls he aware that, notwithstanding the amounts the Government might have spent to date on rural industries in this period of rural uncertainty and economic crisis, there Is in fact growing unemployment in the rural areas of Australia, particularly in the North Western, South Western and Western Districts of New South Wales? Does the Minister agree that this growing unemployment in country cities, towns and districts will be very much aggravated next month by a record number of school leavers coming on to the Labour Market for the first time? Will the Minister draw this matter immediately to the attention of his counterpart in the other place and ask the Government to state what action it intends to take to overcome this growing unemployment in rural areas and to stop the drift of people, particularly young men and women, from country areas to the large coastal cities? Finally, will he agree that the situation has reached such a serious stage that it warrants the presentation to the Parliament of a white paper of the subject?

In the course of my reply I undertook to take up the matter with the Minister for Labour and National Service. He has now advised as follows:

The Government for some time has been aware of the problems of unemployment in rural areas. The difficulties experienced by rural industries have aggravated the situation. In those areas of New South Wales mentioned by the Senator unfavourable seasonal conditions and poor markets for their stable products have combined to reduce employment opportunities.

A close watch is being maintained on developments in the rural sector. In this context I draw attention to the measures introduced in the recent Federal Budget. In the nature of things the impact of these measures would not be immediate, but I am confident that in the coming months they will exercise a beneficial effect upon economic activity and employment opportunities in rural areas.

The drift of people and particularly young people from rural areas to coastal cities is quite a separate issue from the rural recession. This drift has been going on for some time and is in fact typical of all advanced Western societies. The only effect of the rural recession has been to accentuate an existing trend. The drift to cities involves complex economic and social issues associated directly with the issues of decentralisation and indirectly with those of urban congestion. These are, of course, issues in which the policy initiatives primarily fall within the jurisdiction of individual State Governments.

The latest estimates put the number of school leavers for Australia as a whole at 223,000 in 1971/72, an increase of about 4 per cent on the previous year. For New South Wales the estimated figure is 78,000 compared with 75,600 in 1970/71 - an increase of some 3 per cent on the previous year. The number of young people entering the work force is however less than the number leaving school as a proportion of school leavers move on to full-time tertiary education. With the increased tendency to stay longer at school and acquire higher qualifications, the actual number of school leavers who will enter the work force this year may not be much more than in the previous year.

For many years the Commonwealth Employment Service has carried out extensive employment interviewing and counselling of secondary school students in order to facilitate their speedy absorption into the work force. Employers are also canvassed for vacancies. The Commonwealth Employment Service will exercise its maximum endeavours to assist in the placement of this year’s school leavers.

Having regard to the close attention the Government is giving this matter, and the action it has already taken, there would seem to be little advantage at this stage in providing a white paper on this subject.

page 2562

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 1669)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. What are the figures for registered unemployed at all regional offices of the Department of Labour and National Service throughout New South Wales.
  2. Is there any break-down of these figures for towns coming within the area of the regional office; if so, what are the figures for these towns and what is their population.
  3. How do these figures compare with the situation that existed at the same time last year.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (3) The following Table shows statistics of persons registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service in New South Wales for each non-metropolitan District Employment Office area, and for the metropolitan area as a whole, as at end-October 1971 and 1970.
  2. There is no breakdown of these statistics by town or other individual locality within a District Employment Office area.

page 2563

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

(Question No, 1729)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What is the attitude of the Government to affiliation with the International Labour Organisation..
  2. Will the Government increase its dues to the Organisation in view of the reduction in the United States of America’s contributions to that body.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Australia has been a member of the .ILO since its inception, in 1919. The Australian Government, Employers and Workers have played a significant role in the Organisation’s activities particularly in the Asian Region. Indeed, the attendance nf a high-level Australian tripartite delegation at the 7th ILO Asia Regional Conference which is being held in Teheran this month is a testimony to the continuing Australian interest in the Organisation.
  2. Member States of the ILO pay annual contributions according to a scale of contributions adopted by the International Labour Conference. For 1971 the contribution due from Australia amounts to 1.83 per cen.t of the total amount due from Member States and the amount involved was paid earlier this year. United States contributions are assessed at a rate of 25 per cent of the budget. There has been no change in the rate of this assessment. The position is that the United States Congress has not appropriated funds to pay the contributions due from the United Stales for the period sine: 1st July 1970, and the United Stales is therefore in arrears with its contributions. There has thus been, a significant shortfall in the ILO’s income over this period although this has been offset to a considerable extent by a reduction in expenditure. In these circumstances the question of other countries increasing their rates of contribution does nol arise.

page 2563

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Indian Ocean Region

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the Indian Ocean region submitted to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2563

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON

New South Wales - Minister for Health) - I have to present a document entitled Advance to the Treasurer which will necessitate going into Committee in order formally to move the adoption. For the convenience of the Senate 1 suggest that- 1 hold this matter over and present it a little later after we have dealt with the placing of business. We could then go into Committee and deal with the formal resolution. That would save time.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– That would be more convenient.

page 2563

DEVELOPMENT WORKS AT HMAS NIRIMBA, QUAKERS HILL

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work.

Stage 2 Development Works at HMAS Nirimba, Quakers Hill, New South Wales.

page 2563

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Availability of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Senator PROWSE (Western Australia)I present the report from the Standing

Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade on the Avilability of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, together with the evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I seek leave to move a motion for the Senate to take note of the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator PROWSE:

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In order to save time I seek leave to incorporate my remarks in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator PROWSE:

– I have pleasure in presenting to the Senate the report of the standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade in relation to the availability of liquefied petroleum gas. The Senate will recall that this matter was the subject of a petition to the Senate by the Councillors of the Shire of Shoalhaven in New South Wales, which drew attention to the fact that within the past two years the price of LPG feedstock to the Council’s gas plant had increased substantially due, in the understanding of the Councillors, to an artificial shortage of the gas created by Esso-BHP in exporting large tonnages overseas. The petition also mentioned the disparity between the export price of LPG and the price at which it is available ex-refineries in Australia.

As will be noted, the Committee exercised its discretion to proceed forthwith to an examination of the specific matters referred to by the Shoalhaven Shire Council as it felt that an inquiry could be of some value not only to the Council but to other local government bodies and industrial consumers which depend upon the regular supply of LPG at economic prices. In its approach to this subject, the Committee has not attempted the undertaking of any full-scale inquiry into the liquefied petroleum gas industry in Australia, nor has it examined the possible effects upon the Australian market as natural gas from fields other than Bass Strait come into production, and as piped natural gas becomes available to the Sydney Metropolitan area. Basically, the Committee’s concern has been the position of the Shoalhaven Shire

Council in relation to the availability of LPG either from Esso-BHP at Westernport or from refineries in the Sydney area.

The situation examined by the Committee, therefore, has been the New South Wales supply position rather than the Australian supply position. The Committee was given no evidence of an overall shortage of production of LPG in New South Wales, and no evidence of a shortage created by export of LPG. It is true that at certain times there have been shortages in supply due to refinery shut-downs. The Committee found that on such occasions it has been necessary for the major distributors to import LPG from refineries in other States and in small quantities from Esso Australia Limited at Westernport, Victoria, which was readily available. The report shows that LPG derived from Bass Strait natural gas, and which is exported overseas, is not always of the proper specification for general use in Australia. Nevertheless, the Committee was given assurances by Esso Australia Limited that the Company would always recognise the need to first meet Australian requirements at times of short supply.

The Committee found from the evidence put to it that the export of LPG available from the Bass Strait field and exported by Esso and BHP had little or no relationship to the Australian market for LPG at the present time. Because LPG is an expensive material to transport, the bulk of Australia consumption has been met primarily from refinery production and the evidence indicated that refineries maintained a balance between supply and demand. The Committee was led to the conclusion that the supply of LPG was balanced by commercial considerations with the consumption demand, bearing in mind the high costs of maintaining storages of the gas at refineries. Thus when refinery shut-downs occur there are often corresponding shortterm shortages of LPG. This situation focuses attention on the desirability of retailer/consumers and others to maintain adequate storage facilities in order to provide buffer stocks and avoid penalties incurred through the increased cost of bringing LPG supplies from interstate, whenever shortages occur. The Committee believes this is particularly relevant to the position of the Shoalhaven Shire Council.

The Committee was not able, from the evidence it was given, to substantiate claims by the Shoalhaven Shire Council in regard to the effects upon the supply of LPG to the Australian market of the export of the gas by Esso-BHP. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that LPG derived from Bass Strait gas must be regarded as a potential source of cheaper LPG for the Australian market subject always to transport costs. The Committee also considers that the price of LPG derived from the Bass Strait fields, and which is made available to the Australian domestic market whenever periodic shortages of refinery-produced gas occur, should be reviewed as consumption reaches reasonable regularity and predictability of demand. On this aspect Senator Kane has expressed a reservation on page 21 of the Report.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kane) adjourned.

page 2565

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Ander son) agreed to:

That the Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2, be postponed until thenext day of sitting.

page 2565

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

That Senator Hannan be granted leave of absence for 1 month to go overseas on parliamentary business.

page 2565

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered the Senate at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– In the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed in the Senate during the last few days in dealing with our business, I believe that if the Estimates are passed very quickly and we commence to deal with Bills and other matters today, it could even be possible, I suggest, that by extending our hours a little later tonight we might be able to complete the business paper. I do not want to appear to be saying that this should be done. It is within the will of the Senate and for honourable senators to make their own judgments on the matter later this evening.

page 2565

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1970-71

Statement of Expenditure

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

– I present the following paper

Statement for the year 1970-71 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1969.

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1970-71 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1969.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2565

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the validation until 31st May 1972 of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff proposals introduced into the Parliament during the Budget session. I expect the subject matter in the proposals validated by this Bill to be included in the next Customs Tariff Bill. I commend the Bill to the honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 2565

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bin be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act ‘to strengthen its provisions in relation to the prosecution of offences involving drugs of dependence. The proposed amendments provide for separate penalties for offences of simple possession as distinct from a more serious offence of possession of a trafficable quantity and also for a new offence covering the possession of drugs reasonably suspected of having been illicitly imported. During the past 4 years we have seen a tragic increase in the problem of drug abuse in Australia. I am sure that honourable senators will, agree that all possible measures should be taken by the Government to ensure that the problem does not reach the degree of seriousness experienced by some other countries. Unfortunately there are no precise statistics available to measure the extent of drug abuse in this country. The very nature of the problem has meant that both its extent and seriousness have been shrouded in secrecy not only by those who distribute and profit from drug sales but also by the users themselves.

The tremendous increase in the quantities of drugs seized, the number of persons being prosecuted . and the frequency pf thefts from chemists’ shops are indicative of the need for this Government to take every possible step to provide the community with the maximum protection from the unscrupulous persons involved in this insidious traffic. My colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), when introducing this BUI in another place, mentioned a number of measures taken by the Government, hopefully to ensure that citizens of this country are not further exposed to the drug menace. 1 do not propose repeating these details. However, I would like to acquaint honourable senators with some details of the Regional Conference on Illicit Drug Traffic which took place in Canberra since the Bill was originally introduced. The purpose of the conference, which was convened on the initiative of the Australian Government, was to examine more effective ways of achieving co-operation and co-ordination of enforce ment effort at an international level against the illicit drug traffic throughout the South East Asian region. The 14 nations attending the conference resolved, amongst other matters, substantially to improve cooperation in such areas as training, transmission of intelligence and investigations.

I mention these matters merely to further emphasise this Government’s concern regarding the drug problem. There are, of course, clear indications ‘ that the illicit importation of drugs and their subsequent distribution is now extremely well organised. In recent months the involvement of professional criminals and the use of sophisticated smuggling techniques reveal the participation of professional groups. This is not surprising when one examines the tremendous profits that are made by drug traffickers, I give you but one example: An LSD tablet costing as low as 20c overseas can sell for S8 to $12 on the illicit market in Australia. As I have already indicated, the purpose of this Bill is to strengthen the provisions of the Customs Act in respect of offences involving drug trafficking. Moreover, it is intended to strengthen the hands of those persons actively engaged in the fight against those involved in smuggling drugs into this country for financial gain at the expense of suffering and misery’ of others.

In detail, clause 2 of the Bill includes a number of definitions which are necessary for the purposes of the amendments incorporated in the clauses that follow. The more significant of these definitions relate to ‘narcotic substance’; ‘narcotic goods’, being preparations and the like which contain a ‘narcotic substance’ and ‘trafficable quantity’ the unauthorised possession of which exposes the offender to the maximum penalty for drug offences under the Customs Act. Clauses 3, 4 and 6 are consequential to the introduction of a new definition, namely, narcotic goods.

Clause 5 of the Bill limits section 233 of the Act to offences involving prohibited imports other than drugs of dependence. Because of the separate and higher penalties that apply to drugs of dependence some virtue is seen in their being the subject of a separate section, that is, section 233b. Clause 7 paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) merely make it clear that section 233b applies to exportation as well as importation. Clause 7 paragraph (b) creates a new offence for possession of drugs of dependence where there are reasonable grounds for believing that those drugs were illicitly imported.

A major legal difficulty encountered by Officers of the Narcotics Bureau in bringing drug traffickers to justice is the necessity to produce direct evidence that drugs seized have been imported into Australia. This problem occurs despite the fact that in many instances the drugs concerned exhibit foreign markings or words and obviously have been manufactured in an overseas country. Courts have recently dismissed 4 cases because direct evidence of importation was not available. In one of these cases an admission by the defendant that the drugs had been illegally imported by another person was ruled inadmissible as evidence of importation.

As a result of these decisions a further 13 cases have been withdrawn on legal advice. Since March 1971, investigations involving more than 50 major cases where direct evidence of importation was not available have been referred to State police authorities with the request that prosecution be launched under State legislation, This has resulted in unnecessary duplication in investigation; wasteful use of resources; divided jurisdiction in some prosecutions; surrender of Commonwealth participation necessary to pursue investigations where international trafficking is involved; and denial to the Commonwealth of the right of appeal when inadequate penalties have been imposed under State legislation. This amendment will enable Narcotics Bureau agents to proceed with both investigations and prosecutions where the courts can be convinced that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the drugs concerned were in fact illicitly imported.

Clause 7 paragraph (e), which seeks to insert proposed new sub-sections (1b) and (lc), includes defence provisions which should reasonably be available to a defendant charged with an offence under this section. Sub-section (2) also inserted into section 233b by this paragraph merely limits the application of the section to drugs of dependence. Clause 8 of the Bill introduces separate offences for the possession of traffickable quantities of drugs and for simple possession where lesser quantities are involved. The penalties are: For offences involving traffickable quantities of drugs - a fine not exceeding $4,000, or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both; for offences involving less than traffickable quantities of drugs - a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. The Na,iona Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence recommended that penalty provisions of this kind should be introduced throughout the Commonwealth. Most States have, in fact, introduced these penalty provisions.

Clause 8 paragraph (b) ensures that cases must be taken to the higher courts where the prosecution considers that a serious offence has been committed. Under clause 8 paragraph (d) the defendant is afforded the opportunity to satisfy the court that he is not engaged in the trafficking of drugs. Moreover, in keeping with existing provisions, the defendant can always elect to be tried in the higher court, that is, by a judge and jury.

One of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure that the drug trafficker, as distinct from the drug user, is exposed to a substantial penalty. Nevertheless, in drafting these provisions, care has been taken to ensure that proper safeguards exist for the rights of the defendant. The Government sees this Bill as a necessary measure to step up the war against those enemies of society who are prepared to seek wealth through the misery and degradation of their fellow men. I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 2567

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 8 December (vide page 2551).

Second Schedule.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee to take as a group the Departments considered by Estimates Committee C?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works (11.20 · Tasmania · LP

– I will meet the convenience of the Committee. I suggest that we attempt to take them as a whole, and if we find there is too much oscillation we can go back and consider the Estimates Department by Department.

Department of Works

Proposed expenditure, J76.530.O0O

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $89,913,000

Department of Labour and National Service

Proposed expenditure, $20,500,000

Department of Education and Science

Proposed expenditure, $154,134,000

Department of External Territories

Proposed expenditure, $111,495,000

Department of Housing

Proposed expenditure, $7,235,000

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– My remarks are directed to the Department of Labour and National Service, and 1 wish to deal with the employment service of that Department. I express some concern about and I hope to elicit from the Minister some explanation of what I regard as the proliferation of private employment agencies. 1 wonder whether the Minister and his officers can very quickly sketch a picture of the role of the Department in regard to job opportunities. To the best of my knowledge we now have 121 private employment agencies. I know that most of them charge a fee for their service: I think in some instances it is $7. I am certain that honourable senators on this side of the chamber are fully aware of these hard luck cases. A person who pays $7, may approach a firm and then be told that although some overtures had been made to the private employment agency because there was work available, the position was no longer open. The value that such a person would get his $7 is questionable.

However, I want to paint a wider picture. I think I can use the Commonwealth Employment Office at Gladesville in the Bennelong electorate as a case in point. I have had dealings with the officers in that office and I believe they are extremely dedicated. But what worries me, and I am sure it worries them, is what happens when a p’erson with a minor physical infirmity or slight mental retardation, seeks employment. Such people are given certain selected work. This is one category of the work force, among others, that private employment agencies hand over with glee to the Commonwealth Employment Service. But, as I say, there are 121 private employment agencies catering for other sections of the community. If it is good enough for the major employers of this country to use the Department of Labour and National Service and its technical knowhow. industrial techniques and industrial advice, it seems to me that it is time that we changed this appeasement policy. There is a possibility of sub-rackets developing whereby an industrial officer at a large engineering firm makes deals with private employment agencies. He may tell them that he wants persons in a certain classification at Granville or Merrylands or some other area in New South Wales where there is a large number of factories. Obviously if this undercover job racketeering did not go on, these employment agencies would not exist. 1 am not disputing, nor is anybody else here, the fact that there are other elements. There are some highly organised trade union sectors with a combination of union preference and a turnover of labour such as the Storemen and Packers’ Union. But outside these groups we find what we might call employee nomads who are in constant transition. They have to look somewhere for guidance.

An examination of the Pink Pages of the Sydney telephone directory will reveal that a mass of these employment agencies is listed. To me they are nothing less than parasites - there is no other name for them - because they would not be necessary if all job opportunities were made known to the major unions. It is obvious that the people who work in an industry in which there are job opportunities sometimes tell their friends that there is a job going. 1 have no objection to that happening. lt is a fact of life. But, outside of that, all other job opportunities should be channelled through the Commonwealth’s employment agencies. A person who has the misfortune of having a physical infirmity or who is a bit slow mentally - Senator Cavanagh will know that it is still the practice under some awards for these people to be required to obtain a slow worker permit, but fortunately this practice is dying out - and who goes along to one of these private employment agencies for work is simply handed over to the competent officers of the Department of Labour and National Service because he is a difficult employment placement. We all know of the problems which may be associated with the placement of physically or mentally handicapped persons. The point I am getting at is that when it comes to placing persons in good employment these pirates move in and skim off all easy placements.

I would like confirmation from the Minister as to whether my assessment is correct and there has been a massive proliferation of private employment agencies. Secondly, I would like to know whether the Department of Labour and National Service can require a private employment agency which has gypped the worker to pack up its traps and get out. Thirdly, I would like to know whether a major industry, such as the metal trades Employers Association in New South Wales, has arrangements with the Department’s officers as to employment opportunities in, say, the Granville-Parramatta area or whether it blandly says to the Department that it makes its own arrangments as to obtaining employment. If that organisation made its own arrangements, I think the Department would be fully within its rights to say it at the next summit conference: ‘You are always bleating about industrial harmony. Why do you not put something back into the industry?’ That should be done because the industry is at times very delighted to use the Commonwealth Employment Service to advantage but when it comes to having to participate on a partnership basis in the finding of jobs for people seeking employment therein it is not willing to co-operate. I am certain that the Commonwealth’s efforts to find work for people is limited because of the phenomena to which 1 have referred.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I have noted the remarks of Senator Mulvihill. It appears as if there has been some misunderstanding as to the manner in which the estimates of the departments for which I am responsible in this chamber are to be dealt with. I think we should adopt the practice of proceeding department by department with the estimates which are my responsibility. If that is done 1 will be able to make a useful comment to the remarks of Senator Mulvihill when the estimates for the Department of Labour and National Service are debated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– At the request of the Minister for Works, the Committee will proceed to its consideration of the estimates for the Department of Works.

Department of Works

Proposed expenditure, $76,530,000.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I have some comments to make with regard to the administration of the Department of Works. I am concerned about the remarks in the Auditor-General’s report that there is an under-charging by the Department of Works of certain other Commonwealth departments for work which it does. I think that that is one of the reasons why we cannot get a full realisation of what is being spent by each department. I presume the Minister for Works has noted the reference in the Auditor-General’s report to the undercharging by the Department of Works in this regard. I ask: Is it proposed to make any rectification?

Another matter which was referred to in the Auditor-General’s report and with which I am very interested is the abandonment of the construction of 2 timber towers at Port Wakefield by the Department of Works for the Department of the Navy because the contractor apparently got into some difficulties. It would appear that a payment of $48,500 was made to that contractor for no good return as the project was not proceeded with. At the date of preparation of the AuditorGeneral’s report the Department of the Navy was investigating alternative means of meeting its needs. That raises the question: Why was it necessary to have timber towers? What were the difficulties with the timber towers? For what purpose were they to be used? Why could not the project be proceeded with? Was it because of site difficulties or poor selection of contractor or was it anything to do with the Department of Works? I do not know Can the Minister give me some information on that point?

Senator Webster:

– It was probably the timber.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know.

I am trying to find out. While in the Northern Territory I received numerous complaints about the operations of the Department of Works in the Territory. Because the complaints necessitated some inquiry in the Northern Territory, on 29th October I wrote lo the Minister telling him the questions that I would ask in the Estimates debate on his Department’s operations in the Northern Territory. The Minister very courteously replied and supplied me with information on the question*. The correspondence was dated 22nd November. The replies are not satisfactory to me. I raise the questions now, having pre-warned the Minister who has done his best, on the information supplied to him. to satisfy the complaints that 1 have made. My first question was:

That your purchase of new trucks in the Tennant Creek area was for trucks in access of the p.rmissible axle weight to inverse thi; roads, and therefore cannot be used.

The Minister’s answer was:

The Department *bit** purchased et few special purpose vehicles which arc capable <>f carrying loads in excess of the Ordinance. Some nf these are water tankers foi use oh construction works.

The Minister’s answer also stated:

The Department at present has 4 such vehicles operating in or stationed in the Tennant Creek area.

They comprise 4 turbo-charged prime movers with 3,500-gallon water tanker semi-trailers, lt names the 4. They cannot be operated al full capacity.

The information in the Minister’s reply states thai, when they have to traverse roads in respect of which there is an ordinance thai restricts axle weight they can be used only to a portion of their capacity and not to their full capacity. When I was at Tennant Creek they were not used, I suppose because there was no use for them. There is great need in the Territory for transport. I question whether the additional cost of purchase of trucks that cannot be used on all roads is warranted for the few times that they may be used. Does the number of jobs on which they can be used justify the purchase of those vehicles? Would the Department be better off buying vehicles which could be used continually? For economic reasons would the Department be better off buying smaller vehicles which could be used on all roads?

Although the ordinance would not apply when the trucks were being used on the construction of roads, it is hard to realise how the trucks could be used as water tankers without coming into the city area to obtain their water supplies.

At Katherine a number of employees of the Department of Works are housed by the Department in houses built by it. I was staying in one of those houses. The most peculiar thing that struck me was that the doors are hung differently from the accepted architectural custom of hanging doors in Australia. I do not know whether anyone has noted the way doors are hung. A doorway is generally at the end of a room with a small nib return to a door jamb and the other length of the wall. This is done for the purpose of conserving space, ft is customary to hang internal doors so that when they open they hide the biggest portion of the room. This is done for practical purposes so that someone walking along the passageway, past the doorway cannot see the activities going on in the room when the door is open.

The Minister has said that in Katherine the internal doors have been hung to open out into the passages and not into the rooms. This was not the situation in the house in which 1 stayed. The doors were hung on a small nib and they open back to a wall, lt is embarrassing when anyone is walking along a passage to see into a whole room as he walks past. The external doors all open outward. I do not know whether only debt collectors knock on doors in the Northern Territory but this replaces the welcoming mat. The caller in reply to his knock, immediately receives a bang in the face with a heavy door. He is pushed out of the way so that the person answering can see who is at the door. Screen doors cannot be fitted to the door jamb unless they open inwards. The result is that if one opens the wooden door the insects - there are multitudes of them in Katherine - gather on the screen door. When the screen door is opened they are conveyed into the room. This means that the screen door cannot be used. One is given a benefit in that when replying to the door one keeps away callers by pushing them down but the room in invaded by insects. T asked the Director when 1 was up there why this happened. He said: ‘I do not know. I cannot tell you. I did not realise it happened.’ That night at the club he said: Here is the man who can tell you - the architect responsible for the doors’. I said to him: ‘Why did you do this?’ He said Internal doors always swing out.’ I have not known this situation anywhere else. I pointed out that this did not happen elsewhere in Katherine. In a reply to me the Minister stated:

Due to high maintenance costs of the flyscreen doors it was decided to dispense with these doors and to provide a heavier main door fitted with a built-in louvred screen.

The house where 1 was staying did not have built-in louvred screens, so the statement is not correct. The reply continues:

With no screen door the opportunity was taken to provide outward opening main doors which provide a number of advantages under Katherine conditions.

The Department relies on maintenance as the reason for the inconvenience caused to the tenants. A cheese-paring attitude is adopted. The department has departed from the practice of Australian architects. The Minister continues:

These include: better waterproofing under heavy rain; the door takes up no internal space and allows better egress in the case of fire; flies are discouraged when the door closes towards the back of the person entering.

I would have thought that that practice would pull the flies in. I think that a notice on the door, ‘Please keep out’ would be just as effective as that proposal in discouraging flies. The Minister’s reply further states:

The bedroom doors have also been hung to open outwards as such an arrangement permits the doors to be fastened with cabin hooks to the walls thus keeping the doorways as clear as possible and providing the maximum opening for air circulation which is important in climates such as Katherine.

As I say, in the house where I was staying the doors did not open outwards. The privacy of the room is forgotten in fitting the doors to open outwards and save space. This is embarrassing to the people in the home and to any guest who may be present. This is a complaint of the tenants. 1 think it is time that the Department followed Australian standards or establish new standards which are sufficiently high and which can be adopted by Australian architects who will not approve of the present methods. The Minister then said that there were no complaints by the occupants or the departments owning the houses. Complaints may not have been made to the Department of Works, but they have been made among the people themselves. There has been much talk and criticism in the club which the departmental officials attend. The next matter that 1 raised with the Minister was as follows:

In February of this year, some material was dumped by employees of your Department in the local dump and the driver and his assistant bad instructions to cover the material when dumped. A resident, when uncovering the material, found it included SO brand new dies with taps. This person has been offered $150 for same. The question must arise as to why this procedure was adopted.

The Minister replied, as one would expect, that this was not so. He went on to say:

Examination of the records and information provided by the Katherine Office discloses that some taps and dies were buried in the local dump in September 1970 and in September 1971.

These taps and dies had been examined and certified as being unserviceable due to fair wear and tear and disposal by burial in the local dump was authorised by a properly constituted Board of Survey in accordance with Treasury Directions, under the Audit Act and Treasury Regulations. The items were buried in the local dump in the presence of Departmental Officers also in accordance with the Treasury Directions. it becomes very obvious that the Minister is reporting to me the disposal of different taps and dies from the ones about which 1 am complaining, which were disposed of in February. The individual who was at the dump - all these people know each other - knew the driver and the assistant on the truck who were burying the articles. He asked them: ‘Why are you covering them up?’ They replied: ‘We have been directed to do this’. Being curious, he unearthed the taps and dies, and they were still wrapped in cellophane. One would have difficulty in saying they were discarded after use when they had not been unwrapped from their cellophane. Why this happens no-one knows. One can only think that there was an overestimating by the Department and that there was considered to be a need for some expenditure before the end of the year for the purpose of seeing that there would be no reduction in the appropriations for the next year. These are some of the activities.

During consideration of the estimates for the Department of the Interior I asked why the new hospital at the Warrabri native settlement could not be started before next April. I received the following answer:

The previous hospital was burnt down on 1.9th March 1971 and provision for the new hospital was immediately made in the forthcoming 1971-72 works programme.

The answer also stated:

Preparation of the necessary documentation for the calling of tenders for the new hospital, estimated cost $205,000, is proceeding and this is expected to be completed in lime for the calling of tenders in March 1972.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

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

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise just to give Senator Cavanagh the opportunity to complete his remarks, if he so wishes.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 thank the Minister. This is a rather serious matter. The hospital was burnt down. One sister - a young girl - is trying to battle on and attend to the 500 inhabitants in a kindergarten at the present time. From March 1971 it will take 12 months to deal with the government procedures required before a commencement can be made on replacing the hospital, which is not a big building, at an estimated cost of $205,000. I understand that tenders will be called in March 1972. lt takes 12 months in which to prepare plans and call tenders. All that time there is a young kid up there battling with the native inhabitants including young children, while infectionus disease is raging through the settlement. This Department seems to lack power to engage in any emergency operations. When a state school is burnt down, as frequently happens, the State is on the job next week rebuilding the school. In the case of this hospital there must be some speed-up on the part of the Department so that prompt action can be taken. After all. the Department is not erecting the building; it only has to prepare the plans and call tenders. Possibly a stereotype plan common to other constructions is used.

The most serious complaint of the workmen in the Northern Territory - it is shared by some of the Administration staff - is the practice of the Department of letting work by contract, particularly work on roads. Many of the contractors have failed, skipped out and simply gone back to Western Australia. The road gang had to follow. Day labour forces have had to work on the roads left incomplete by the contractors. This is causing concern to the day labour force. While there is difficulty in getting men for day labour work for the Department they face periods of uncertainty of employment. I know that the Minister told the Estimates Committee that the tendency is to accept the contract system but according to reports of the Administration at Katherine the the contract system of road building in the Northern Territory is not cheaper than the day labour system. To illustrate what is happening, when a road of about 20 miles is to bc built, sometimes 10 miles is let to a contractor and 10 miles is done by day labour. On no occasion when this has happened has the contract system been cheaper than the day labour system. Day labour has to be used on much of the special work such as bridges.

There is great dissatisfaction about uncertainty of employment and the inability of the Department to increase its labour force because of the Department’s policy to give preference for this work to contractors. In view of the difficulty of construction in the Northern Territory I think the Department should consider whether it is making any saving by using the contract system, lt should provide security for its own men. If it had larger gangs it could provide promotion opportunities to them. These men are doing a valuable service in view of the climatic conditions under which they work and the construction difficulties they meet in such areas. They are loyally carrying on the operations of the Department.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– J have listened with great attention to Senator Cavanagh, as I always do when he is speaking about building construction. Before dealing with the specific matters he referred to in the Northern Territory I want to comment on his remarks about the Auditor-General’s report as to undercharging other departments. I want to inform the Committee that the relevant part of the AuditorGeneral’s report has been under notice. Prior to 1st July 1963 all clients were required to pay a fee for work carried out for them by the Department of Works. However, following consideration of the fifty-fifth report of the Joint Committee of Public

Accounts a consultation took pla< between the Treasury and the Department of Works and it was resolved to limit the charging of a fee to works and services carried out for departments of a business or trading nature and other departmental organisations that are not financed by parliamentary appropriations.

It is clear that 6 per cent was the uniform rate that applied from 1946 to June 1963 for wOrk undertaken for all Commonwealth departments. Treasury approved the application of 6 per cent as the rate on work for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and other authorities not financed from the Budget, except for organisations in respect of which special rates were operating as at 1st July 1963. During 1970 the Department and the Treasury had close consultation on this matter and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts has embarked on an inquiry upon this particular head of the Auditor-General’s report. The Department has made detailed submissions to that Committee and the outcome can be expected to be resolved during the present financial year. Therefore I respectfully request that this Committee be content io leave the matter on that basis until we hear the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Senator Cavanagh referred to the operations of the Department of Works in the Northern Territory. I have visited many of the jobs that the Department is doing in the Northern Territory and this is the first time that 1 have heard even the suggestion of a complaint about the work done there. Having formed a very high opinion of the diligence and competence of the officers administering the Territory I cannot accept that any general criticism is justifiable. When considering any criticism of the Northern Territory programme of works it should be noted that this year for the first time the Commonwealth works programme there has built up to the stage where it exceeds the programme in any State or other Territory, including New South Wales and Victoria. That shows the degree to which work there has developed.

Turning now to the specific matters raised by Senator Cavanagh, as he told the Senate he was good enough to write to me about these complaints. On 22nd November I forwarded to him detailed answers to these matters. All I wish to add is that 1 shall certainly see that everything that Senator Cavanagh has said here today is scrutinised and if my Department has any further particulars to supply I shall have them forwarded as promptly as possible. I would like to refer, if it is convenient, to the allegation of dumping. 1 do not think it was mentioned in the honourable senator’s letter to me that the plumbing units referred to were wrapped in cellophane. If that is so it is a new factor about which we will have to inquire. If the honourable senator can give me the names of the persons concerned - either publicly or in confidence.whichever he prefers - it will assist me to make inquiries. The Department is most jealous of its reputation as to absence of waste and absence of loss by improper means, and is careful in scrutinising within limits every article authorised for disposal.

In regard to the honourable senator’s question about roads, I add the comment that we take the view that it is very difficult to substantiate the exact cost of a particular section of road. Of course, overhead and incidental expenses are attached to a job done by day labour. But as the honourable senator knows, after investigations the Department is still convinced that except in remote areas, special areas or areas where conditions are abnormal, such as where additions have to be made to airports while operations are being pursued, the contract system is the much more economical system.

With regard to the other question by the honourable senator, I will content myself with referring to the detailed matters of the Northern Territory and the towers and ancillary works at Port Wakefield in South Australia. The work at Port Wakefield was a matter of investigation by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and is reported upon in the 127th report of that Committee. Briefly, the situation is that the construction of wooden towers of a very unusual height was attempted. Preventing wooden towers of that extraordinaryheight from warping under the influence of weather proved to be an insoluble problem. It was recognised that there was some shortcoming, either in the original design or in the execution of the construction. It was a most unique project that was attempted,

Department of Foreign Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $89,913,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I have a question in relation to the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs at overseas posts. Is it a fact that recently some increases in salaries were awarded to staff at all of our posts but that as the result of a Commonwealth Public Service determination all of their allowances were reduced? Can the Minister give details of this now or, if not at a later stage?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– As Senator Bishop has said in his inquiry, the salaries were raised and certain adjustments were made in incidental expenses. I shall obtain the particulars for the honourable senator and write him.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Labour and National Service

Proposed expenditure, $20,500,000.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The administration of the Department of Labour and National Service is concerned with matters of fair wages and conditions throughout the community and especially the execution of the laws made by the Parliament under the conciliation and arbitration power for the settling of those industrial disputes which extend interstate and generally concern wages and conditions. We are living in a time when many calls have been made by prominent people for restraint to be exercised on the part of all members of the community in order to combat inflation. The Government has been telling the workers, many of whom are on extremely low wages, that in the national interest they should curb their demands. Newspaper editors have been particularly insistent that wage earners, many of whom, as I said, are receiving pitifully low wages, ought to curb their demands. Indeed, they have said that the members of Parliament ought to give the lead in this respect.

For those honourable senators who have not had an opportunity to read it, I mention a most interesting editorial in this) morning’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ which speaks of the critical importance of setting an example in the battle for wage restraint. It deals with the position of Ministers and backbenchers in this Parliament.

Senator Wright:

– I hope that the honourable senator can relate his remarks to the discussion of the estimates for the Department presently before the Committee.

Senator MURPHY:

– I will relate this to the matter in question. The editorial speaks of the nature of the work of backbenchers and says that it is entirely different from that of the average wage and salary earner. It goes on:

They have their positions, or ought to have them, not because of remuneration and career opportunities but for reasons of public service voluntarily undertaken.

I think honourable senators will realise the import of that. It is suggested by the editor of one of our leading newspapers that backbenchers in the Parliament should be working voluntarily, that their service ought to be a public service voluntarily undertaken. That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the editorial but let us assume that it is not and that along with other persons no increases in salaries should be granted to backbenchers and that the community generally should assist in the extension of this principle. Perhaps the Government may give some thought to the matter of why wage earners have to bear the brunt of this campaign. Why is no call being made by the Government to those in private business to restrain themselves. It is suggested that if a ceiling is to be placed on wages in the community, those who are earning in the region of $85 or $100 a week and trying to exist on that, must not ask for a few more dollars. The suggestion is that it is almost criminal on their part to ask for that. Why has not the suggestion been made by this Government, through the Department of Labour and National Service, that a ceiling be placed on incomes right throughout the community and let people such as the editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ be in the forefront of this campaign? I would suggest an amount which might be only a fraction of the salaries which are obtained by the newspaper proprietors. Why should not a ceiling be placed on their salaries? Let us be generous and say that $20,000 or $25,000 be accepted as the ceiling for everyone so that those on the higher salaries - those who are earning not only hundreds of thousands of dollars a year but in some cases millions of dollars a year - would be joining in the general wage restraint. Why has this not been put forward by the Department and the Gov.ernment, not only as a request to those who are in business but also by bringing in legislation to give effect to this suggestion?

It is said to me by constitutional lawyers and economists that it would be comparatively simple to introduce a Bill to provide for a super tax on incomes over a certain level and that it would be comparatively easy to amend the Income Tax Act to put a limitation on the enormous expense allowances which are enjoyed by those in private industry. So why has this campaign been directed at the wage earners? Why are the exhortations being made day after day to people earning $80 or $100 a week? Proposals are brought In for legislation to crush the wage earners who receive pitifully small incomes, but no attempt has been made to fix a ceiling on incomes for those in the community who enjoy enormous incomes. It is true that some of these incomes are derived in manners which quite legitimately render them non taxable, perhaps because they are derived by way of various capital gains, but that situation also could be met by suitable amendments to the income tax laws. I ask the Minister to give some thought to this matter so that when the Senate re-assembles in February a firm policy can be put to the Parliament for a ceiling on incomes right through the community, not a ceiling restricted to public servants or other wage earners by means of a heavy enforcement of the conciliation and arbitration laws. Let everybody share in this.

Mr TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:
Senator Davidson

– Order! Before the debate continues I should like the Committee to understand that in dealing with the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service honourable senators may deal with divisions 755, 756 and 757 as they are all related to the Department.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– -1 feel that some comment should be made on some aspects of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). There was some wisdom in some of the pleas that he made. Certainly the plea which is going out today for wage restraint is directed mainly to the worker. Although I doubt whether that should be the situation, there is a complete falsity throughout the whole community in relation to wage restraint. Senator Murphy has suggested that the escalation of wages has brought about the inflationary’ situation that we are now experiencing. I direct the Senate’s attention to a very good article which has this month been published by the Australian Industries Development Association in Bulletin No. 226. The article refers to the balance between the escalation of wage costs and the profits of private industry. It must be realised that the return to private industry is particularly imporant because it is from that sphere that we find revenue to enable the Government and the Australian community to economically continue.

Senator Murphy suggested that there should be a ceiling on the top level of wage paid and that the Government should give consideration to this policy. Throughout my time in the Federal Parliament I have heard from the Opposition great claims about the Government not doing sufficient to prevent a brain drain from Australia to other countries, and in relation to nearly every sphere of science and education the Leader of the Opposition in this place has criticised the Government for not doing something to ensure that those particular abilities which are required in this community were retained. I suggest that there has been developing in our community within the last 10 or 15 years an entirely erroneous concept of what should be demanded from those individuals on high salary levels and those individuals whom we may consider are conducting their personal affairs, and managing on what could be considered a basic wage. We find that we have a situation in which a group of individuals asks for a rise of $6 a week or $300 a year. That may represent a 6 per cent increase in their salary. Of course we have the acceptable position that no-one compains about that. But then there is the individual who receives $15,000 or $20,000 a year, whatever that may be weekly, who suggests that he must retain his relative position by receiving a 6 per cent increase in his return.

Senator Wright:

– I interject to say only that the honourable senator is wrong in saying that nobody complains about it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I retract that; I accept the Minister’s point that people do complain about it. However, I would be delighted to hear anybody in the Ministry argue against this principle on the floor of the Senate or another place. I know that there is a feeling among many individuals in the community that a flat percentage increase is entirely wrong, but in many documents today we see the Government, the Public Service or private industry advancing the proposition that there should be a salary increase of $2,000 or $3,000 a year for certain individuals because there has just been a $300 or 6 per cent increased granted to some worker at the basic level. I wish to place on record that 1 object entirely to this principle. I feel that one of the problems within the Public Service and private industry, and in the salary range that may affect we members of Parliament, is this proposition that a percentage pay rise should be as applicable to individuals in receipt of a high salary as those people who receive $60, $70 or $80 a week. 1 reject that principle.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I should like to make one or two remarks about the discussuon which has beef prompted by Senator Murphy’s criticism of the great Press barons whose salaries are often not known and whose expense accounts are generally unlimited. They are not the only people in the community who are in this situation. It is well known from hearsay that in business and commercial circles in addition to salaries other arrangements are made for payments to people of quite fabulous amounts. Yet the strange thing is that the Government continues to direct attention to the effect on the economy of wage increases. If we listen to the statements by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) we hear it said repeatedly that our present situation has been caused by increases given to public servants and other workers. I put it to the Committee that this has always been the attitude of Liberal Governments. I refer to another statement in the same vein made by the Minister for Labour and National Service on 6th Sep tember in an address about the problems of full employment. On that occasion be said at a seminar:

Full employment can contribute to inflation by generating sectional labour shortages, by strengthening the bargaining power of organised labour and by creating market conditions which facilitate price increases.

We know that the Government’s attitude to the present very serious unemployment situation is to wait and see and that the only remedies which the Government is now using are those proposed by the rural assistance plan by which it is proposed to advance $20m a year to the States for the purpose somehow of correcting the unemployment situation in rural areas. But no attention has been given to the general economic necessity to give stimulus to the community.

Already statements have been made in this place by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for Labour and National Service in this place, about price controls. He has said the Government does not agree that prices should be limited, yet consistently the Government tries to suppress wage increases. Although the price for labour is controlled, the price for every other commodity is not controlled. One would think that the only cost increases in the economy and in the production of goods and services were caused by wage increases. Let me illustrate very clearly one of the aspects which is never considered by the Government. This week a Melbourne newspaper - I think it was the ‘Age’ - reported on the effects of late night shopping on the cost of goods. In its edition of 8th December the newspaper stated:

Corner store prices dearer - Corner stores charge up to 10 or 12 per cent more for each item than supermarkets as part of the price for running a late night shopping operation for the convenience of housewives.

That is clearly one situation where prices have been loaded because of the decision of the State Government to bring in late night shopping.

Senator Webster:

– I think it is unfair to note that the corner store does that. Late night shopping must bring increased costs to every person involved.

Senator BISHOP:

– I do not dispute that. The fact is that the Labor Party and the organised union movement, as well as other people in the community, have always contended that at some stage in the economy price controls must be introduced. It is of no use talking about imposing control only on the wages of the workers. Everybody in the community who puts a substantial case for a salary increase following cost/ price pressures is challenged. The Government and people in the very high business brackets say that wage increases are not justified because they add to inflation. As a result of such opinions the trend to unemployment is growing throughout Australia. The November employment figures are not yet available. In October this year 17,500 more workers registered for jobs than registered in October last year. There are 29,000 unemployed workers in the non-metropolitan areas and 35,000 unemployed in the metropolitan areas, lt was reported yesterday that in Western Australia 500 clerks are out of work.

Unemployment has risen in South Australia through sackings in the motor car industry and by Philips and Hawker Siddeley Electronics Ltd in Salisbury. About 800 workers have been laid off in the motor car industry throughout Australia since September because of the downturn in the economy.

Senator Webster:

– And through strikes.

Senator BISHOP:

– Because of the economy.

Senator Webster:

– And through strikes.

Senator BISHOP:

– Let me tell you that recently Mr Bill Gibbs, the General Manager of General Motors-Holden Pty Ltd, commented on this aspect.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He would not be a leftist.

Senator BISHOP:

– No. He made a public statement to which I drew the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) when I asked him a question. Mr Gibbs was reported in the Press to have said that the reason for the downturn in the industry was that people were not buyng medium priced motor cars. There was an alarming drop of about 16,000 in sales of medium priced cars over a period of 12 months. The company decided that it has no option but to reduce staff on the production lines in South Australia and Victoria. I suggest that the Government ought to be looking at loss of production in the community and determining whether curbs should be applied. There has been a loss of values and a loss of export ability.

I have mentioned that this week in Western Australia 500 clerks were registered as unemployed. About 200 people have been dismissed in the steel industry. In Victoria at present the unemployment figures for the motor car industry and related industry total between 700 and 1,000 workers. That means that 1,000 fewer- workers are producing something of value for export at a time when we are attempting to move more into export markets. In South Australia 87 people have been retrenched by Cresco in the last fortnight, lt is also reported that in South Australia Philips, in the electronics industry, will retrench about 400 workers over a number of months.

The trends are there and the effect will be felt by the young people in the community. In January and February next year about 200,000 young people will enter the labour market. Most State Departments are cutting back their intake of apprentices and other people entering semi-professional trades. It means that fewer skilled people will be producing goods to be marketed. Young people who ought to have an opportunity to learn a trade will be denied it. The estimates are that in most States the intake of apprentices will be cut back by about one-third.

Although the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) recently said that the establishment of Commonwealth departments would be reviewed, the evidence received by Estimates Committee C was that the establishments were fixed. They had not been lifted. It seems that the intake of almost all government departments has been depressed. I am prompted to think that the remedies proposed by the Government are not sufficient. The only tangible statement made is in respect of the rural industries and that will be only minimal because the residue going to the work force in rural industries will be small. By the time $300,000, say, is paid to Queensland and the necessary expenditure is made on plant and equipment, the balance going to the work force will be small. In any event, it will only mean a saving in unemployment benefits. This is not substantial enough.

As Senator Mulvihill has said, we have reached the stage in the economy where the Department of Labour and National Service ought to be geared more to the working of the economy. 1 am not criticising the work of the Department. I think it is largely hamstrung and some of the reasons for that were given by Senator Mulvihill. 1 think the Department has been asked to do a number of things beyond the capacity of its staff or facilities. It is commissioned to give the unemployment figures. Honourable senators know that while we talk about the unemployment of 63,000 the figure is largely arbitrary, lt is not as positive as we would like it to be. There is no definite basis for the unemployment figures in some rural areas because there are no government agencies there. During a sitting of Estimates Committee C Senator Milliner asked Dr Cook a question on this subject. On 28th October Senator Milliner asked:

The number of unemployed could be considerably higher if people have not registered witta you as being unemployed. Would that be correct?

Dr Cook replied: lt has never been claimed that the figures released by the Department of Labour and National Service are actual figures for the total number of unemployed. That figure is available only at the time of census taking when there is an actual body check of the total community. It is a figure for those who have registered wilh the employment service. The presumption is that if people are in fact seriously looking for work it will not bc long, if they cannot get work, before they register wilh the employment service. Further, if they wish to draw the unemployment benefit they must register, of course, but the figure could be more or less in terms of the number of actual unemployed

In discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service we should ask that its work be geared to provide a more specialised service in finding positions for people who are seeking work, and largely to report upon trends in the economy. I have referred to Press reports about sackings in each State. The figures vary from State to State, but there is a trend to unemployment. However, no action is taken by the Government because it says that it must wait and see in case it is pure fiction.

A couple of weeks ago 1 asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate the position about cutbacks by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and in the motor car industry. At page 1973 of Hansard of 23rd November Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s answer is reported. He said:

First 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.

The Minister then went on to refer to other instances. It is apparent that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) will not state exactly the extent of unemployment. The opportunity to discuss these matters is fairly limited. I relate my remarks to what Senator Murphy said. Too many people in the community are attacking the way in which workers get wage increases. But it should be remembered that all of us on wages or salaries are seeking increases in order to try to recover former standards. At one time the Conciliation and Arbitration Act used to impose an obligation on the Commission to maintain the standards of yesteryear. As everybody knows, increases based on the cost of living figures gave some recognition to that principle.

Getting back to what Senator Mulvihill said, it seems to me that there is a general need to give stimulus to the economy and to watch very closely unemployment trends in the community, because these trends will cost the country a lot of money. 1 refer very briefly to some figures which have been taken out by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library in relation to the motor car industry. The figures which 1 have been given are only up to 1967-68, and they would have increased since then. In 1967-68 the value of output per person - that is the basis upon which the goods are sold - employed in the motor car and cycle factories throughout Australia was $9,021. At the present time there are about 700 metal workers out of work in Victoria. Taking the value of the output of each as $9,021, it means that because of the unemployment of those workers the country lost $6.3m. The same situation applies to the motor car industry in South Australia. It has been reported that the motor car industry has lost about 600 workers in 2 groups of 300. So it can be seen from an economic point of view that at a time when we have an ability to produce goods, and the facilities for exporting them - we are exporting them - and then we have the competence of all the sophisticated nations, our production is cut back. I have given some very brief examples of what is happening. We are losing about S7m in production because we are letting the economy run down and this position should not obtain.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– 1 wish to intervene at this time because the number of representations that have been made to mc has accumulated and I feel that I am obliged to reply to them. First of all, Senator Mulvihill referred to private employment agencies. The comment I make is that the Commonwealth has no power to control private employment agencies. It is a matter for the individual States to decide how they should operate. In fact, legislation is provided in most States which requires such agencies to register. So we take the view that the primary responsibility at least is with them.

I listened to Senator Murphy’s contribution without any real dissent. I would wish the Government to have been understood, through the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), to be addressing itself mainly to the employment area and, through the Treasurer, to be making an appeal to the commercial area in general and the financial circles. I had read the leader from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ to which Senator Murphy referred and taken particular notice of it. With regard to his suggestion in relation to supertax and a revision of taxation attitudes to expense allowances, I think an immediate remark from me would be inappropriate at the moment. They are each matters which attract interest, and not today for the first time. All I can say is that I notice them and understand them.

I am particularly interested in the submission that Senator Webster made in his contribution as to the inappropriateness of a percentage adjustment to a salary which is comparatively low and the same per centage adjustment to a salary which is comparatively high, lt may be that in this computerised age we have ourselves almost habituated to an acceptance of statistical material without applying human judgment. I can say to Senator Webster that this matter has been under vigorous consideration. I would not think that the automatic application of a common percentage to all ranges of income is an accepted view of the Government. Today 1 cannot with any advantage express an individual view. However, I assure the honourable senator that his remarks have been carefully noted by me with appreciation.

Senator Bishop referred to the appeal made to wage earners by the Minister for Labour and National Service on 6th December. As I said in reply to Senator Murphy, I would like the honourable senator to understand that the Minister’s remarks were directed to all sections of the industry where profits or salaries are above the normal. With regard to the problem of unemployment I say - 1 hope for Senator Bishop’s satisfaction - that Australia’s post war experience should leave no doubt as to the Government’s capacity tq maintain full employment. Over the last’ 15 years the unemployment rate in Australia has never exceeded 2 per cent, seasonally adjusted, except for a brief period in 1961 and 1962, and has averaged some 1.4 per cent over the period as a whole. There is no doubt that this compares very favourably with the experience of overseas countries.

With regard to the honourable senator’s emphasis that the Department should focus its attention more vigorously as its experience grows in various fields of industry, I would think that this is already exemplified by the efforts of the Department under the Minister during the last year or two. I remind the honourable senator of the programme for training women for employment, which is an initiative which I think he would agree was directed to a special section of the community and a new programme. It is designed to provide the opportunity for married and adult single women to enter or re-enter the work force by gaining the necessary vocational skills. It provides for tuition and examination fees, reimbursement of fares, books and training, an incidental expense allowance of $4 per week, a living away from home allowance of $5 a week and so on. The honourable senator will be reminded that in the Estimates Committee we dealt with an appropriation for. that purpose of $225,000 for this year.

Prompted by Senator Bishop’s remarks on this matter, I remind the Committee of the special scheme introduced for training farmers displaced from rural industries. The Estimates Committee approved an appropriation of $300,000 which, I remind the Senate, provides for a training allowance up to $46.20 per week for adults undergoing full time training, subject to certain other considerations. Of course) it was only within the last fortnight that the Government made an arrangement with the States to provide special employment assistance to farmers in non-metropolitan areas.

I am also able to remind the Committee that the Department has specially trained officers who are concerned mainly with handicapped persons. Over 16,000 such persons were placed in employment in the year ended 30th June 1971. I hope that my perspective is not out of focus, but that figure agreeably surprised me. I repeat that 16,000 handicapped persons were placed in employment in the last financial year. The Department also gives special attention to the needs of older workers and it applies special measures to assist Aborigines. It is, of course, maintaining a vigilant watch and extending its officer services to districts where unemployment seems to require special attention.

I think it would be to the interest of honourable senators if I were to bring to the attention of the Committee part of an answer which was incorporated in Hansard this morning concerning the position of school leavers. It reads:

The latest estimates put the number of school leavers for Australia as a whole at 223,000 in 1971-72, an increase of about 4 per cent on the previous year. For New South Wales the estimated figure is 78,000 compared with 75,600 in 1970-71 - an increase of some 3 per cent on the previous year. The number of young people en:ering the work force is however less than the number leaving school as a proportion of school leavers move on to full time tertiary education. With the increased tendency to stay longer at school and acquire higher qualifications, the actual number of school leavers who will enter the work force this year may not be much more than In the previous year.

The next paragraph contains remarks to which I wish to draw particular attention. It reads:

For many years the Commonwealth Employment Service has carried out extensive employment interviewing and counselling of secondary school students in order to facilitate their speedy absorption into the work force. Employers are also canvassed for vacancies. The Commonwealth Employment Service will exercise its maximum endeavours to assist in the placement of this year’s school leavers.

So I would suggest that any objective assessment of the Department’s endeavours should include fairly comprehensive, fairly positive and appropriately specialised initiatives designed to prevent any pockets of unemployment from developing into unacceptable figures.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like to add a few comments along the lines of Senator Murphy’s contribution to this debate. It is obvious from the speech that was made in another place the other night by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) that a lot of the time of the Department of Labour and National Service has Seen devoted in recent months to evolving what is put forward as part of the Government’s answer to the problem of rising prices in this community. I refer to the proposals which nave emanated from the Department for a re-casting of the industrial arbitration legislation in this country. One of the features that struck me most, about the Government’s proposals in this field is that, while advocating an increase in and a greater emphasis on the conciliation aspect of conciliation and arbitration, the Government has also proposed that even though parties - unions and employers - should manage in the conciliation process to reach some agreement as to appropriate wage rates there should still be a power in the Commonwealth to intervene and appeal to the presidential members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission against such an negotiated agreement on the justification of the public interest being affected.

I am becoming increasingly tired of the selectivity of the Government’s approach to the question of appeals for wage restraints. I find it nauseating))’ hypocritical for example, that a Prime Minister should glibly put to the Parliament a proposition that his emolument should reach $51,000 a year but that there should be restraint on the part of the members of the community who get something like $80 a week. I also find it infuriating - that is the only word I can find for it - that millionaire Press barons can deliver sermons to the members of this Parliament, such as we find in one of this morning’s editorials, in which it is suggested that we should be satisfied with the honour of being here, that it is a place to which we have come voluntarily and that according to Sir Warwick Fairfax’s presumably well paid editorial writer, we should be content with what we are getting now and not ask for more because we are sufficiently honoured by being here.

Do not such people as Sir Warwick Fairfax and Sir Frank Packer and their highly paid executives exert some pressure on the goods that are available in the community by virtue of the enormous and largely hidden emoluments they get out of their interests? Why should they bc above being asked to make some sacrifice in the general interest of restraints on demand? Just the other night on the television programme ‘Monday Conference’ the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was asked a few questions on . the latest crusade that he is running about restraints by the many and the continuing to have it as good as ever by the few. He was asked a few questions about extending his request for restraint into the higher echelons. He made this interesting reply:

Secondly, if we felt that we really wanted to take action so far as profits are concerned, we have got the taxation mechanism, and when we looked at profits we realised that was not an angle that needed immediate attention.

Why does it not need immediate attention? Why the constant appeals to the masses of people - included amongst them ourselves - to restrain their appetites and to withhold their demands into a distant future when a readily available taxation power which could be used against the exhorters of restraint is left on the shelf? I fully endorse the proposals of Senator Murphy that we should have a look at equalising the request for restraints. Why does the Taxation Office not make a proper investigation into the real emoluments of the people who are at the head of this crusade? I refer to the people who are exhorting us daily in these editorials. If they are to be believed, and if their favourite word ‘credibility’ is to be maintained, why can we not have tabled just what they are getting - what is their share of the cake? Then, of course, we would take their exhortations greater to heart. Surely it would be in the national interest for us to be able to believe in the sincerity of these men. We would be prepared readily lo tighten our belts if we could be persuaded that they too are not getting more than their share.

One of the things that the Government should be doing in the interests of national morale and in the interests of selling the population on the proposition that there is a need for restraint is investigating the profits of the people at the top and perhaps introducing a salary ceiling. We should not be mean with them. I would not suggest that Sir Warwick Fairfax or Sir Frank Packer should be asked to get by on less than about $50,000 a year. But, in the interest of national morale and in the interests of persuading the population that the appeal for restraints is a sincere one and not just a catch cry of ‘You go without while we enjoy it as usual’ why do we not cut it down to that?

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I was most interested to hear the comments which were made this morning. It is heartening to note that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have finally come to realise just what is wrong at present. During the course of my speech on the Budget on 8th September 1 dwelt on the subject of high incomes and on the fact that the people on high incomes were getting richer. 1 suggested that there should be a ceiling on those incomes. At the time I nominated a figure of $8,000 a year. I said that if we imposed a moratorium on incomes at this level wc might have some hope of helping the people on lower incomes, pensioners and so on. Apparently at that time my suggestion fell on deaf ears as far as the Government was concerned. It is interesting to note that in the meantime the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has indicated to the Senate that there has been some consideration of this. I do not know the Government’s present policies or feeling about this, but when this becomes known to the Australian public it will be heartened to know that people in the national capital are finally coming to the realisation and the recognition that there is an increasing affluence among the affluent, al the expense of people on lower incomes.

Senator Webster:

– Excuse tue, senator^ - 7

Senator WRIEDT:

– Last lime J spoke on this subject you interrupted me, you may recall. Would you just let me finish now? The Parliamentary Library obtained some figures on this for me. For the financial year from 1st July 1968 to 30th June 1969 the total increase received by persons who, at 1st July 1968, were earning incomes in excess of $7,000 a year - which would be the equivalent of about $9,000 a year today - was $274m. (n other words, $274m of the national income went into the pockets of people who were on very high incomes at that time. Yet as soon as the trade union movement or the pensioners seek increases which will give them a just return for what they put into the community we are told by the Government - 1 remind the Minister - that the increases would wreck the economy. This has been going on for the 22 years that the Liberal Party has been in government. What option have the low income earners other than to try to chase the higher incomes as they get bigger?

The Parliament should be debating not whether public servants are entitled to $21,000 a year or whether we are entitled to an increase but how we can give a more equitable distribution of income to people. I say this irrespective of whom it may hun. What we should do before we make any decision on any of these things, if the Commonwealth Parliament has not the power - I do not think it has under the Constitution - to impose, a moratorium on all high incomes, is to get together collectively in the interests of the Australian people and devise ways and means, by referendum if need be, to give the Commonwealth Parliament powers to impose restrictions on the earning of high incomes. To me it is an incredible situation that anyone who is on the kind of income which virtually any of us at present in the chamber are on, including all the public servants, can say that we are entitled to another S3.000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year when people are earning incomes far below ours. T have many examples of those incomes. A machinist first class in the agricultural implements business earns $57 a week. All these figures relate to the period before the 6 per cent increase. What is a fitter and turner in an aircraft workshop - a skilled tradesman - worth? According to our arbitration system he is worth $59 a week, lt Ls an incredible, unjust and rotton system. lt has become a rat race. The only place where it can be stopped and corrected is in this Parliament. Australians would think a lot more of Senators on both sides of the chamber if we were to lake some positive action to arrest this as soon as we can.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Department of Labour and National Service, with which we are concerning ourselves, has been very active in the field of income, wages and salaries over the past 12 months, lt has been spending a great deal of its time, either on its own initiative or at the direction of the Government suggesting pegging the incomes of those who can be regarded as being in the low income groups, and maybe the moderate income groups. I invite the Committee to look al the figures which have been supplied. This is the other side of the coin referred to by Senator Wriedt: I refer to a reply given only a few days ago in the other place by the Treasurer, Mr Snedden, to a question that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Glyde Cameron) had on notice. The reply contained a table setting out the number and percentage of managerial, etc., staff and all other full time adult males - total weekly earnings groups - as at May 1.971. It seems that the policy of the Department is always to concern itself with those who are in these categories rather than with those in the categories that have been referred to by Senators Murphy, James McClelland and Wriedt.

Senator Wright:

– Can you give me the Hansard reference so that I could send for it and follow you?

Senator GIETZELT:

– lt is page 4254 of the Hansard of Tuesday, 7th December, lt shows thai 7 per cent of the male work force is in receipt of a total weekly income of less than S57.99, that 10 per cent of the male work force is in receipt of an income of less than S59.99 a week, that 24 per cent of the male work force is in receipt of an income of less than $70 a week and that 40 per cent of the male work force is in receipt of an income of less than $79.99 a week. In other words the table shows very clearly and very starkly, in contrast with what Senator Wriedt had to say, that those who are producing the wealth of the country, even in this period when there are certain downturns in our economy, are the ones who are being asked to bear the main part of the burden. That is why we on this side find ourselves in constant conflict with the Government when in particular the Treasurer and to some extent his representative here seek to attribute all the ills associated with inflation to those in the income groups who are seeking to get some part of the so-called prosperity that exists in our community.

I find a great deal of hypocrisy in the statements made by Government spokesmen, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in particular, dealing with parliamentary salaries. He has set up a tribunal - a Government-appointed judge - to examine salaries payable to members of this place and of the other place. He then sought to justify certain reductions in this field. I was one of those who adopted what I considered to be an attitude of principle when the Australian Labor Party met privately to discuss these matters. The Labor Party, in adopting the stance that it did, did not do so to be in unity with the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald’. We repudiate completely the views expressed by those in the newspapers who have been so active and who find a ready unity with and echo the sentiments of the Government and its representatives in the Department whose appropriation we are discussing. I find the same hypocrisy in Liberal Premiers, including the Premier of New South Wales who at one time was calling upon local government in New South Wales to exercise restraint in raising rates. In the same breath he drastically increased fares and motor vehicle registration fees. These are part of the policies which are being pursued. 1 think that the Government is attempting to place the whole financial responsibility and burden on those who are in the categories to which I referred earlier. We are for an income redistribution policy. Of course the Department should be playing a leading role in this field. On the contrary, it goes along with managerial revelry and tall poppies, doing as it wishes when it will to satisfy its own financial attitudes. The philosophy of those who have been attempting in recent weeks to impose their policies even on the national parliament seems to be: Do not do as I do; do as I say. The Department does very little to counter this propaganda and the arguments that relate to the national Parliament which have been so well advanced over recent weeks.

I think that the Committee has a responsibility to suggest to the Department that we can effectively use taxation provisions to obtain an equalisation of income and to implement an income redistribution policy. If it is argued that people on low incomes create something of an inflationary spiral, we on this side of the chamber argue that those in managerial positions - in relation to whom figures have been produced by Senator Wriedt - should exercise some leadership. I think that the Department should exercise some leadership. It should suggest that a policy be adopted which will show that the whole community is prepared to make some sacrifices to get us out of the financial impasse in which we are in at the moment. We on this side of the chamber indicate that we are going to have a very close look at the salaries of judges and senior public servants who do not seem to have the yardstick applied to their salary claims. I never see those people making claims for increases in salary. The Government seems to adopt the view that it should take the initiative to set the base for salary increases among the tall poppies. One would expect that if the Government were sincere about the salary matters which were introduced into the other place last night it would take the initiative in relation to the salaries of judges and senior public servants.

Of course, the Government is much influenced by senior public servants, particularly those in Treasury. I think that the Committee would be well advised to reexamine the salaries which are being suggested in so many fields as they have been examined by committees in recent times. I fully support the views which have been expressed by the preceding speakers from this side of the chamber. We do not accept the knocking which is now part of the declared policy of those who govern the affairs of our country at the executive level - those who seek to knock the Parliament as an institution - and those who seek to carry out their responsibility in an elective capacity. One finds it difficult to appreciate the sentiments expressed by a spokesman from the Chamber of Manufactures who suggested that there should be wage restraints at all levels of the community, including Parliament. That spokesman is in the managerial sector which enjoys the very high salaries and emoluments which have been referred to in previous debates.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Education and Science

Proposed expenditure, $154,134,000.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– There has been a report from an Estimates committee in relation to this matter and there hits been an exhaustive examination of the subject.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sitting suspended from I to 2. 1 5 p.m.

Department of External Territories

Proposed expenditure, $111,495,000.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I have a very brief request to make. It relates to questions I have asked the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in the Senate recently about a suitable modern aircraft to service Norfolk Island. I am wondering whether the Department of External Territories can supply any information in relation to the recent tests of the aircraft mentioned by” the Minister and, if possible, when a date will be announced for a suitable modern aircraft to operate this service, lt may be that 1 am asking the wrong department; but Norfolk Island is becoming a very important tourist centre for Australians and I think it is held back tremendously because people still have to travel on a DC4 which is very slow, very cumbersome and very old. I am just wondering whether any development in relation to this matter has occurred.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I just happened to hear this matter referred to as I was coming into my office; so I came into the chamber. The latest information I have is a letter from Qantas Airways Ltd indicating that the trials of alternative aircraft are proceeding and that we ought not to be very far from having a decision made as to the most suitable type of aircraft for the Norfolk Island service.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of Housing

Proposed expenditure, $7,235,000.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– On these estimates the Opposition wishes to put a proposition which has been discussed at great length previously. Therefore, I merely move:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the Government assist State Public Housing Authorities to provide low cost housing and to reduce housing costs by -

enabling Public Land Development Commissions to be set up in co-operation wi DI the States to acquire necessary land, hold it in public ownership, develop it and make it available on reasonable terms on a leasehold basis similar to Canberra;

reducing interest rates; and

establishing uniformity of building codes, standards and practices.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– All I wish to do at this stage is to indicate that this matter requires much more consideration than has been given to it today. 1 ask the Committee to reject the motion.

Senator Murphy:

– As it has been indicated that the motion is not supported from other quarters, the Opposition will not call for a division.

Question resolved in the negative.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without requests but with expressions of opinion; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1971-72 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 November (vide page 2212), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I want to refer to division 870- Capital Works and Services, PostmasterGeneral’s Department, for which an appropriation of $255m is proposed this financial year. I tried to bring this matter up during the sittings of Estimates Committee B but I attended a sitting all afternoon and it did not reach this point in the Estimates. 1 was not appointed to that Committee so I was not able to bring the matter up then. J want to make a point about this appropriation of $255m for capital works and services. What disturbs me is that it is difficult to ascertain what particular works will be carried out with this money. 1 have looked very carefully through the Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme and have looked over the questions asked of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) and the officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department at the Estimates Committee hearing on 25th November to see whether this matter was ventilated. The nearest approach to what 1 have in mind was brought forward by Senator Byrne who seemed to have the same idea but did not take the matter as far as I propose to take it.

I am concerned that under the new arrangement of the trust operation, the Post Office as far as possible carries out its works programme, and makes payments for wages and salaries, superannuation, furlough and interest out of its income. We then find from the estimates that it is $255m short of the amount required to meet all its commitments this financial year. What disturbs me is that there is no way in which we can examine the estimates of the Post Office but we are asked today to approve an amount of $255m. At the same time we are asked to neglect the income that the Post Office receives for its postal services, estimated to be $23 2m this year, and for telecommunications, estimated to be $586m. That makes a total of $81 8m. Added to the sum of S255m the grand total is $ 1,073m and we are asked to let this go without consideration.

I am quite prepared to believe - I personally have seen this happen - that the Post Office carefully works out the programmes that it is required to carry out. I have been engaged in preparing quite a number of estimates and I know to what degree they are very carefully sifted. The distrubing thing is that we may be progressing too fast in the Post Office field. Perhaps we are installing a lot more exchanges than are absolutely necessary. We are changing over a lot of country manually operated exchanges to automatic exchanges and perhaps this is not absolutely necessary. We are indulging in a lot of expansion and extending STD facilities which may not be absolutely necessary. The Post Office does make some mistakes, lt has installed some things which ia:er have been found to be not of the advantage anticipated when they were first installed. However, there is no way in which we can examine these estimates and make a careful examination of what is to take place.

From my limited contact with what went on in the planning section of the Post Office 1 recall that some years ago it decided to install equipment which would enable the public to have automatic telephones in motor cars so that people could dial into a central place and be connected to any subscriber in Australia. This equipment was installed in every capital city but so far as I know nobody took advantage of it because it was very costly. That was one mistake. 1 recall another instance when we were developing Kwinana in Western Australia as an industrial centre. The Post Office put down a cable at a cost of $600,000 and when the work was completed it was found that there was only enough traffic to warrant 4 lines. That was another mistake. There has been a lot of criticism of the letter sorting machine at the Sydney Mail Exchange. It is said that there are faults in it and that the wrong type of equipment was selected. Also, there have been a number of complaints about the Ericsson type of telephone and the crossbar switch gear which is being installed throughout Australia. It is suggested that perhaps we should have done belter and this criticism comes from engineers.

What I am trying to show, Mr Chairman, is that we are being asked to agree to this expenditure without hearing any explanation of why it is necessary. We are asked to pass expenditure of $255m. Not only that, we are asked to agree to a total expenditure of $ 1,073m when we do not know whether it is necessary. We just have the say-so of the Department. It has worked out that this is the sum it requires but we do not know whether the works it proposes are absolutely essential at this time. We do not know whether we should postpone the proposed expansion for 2 years until the economy of the country has picked up. 1 cannot see any way in which we can investigate these matters. That is why I bring up this problem, f do not see how the Attorney-General can give me a reply. 1 simply am stating the difficulty in which I find myself when looking at the proposed expenditure of a considerable amount of public money - $ 1, 073m - without having an opportunity to find out how it will be spent.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I think it is well understood by the Committee that since the changes were made to the Post and Telegraph Act in 1968 the method of presenting to the Parliament the sums required for the running of the Post Office has been changed. As Senator Wilkinson indicated, the amount which is now sought comes before the Parliament as just a- oneline entry. This year the amount sought is $255m. In the detailed material which was made available to members of the Senate Estimates Committee which examined this material and, I think, to other honourable senators who were interested and received it, there is set out a general break-up of the $255m. It is apparent that for the coming year it is anticipated that the Post Office will have an expenditure of $1,1 39m against which it will receive by way of all receip’s approximately $884m. Of necessity, $255m is the difference. The material which is available to evaluate how that money is lo be spent is largely set out in the document Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme for the ensuing year which all honourable senators receive. 1 think that I understand Senator Wilkinson correctly when he says that in addition to that material, what would be desirable and what he would like to see is a break-up of the particular projects which are in operation and which are to be commenced during the year, and the matters upon which money is being spent. I may have misunderstood the honourable senator. If I have 1 am sure he will utilise the forms of the Committee to correct me in a moment. The material in a broad sense is set out in the document which was submitted to the Senate Estimates Committee and also in the document Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme. I am sure that particular details can be ascertained as they are wanted. Senator Wilkinson raised the question, as I understood him, whether the Post Office might be expanding too quickly. Usually the query is in the opposite direction or is orientated in a different way. I think that I have seen more comments and complaints that the Post Office is not expanding quickly enough. One receives many points of view.

For example, I certainly feel that the changeover to automatic exchanges is very much appreciated in rural areas where this has occurred, and that many people are just waiting for the day when they are similarly serviced. II may be that that is an area in which Senator Wilkinson would say that the work should go ahead with all speed. It is possible that in different areas different approaches might be adopted but I do not concede that they should be. I know that in the proposed reorganisation of country areas, which has been the subject of some discussion in recent times, one of ‘he comments has been that a dislocation of personnel . has been involved and possibly some unemployment has arisen from that, lt appears to me that implicit in any suggestion that the rate of progress should be cut down is the employment problem. I think that is the last thing that the Post Office wants at the present time. However, the point of view has been expressed and, insofar as it relates to the provision of information. I am sure the Postmaster-General will have some regard to the form in which the material is presented next year.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I think I mentioned that I had already seen the document Post Office Prospects and Capital Programme. I am aware of all the facts that the Minister has brought forward. He understood correctly most of the points f was making and that I was saying that it could be - I did not say that it was - that the Post Office was expanding too quickly. What I really want to know is how we can ever investigate thoroughly the accounts of the Post Office. We have received the annual report of the Post Office. It has not been discussed. Yet, the cost of work that is to be undertaken amounts to $1,0 18m. This is what I want to know: How will we ever have an opportunity of carefully scrutinising the work programme of the Post Office, not so much with regard to its cost but whether it is necessary to carry out the various developments that are proposed? Then the cost comes out if they are absolutely necessary.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The procedures do not permit this in that there is a document which can be looked at and questions can be asked about it. As with all other Government departments, the work that is being done by this Department is open to question by all those who want to ask questions about it. I can suggest only that the most convenient and expeditious way in which this information can be obtained is through the process of the Senate Estimates Committees because there the opportunity arises for all these questions to be asked. Of course, the departmental officers are ready at hand to provide the information. The other way open for the scrutinising of expenditure and the works upon which the money is being expended is through the traditional process of question and answer. While I well appreciate that Senator Wilkinson knows that, I do not think there is any additional answer which I can give to him.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2587

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 December (vide page 2234), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– The Opposition will not oppose the War Service Homes Bill 1971 at the second reading stage. The Bill is designed to increase the amount of loan that can be granted to an ex-serviceman from $8,000 to $9,000. It also amends other sections of the principal Act in relation to definitions of certain words. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) in this place, indicated that these definition alterations are for the purpose of making the administration of the Department easier. The Opposition does not propose to contest this aspect of the Bill in any way. Similarly, it does not intend to oppose clause 7, but I do draw the Minister’s attention to the second reading speech and ask him, perhaps in his reply or in the Committee stage, for a further explanation of what this proposed amendment is intended to do.

Senator Wright:

– To which amendment is the honourable senator referring?

Senator POYSER:

– I am referring to the amendment to clause 7, in respect of which the Minister said in his second reading speech:

Clause 7 provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act (section 30b), which will empower the Director, when he enters into possession of a property in pursuance of a warrant issued under section 30a of the principal Act to remove goods found in the dwelling-house and store them in a safe place and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods upon the expiration of a period of 3 months after the notice of the removal of the goods has been published. 1 am not clear from the information which was given in the second reading speech why this section is being added to the principal Act. I should like some elucidation on this matter because, on the surface, it would appear that the intention is to make it easier to evict persons who may be in arrears in payment of rent and to enable the Department, in cases where personal goods and other property have been left in the house, to recover moneys more expeditiously than it is able to do at the moment. Because it is not our intention to contest the inclusion of this provision in the Act, at this stage I ask simply that a more detailed explanation of the purpose of this section be given by the Minister.

Before I move further into the details of the Bill I should like to mention that I have received at least 5 telephone calls this week from 4 different States asking when this Bill will pass through the Senate. On each occasion the inference was that the Australian Labor Party was delaying the passage of the Bill. I deny that suggestion most emphatically. I cannot understand how the impression could have been created among estate agents and other persons in the community that we were responsible for delaying this legislation. I simply put on record that since Thursday of last week, the day after the Bill was introduced into the Senate, J have been ready to proceed in the debate on behalf of the Opposition. The reason for the delay in dealing with the Bill is that the Appropriation Bills were on the notice paper to be dealt with before this measure came before the Senate. There can be no criticism of the Opposition nor, I would suggest, the Government either because there has been a delay of 1 week in this Bill coining before the House or its being finally passed. lt is our intention in the Committee stages to move a number of amendments to which I shall refer in some detail during my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill in order to avoid, as far as possible, a repetition of debate during the Committee stages. 1 indicate further that unless there is some indication from honourable senators that there will be support for the amendments 1 shall perhaps seek the concurrence of the Committee to have the 5 amendments debated and voted on together so that we may expedite the passage of the legislation. In addition this will make it easier for ex-servicemen who obviously are waiting for the additional amount which the Senate will finally decide upon to pursue their applications with the War Service Homes Division for the purpose of obtaining a loan.

Having indicated our attitude to the Bill, I propose now to make what I believe to be a factual criticism of the measure. We believe that the Government has not gone far enough in increasing the amount available on loan by $1,000 from $8,000 to $9,000. This seems to me to be completely insufficient. The Opposition intends to move that the amount of loan be increased to $15,000. We have examined this matter rather closely and we believe that an Increase of $1,000 is contrary to the trend in house building and house purchasing throughout Australia. Even 2 years ago Victoria implemented State legislation to provide for a maximum advance of $.10,000 for the purchase of houses through housing co-operatives. We believe that a minimum of $15,000 is now required for all persons who seek to obtain loans through housing commissions. This figure can be arrived at readily by an examination of the cost of land and the cost of building. All honourable senators are aware of how these prices have skyrocketed over the last 2 years.

Although $15,000 may be adequate at present, the projected increases in costs which are revealed by an examination of documents that have been prepared by various organisations indicate that within a few months, and perhaps within not more than .12 months, land prices will sky-rocket to the extent that the purchase of a home will be almost beyond the financial ability of an ordinary person. This applies particularly to Sydney and, to a lesser degree, Melbourne. There are plenty of examples of this to be found in relation to the purchase of land, quite apart from the cost of building a house. The evidence is thai within 1.2 months $15,000 will be completely inadequate. J propose to quote from a report dealing with a study of land cost in Australia prepared by the Economic Research Department of the Housing Industry Association. Although I shall quote only briefly from this publication 1 shall later seek permission of the Senate to have the relevant sections incorporated in Hansard.

Referring first to the cost of residential allotments in capital cities the report includes tables showing the prices of land in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and the Australian Capital Territory indicating how land costs have been spiralling over a period of 2 years. I choose to select from this table suburbs from 2 cities only, Sydney and Melbourne. But this is not to say that the same pattern is not to be found in other areas. It is for this reason that 1 shall later seek the incorporation of the whole table. Referring first to Sydney, in Blacktown, which 1 understand is a working class suburb catering for people up to an artisan class and where the development of normal family homes is continuing, the price of land in 1969 was $3,300 a block whereas in 1971 it is $6,500 a block. In Liverpool, which also is an area in which people without great wealth are developing properties and in which ordinary citizens, such as we would find in an ordinary cross-section in any big city, choose to live, land costs in 1969 were $4,500 a block whereas in 1971 they have risen to between $7,500 and $8,000 a block. In Bankstown, in 1969 land could be purchased for $5,500 a block, whereas in 1971 it costs $10,000 a block. In Campbelltown land could be brought for 32,800 a block in 1969 but now it costs $7,900 a block.

Moving now to my own State of Victoria, 1 have chosen 3 suburbs only. They are typical of the developing suburbs which are inhabited by ordinary suburban dwellers. In Waverley a block of land could be bought in 1969 for between $4,000 and $8,000, whereas in 1971 the price is between $6,000 and $10,000. In the Doncaster-Templestowe area we find a similar pattern. In 1969 a block of land would cost between $4,000 and $8,000. whereas now it costs between $7,000 and $8,000. So the lower price bracket land in this area has increased in price from $4,000 to $7,000 within 2 years. That is for a block of land alone. In 1969 the cost at Springvale ranged between $3,700 and $5,000. It now ranges from $4,000 to $5,750. That increase is not as great as that indicated by the figures I cited earlier. A footnote to the report reads:

There are few areas within 20 miles of Melbourne in which developed blocks can be obtained for less than $4,000.

An ex-serviceman must pay that amount for a block of land before he is able to start the erection of a brick or weatherboard home.

I turn now to examine the statistics for the average cost of war service homes between 1965-66 and the current year. In New South Wales in 1971 the average cost of a war service home was $12,189; in Victoria $10,680; Queensland $12,149; South Australia $10,100; Western Australia $11,200; and Tasmania $11,700. When the cost of a block of land is added - I have given figures in relation to land costs - ‘the complete cost of land and a home will be between $16,000 and $ 1 7,000, in the very near future.

The Government is telling ex-servicemen that it will lend them only $9,000 for a home. It has been argued that the figure is lower than those that normally apply - for instance, I referred earlier to the figure of $10,000- -because of the low interest rate payable. I commend the Government for retaining the low interest rate of 3) per cent. I and other honourable senators have long advocated low interest rates for housing. The argument that seems to apply to war service homes is that a loan of only S9.000 is available because of the low interest rate payable. But if a house is to cost an ex-serviceman about $14,000, to purchase or to build - and that is lower than figures I gave earlier - after he has met the deposit requirements, a gap remains of between $2,500 and $3,000. He is therefore forced to obtain a second mortgage on which interest rates vary from a minimum of 10 per cent to a maximum of 131 per cent. I know of cases where interest is being paid at 131 per cent on second mortgages. The advantage obtained by a loan at 3i per cent interest for a war service home is more than offset by the high rate of interest that must be paid on a second mortgage and we therefore do not believe the Government has a valid argument in that respect.

If the Government genuinely wants to help ex-servicemen this scheme must be examined in much greater detail with particular attention to the costs of homes today. We have to be able to project into the immediate future the requirements of ex-servicemen. An assessment should be made of requirements within the next 12 months. I turn again to the document from which I have been quoting in order to indicate the tremendous increases in land prices that have occurred in a period of 10 years. If the trend continues, and I believe it will, a loan of $9,000 will be quite inadequate within 6 months and many ex-servicemen will be unable to apply for the loan as they will lack the capacity to arrange a second mortgage to meet all commitments.

The prices of new allotments developed in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in 1969 and 1970 by a major development company are set out in the report. In 1960 in Sydney the average price of land was $3,200 a block. In 1970 it was $8,000, or an increase of 150 per cent in 10 years.

Senator Webster:

– Will you accept a question on that point?

Senator POYSER:

– The honourable senator will have a chance to speak at the Committee stage.

Senator Webster:

– I know that you have the information there. Would you acknowledge that the price of a block of land today includes many of the services required by municipalities, whereas that was not so 10 years ago?

Senator POYSER:

– The document goes into great detail but I do not propose to delay the Senate by going into it at great length. The factor referred to by Senator Webster goes nowhere near explaining the full extent of the increase in prices. This report sets out details of those increases. I will come back in a moment or two to the matter raised by the honourable senator. In Melbourne the increase is 57 per cent and in Brisbane it is 52 per cent. I repeat that there are few areas within 20 miles of Melbourne in which blocks of land can be obtained for less than $4,000.

People going into those areas face many additional costs after establishing their homes. One such cost is sewerage. In Melbourne - I understand the position is equally as bad, if not worse, in Sydney - there are cities of the size of Townsville or Launceston which are completely unsewered. People buying land more than 20 miles from Melbourne must wait years for sewerage. My son has been waiting for 6 years for sewerage to be available in an area 8 miles from the Melbourne General Post Office and he still does not have it. The cost of getting sewerage connected is $1,000 or more. I appreciate that borrowers can again approach the War Service Homes Division for an additional loan to have sewerage connected, but in the initial stages a loan of $9,000 is inadequate.

I have in mind particularly young veterans returning from Vietnam. They will be forced to build homes inadequate for their needs. The average married couple regards a 3-bedroom home as necessary for a lifetime. Young people are building 2-bed- room homes in areas miles away from existing residential dstricts as they are able to buy cheaper blocks there. In the long term, when their familes come along, a lot of additional money must be spent to provide for them the services normally available on higher priced blocks. Many exservicemen, particularly the younger ones who are returning from Vietnam, will be prevented from applying for a loan. That is why we are critical of the increases of only $1,000 in the loan, lt should be further increased and we will move accordingly at a later stage.

One of the other amendments that we will be moving will seek to have serving members of the permanent forces included amongst those eligible to obtain a loan from the War Service Homes Division. An examination of the present position indicates that there are some notable exclusions in relation to persons who are able to obtain a loan at this stage. For example, there are naval personnel who on many occasions have travelled to Vietnam on HMAS ‘Sydney’ in particular. Because of the briefness of their slay and the fact that they are not technically considered to have been in a war zone, they are unable to make an application for a loan. Many personnel in the Royal Australian . Air Force who have flown to Vietnam on a number of occasions are in a similar position. Because they have not stayed in Vietnam for the period prescribed under the Act they are excluded.

But we are prepared to go even further in relation to members of the permanent forces who we believe should be able to obtain a loan to build a home. As an example, one case of which I am personally aware and on which I have made representations concerns an Air Force officer who, in order to obtain a home for his family, was forced’ to resign from the Air Force so that he could commute part of his Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund entitlement and thus have a deposit for the home. This was the only way in which he could supply a home for his family after, I think, 12 years of service in the RAAF. He did not desire to resign from the RAAF. He made inquiries about reenlisting immediately after he obtained this commutation of his DFRB Contributions. He found that if he re-enlisted he would drop one rank and receive a far smaller salary than he received in his former rank. He has gone into civilian life , and we have lost a key member of the. RAAF simply because he was not able to obtain a loan through the War Service Homes Division for the construction of a home.

He also sought, and failed to receive, a loan from the DFRB Fund. Although he had an equity of some thousands of dollars in that Fund by virtue of his long service in the RAAF such an equity is not made available to a serving member for the purpose of a loan for the construction of a home. Yet, as we all know - having probably made representations about it - DFRB funds are available as loans at some time or other to other organisations, such as water boards, sewerage trusts or municipal councils. These funds are available on application. Yet a man who has 12 years service is not able to obtain a loan for the purpose of purchasing a home. Our amendment will extend eligibility for loans from the War Service Homes Division to allow a member of the permanent forces to construct a home for his family and to live in it, and not be forced to resign as happened in the case of the RAAF officer to whom I have referred. We suggest that this amendment, when it is before the Committee of the Whole, be carried. 1 might inform the Senate of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has indicated that this aspect will be examined. I am a little fearful of these examinations by government. I do not make any direct criticism of the current Government in relation to this matter but it seems to take an interminable time to come to any kind of decision. I hope that something will be done in relation to this matter in the next autumn session of Parliament to allow servicemen to obtain loans through the War Service Homes Division.

We propose to move an amendment also in relation to the direction that the Minister is able to give to the Department on certain matters. We are suggesting that any major decisions of the Government to alter current policy in relation to matters associated with the Division be implemented by regulation so that they may be examined under the standing order of the Parliament which requires regulations to lie on the table for 15 sitting days; in this way Parliament can examine major alterations in relation to policy. I understand from my reading of this matter that the Minister has written to the Department on at least 5 occasions indicating a change of policy in various areas. We believe that the Parliament should have an opportunity to examine this type of thing. If a majority of members of this chamber or another House is convinced that the policy decision which has been made should not be implemented, it can be rejected. Finally, we propose to amend another section of the Act which pertains to the number of per sons who will be eligible for assistance because they have been struck by hard times in purchasing a home.

All in all, we wish to propose amendments to an Act which, I admit, has served the ex-servicemen of this country very well since 1918. The Act was passed in 1918 and came into force in 1919. It is an Act of Parliament which has served exservicemen very well over that whole period. Succeeding governments have continued to carry out this policy which has served exservicemen quite well in relation to the conditions of loans. This does not take away from the criticisms that I have made of the niggardly attitude the Government has taken on this occasion with respect to the maximum loan. I hope that the Government will consider these amendments which I have foreshadowed and indicate that at least some of them will be supported in the Committee stage. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the tables which I earlier indicated 1 wished to incorporate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Cost of residential allotments - Capital cities

The following figures show prices for residential allotments on newly developed estates in the major developing areas of the main capital cities. Figures are compared for 1969 and 1971.

Where comparable figures are not available for both years, because popular developing areas in 1969 have now been virtually used up, extra new areas (not widely developed in 19691 of similar quality have been listed for 1971.

A few premier residential sites still available in the Sydney waterfront area arc selling at $30,000 and upwards.

Prices have cased back and levelled out in Perth in the last two years. Even so. few areas offer blocks at less than S4,000, the medium price for new areas being around $4,500 to 55,500, with preferred areas to 58,000.

Prices of newly developed blocks in the more popular suburbs of Hobart are . around $4,000 to $4,500 (a few as high as $6,500),. although much cheaper blocks- some little more than $2,500- are available, mainly through the State Housing Department. The price of an average quality block would range from $3,000 to $4,000.

For comparison, average premiums paid at auction for residential allotments in Canberra in the early 1960s and the latest three years available, have been:

Since May 1970, annual land rents have been abolished in Canberra, and there have been fears that sharp price rises would occur in the cost of allotments. Average premium at unrestricted auctions in January 1971 was $4,242 and in March 1971 §3,697, compared with an average reserve price of $2,700.-

Prices of new allotments developed in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in 1960 and 1970 by a major development company are set out below.

The following figures show average lot prices in six capital cities for each of three price ranges - low,, medium and high - and how they have increased in the last three years.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I wish to add a few words to the remarks of my colleague Senator Poyser. Firstly, I endorse his remarks and commend the foreshadowed amendments to the Senate. An average of only 6,000 homes have been built by the War Service Homes Division in each of the 52 years since 1919. In fact, the position is a little better than that but not very much. The story has been circulated fairly widely by members of the Government parties that the Australian Labor Party has held up this Bill. There are dozens of people in the community today who are waiting for the increased loans so that they may be able to commence the building of a home. It was not the Labor Party which held up this

Bill. The Opposition moved amendments in the other place at the appropriate stage. Honourable senators will recall that 2 Government supporters decided that they would support the Australian Labor Party’s attitude. It was because of this that the Government decided to hold up the Bill.

The things that we have complained about still exist today. First of all, the total amount of the loan is completely inadequate in present circumstances. I think that this was clearly shown by the comparison which Senator Poyser made between the value of the loan and land prices today. That is something at which the Department of Housing may care to have a look in the future. In his second reading speech the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), said that loans are available without any waiting period. I can remember the previous Minister for Housing being under very severe fire in this chamber not so long ago because there was a waiting period for second-hand homes.

The first amendment which is to be moved by Senator Poyser in the Committee stage relates to the adding to the end of the definition of ‘Australian soldiers’ the words ‘and includes a serving member of the permanent forces’. This proposition has more support in the general community - it certainly has a great deal more support in the ex-service organisations - than I believe the Government would care to admit. I wish to quote from a letter which was forwarded by Mr Ben Price, the National Secretary of the Australian Legion of ExServicemen and Women - the second largest ex-service organisation in Australia- to responsible Ministers of the Government. Mr Price wrote:

We have always held the view that the granting of specal privileges to sections of the military forces on the basis of area of service is immoral because a member of the services in wartime is directed to wherever planning dictates, and in addition the principle is a bad one in that it engenders unnecessary frictions between groups and individuals not only during wartime but for as long as such legislation remains effective.

While war service loans were of course made available to those World War II ex-servicemen who had volunteered for service outside Australia whether or not they left these shores, there was also a group of conscripted army personnel who - by virtue of their being in a certain place at a certain time were sent overseas (mainly to

New Guinea) and became eligible for the loans. Surely the whole situation was ludicrous at that time and is completely untenable now.

Let me add to that comment by saying that a lot of the indigenous islanders to the north of this country also served in a war zone but they are not eligible for war service homes. A few months ago the Minister for Housing, in a letter to me, promised faithfully that certain amendments would be made to the War Service Homes Act. I interpreted his remarks to mean that this action would be taken during the life of this session. That promise has disappeared into the corridors of silence in which so many other Government promises disappear. The letter from Mr Price continues:

Each year we submit to the appropriate Minister the resolution of our National Congress to the effect that the eligibility for war service loans should be extended, and I quote, from the reply by the Honourable Kevin M. Cairns to the 197 1 submission in his letter dated 3rd November.

These arrangements have been reviewed many times by successive Governments but on each occasion it has been decided that, in view of the intention of the Scheme, there would be no change in the existing arrangements. I can see little likelihood of any change in the eligibility provisions of the Act in the foreseeable future.*

That is something the Minister for Housing said only a few weeks ago. The letter continues:

The intention of the ‘Scheme’ originated in the 1914-18 War when all who joined the Australian Forces went perforce overseas to form the Australian contingent of the British Army. A vastly different situation arose in 1939-45 when, approximately 45 per cent of all surviving enlistments had not been outside the country. In the vast majority of these cases it was no choice of their own which dictated that they should remain in back area training activities and while as before-‘ mentioned those who had volunteered for overseas service were in any case eligible for the low interest war service loans a further wedge is inserted by the Service Pension provision in the Repatriation Act.

While this may well be outside the scope of the present debate it could be relevant in that it lends force to the immorality contention of this Association. As you are no doubt aware the Service (sometimes called ‘burnt out’) pension is virtually the Aged Pension but administered by the Repatriation, instead of Social Service Department. Additionally it is granted 5 years earlier than eligibility for Aged Pension commences, to ex-service personnel with certain qualifications. In this case whether yea volunteered or not it is a requirement that you have served in a theatre of war to become eligible. Ignoring the value of the benefits conferred by eligibility for Service Pension, how can, one justify this type of differentiation. Legislation framed in the light of 1920 (even if it was then justifiable) must surely be open to question and amendment a quarter of a century later.

A further 25 years has now elapsed and still we have these anomalies existing. Governments are exercised throughout the world in attempting to heal division of colour, religion, education, etc., surely it must be arguable that here amongst such a small population Government decreed ‘divisionism’ is indefensible.

The case made out by Mr Price in that letter is one of the most logical cases I have seen made out in opposition to the restrictions placed on the availability of war service homes. I do not intend to go into a long debate on the amount of money available. But I thinkI should say that the Minister for Housing, who walks around with his head in the clouds and refuses to face reality, must come down to earth and realise that $9,000 will buy today only a little more than the stumps for a home and perhaps the front and back door, which means that bridging finance must be obtained from somewhere. As Senator Poyser said, this finance is available at an interest rate of between 12 per cent and 14 per cent. The working man who is in receipt of the basic wage or even a tradesman’s rate cannot afford to obtain a loan at that rate of interest, nor can a white collar worker on the lower rungs of the clerical scale, particularly if he has at the same time to support a wife and young children.

It is true that many of the people who went to Vietnam will never qualify for a war service home. As a matter of fact, I know that there were some people on the Hobart’ who at one stage thought they would never qualify for a loan, but they were very lucky because the Yanks dropped a bomb down the funnel and, as they had come under fire, they were able to qualify. The injustices which exist ought to be looked at. If the Government is concerned about the current state of public opinion - particularly among ex-servicemen and their dependants - about its policies it would be well advised to accept all the amendments which will be put forward by the Opposition.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I wish to indicate that the Australian Democratic Labour Party supports the Bill which is before the Senate. It is really a measure which seeks to give effect to a promise made by the Government in the Budget and, as such, my Party feelsthat it should receive the support of the Senate. But that does not mean, of course, that the Democratic Labour Party is, any more than anyone else, satisfied with everything the Government has sought to offer. Far be it from that. It is extremely doubtful whether the proposed increase of$1, 000 in the loan will be sufficient to cover the increased costs which have occurred in recent times. It could well be that a higher amount would be justified. But the Government did not promise a higher amount; if promised to take the loan to $9,000 and it introduced this measure with the specific purpose of giving effect to that promise. It is an increase and, as such, I have no doubt that it will be welcomed by those who are eligible for a war service loan.

Many things can be said about the purpose of the original War Service Homes Act. I suppose one would have to go back to the day and age when this very worthwhile proposition was first given effect by way of legislation tounderstand the reasons behind it, the feelings of the people at that time and the actual purpose of it. But it is apparent from the title of the principal Act itself that the war service homes legislation is designed to cater for a specific section of the community, that is, those people who have served in a war, which would not apply to all members of the armed forces. It could well he the case that a very good argument could be made outthat some assistance should be made available to those people who have served in the defence forces of this country at any time. Whether they should be brought within the scope of an Act which was deliberately framed to help those people who have served directly in a war zone is a matter that could be contentious. Whether the loan should be available to members of the defence forces who have not served in a war zone or whether it is possible to isolate a war zone today in the exact terms that were employed when the Act was first given effect after the 1914-18 war is very doubtful.

We appeal to the Government to give consideration to some of the more modern circumstances that exist today. We feel that one of the anomalies that exists today stems from the fact that the ideas of the world have changed and nations have agreed to form international organisations which are prepared to make available police forces to serve in countries that are likely to be concerned in a war. For instance, no consideration has been given to the members of the various Australian police forces who served in Cyprus. There were several casualties among the men who served there. Those men would go on virtually military patrols in the same way that Australian troops at war would go on patrols.

The Returned Services League considered the eligibility of these men to join that organisation. The League decided unanimously that the qualifications of the men were such that they were eligible to be admitted. But they are not eligible for a war service loan. If the principle of the Act is that it should cover persons who have served in a war zone - it deliberately covers not only members of the fighting forces but also members of the medical and nursing forces as well - it should cover these people who have given service in a war zone at the behest of the Australian Government. They are not brought within the ambit of the Act. We appeal very strongly to the Government to look at this set of circumstances. We are not being in any way critical because this has not been done, but we are drawing the attention of the Government to the fact that if we are to move with, the times the Act should be amended to cover these men. The Act contains certain provisions which grant assistance to people who have served the nation in a war zone. That is the fundamental principle. We should at least bring within the scope of the Act all who have so served.

If we wish, as the amendments of the Opposition propose, to give consideration to serving members of the permanent forces, perhaps there would be justification for a different Act which did mt go to the same lengths that this Act goes. We could discuss what constitutes war service. We must remember 2 things that happened in the 1939-45 war. We have to remember that this nation, to save itself, virtually had to arrive at a basis on which the whole nation was organised and was practically given defence service if not war service. We had a Civil Constructions Corps which was as regimented as members of the defence forces who did not leave Australia.

To the same degree people in industries were regimented in the interests of the nation and were giving service in the defence of the country, though in the industrial field. They were not permitted, to leave employment, to change employment or to seek increased wages - to do any of the things that may have disrupted the whole defence structure of the nation. If we are to devise a plan to set up a defence forces assistance scheme for homebuilding purposes, should these people be included also? I think this question would have to be considered and answered. Certainly we would like to consider it in depth, but at present we are making no suggestions to the Government on the amendments because we feel that we should be debating the Bill that is before the Senate.

We propose to support the Bill because we feel that it gives effect to the budgetary promises of the Government and, as such, should be passed speedily by the Senate. We draw the Government’s attention to what we consider to be a particular anomaly in relation to those who served this country, in places such as Cyprus, as members of an international police force. They were practically on military service. I propose to outline very briefly our reasons for not contemplating at this stage the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition. Some could have quite a deal of merit. To save time it is not our intention to speak on the amendments at the Committee stage. I think I have already dealt with the first amendment to be moved and have stated our view on it. The first amendment seeks to add to those eligible for a loan serving members of the permanent forces. This is a war service Act. If it is broadened to include any serving member of the permanent forces, it may be that some attention should be given to people whom I mentioned earlier. We do not feel that this comes within the scope of the Bill.

The second amendment seeks to increase the amount of the loan from $9,000 to $15,000. We see some dangers in this because the appropriation probably has made allowance only for a specific amount. To increase the loan that is available to each applicant could mean fewer loans, a long waiting period and much higher rates of interest on second mortgages for those who get a loan. I think it is recognised that the loan amounts to only a portion of what is required and that nearly all applicants need some form of subsidiary finance for at least a small proportion of the ultimate cost of the project. It is seldom that a home could be built merely with the initial loan. So the advantages of increasing the amount of the loan could be outweighed by the disadvantages.

Senator Wright:

– Only 77 per cent-

Senator LITTLE:

– I am not particularly familiar with all the rules and regulations but I do know, from mixing with people who are eligible for a loan, that many have loans in addition to the war service loan. They have to pay very high rates of interest to get off the ground. If the experience of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has been different from mine, I have no doubt that he will explain it to us. That has been my experience. Many are forced to take subsidiary loans. We regret that. If the amount of the individual loan were to be increased to the extent suggested most eligible applicants who want their loan now would be caught up in a waiting time and would have to take out an unsecured mortgage on which they would have to pay exorbitant rates of interest. The advantage of getting a loan at an interest rate of 3J per cent would rapidly be lost. Therefore, we do feel that, however much we believe that a case can be advanced for increasing the amount beyond $9,000, this is not the time nor is this Bill by which to do it.

The third amendment seeks to alter the status of the Minister in relation to the application of the Act. This has been Australian Labor Party policy on many similar issues. We have not agreed with it on those other issues, nor do we agree with it now. We feel that in an Act such as this ministerial discretion has an important part to play, and we wish to preserve it. We wish to go no further with the third and fourth amendments, because of the principle involved. We have made our stand very well known. We feel that the ministerial discretion should be retained in the Act. The fifth amendment is consequential upon the second amendment. Our objection to the fifth amendment is the same as our objection to the second amendment.

The sixth amendment seeks to add after the word ‘insane’ the words ‘or incapacitated’. There is a marked difference in people who are subject to stress. We admit that everybody is subject to stress for different reasons. We feel that where a person has become mentally affected there is a lack of capacity to make decisions. But in today’s modern society when a person becomes incapacitated there is not necessarily a lack of capacity to continue with his obligations under the Act. Indeed, if it were a motor accident or an accident which involved workers compensation which caused the incapacity of the purchaser and he was not able to meet his commitments it could be that immediately the court case is settled he is in a very eligible position to meet his commitments for housing. Social services are available to people who are incapacitated for various reasons. But in the case of mental illness we see a difference. Therefore we are quite willing to preserve the Bill as it is and leave out the amendment relating to incapacitated people. As the theme of that amendment runs through the other amendments associated with it, we also reject them. We are in favour of the Bill as it stands. In the Committee stage we propose to vote against the amendments.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I am grateful to honourable senators who have contributed to the debate to which I have listened with interest. I shall follow the course which was adopted by the other speakers of anticipating the Committee debate. Therefore, I shall deal with the amendments as honourable senators have dealt with them during this second reading debate. The first submission made by Senator Poyser was in relation to clause 7 which gives authority to the Director of War Service Homes, when he removes goods from a house of which he has taken possession under warrant, to remove those goods to a safe place, to have them stored and at the expiration of 3 months to have them sold. This provision applies to goods of which possession has been taken under a magistrate’s warrant or by arrangement with the owner. The Director never proceeds to take possession of goods adversely to the interests of an owner except by the warrant of a magistrate. In the first place, that is a pretty fair safeguard. The Department of Housing has been advised by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department that without this section the only safe course for the Director to take is to remove the goods on to the street. He is not entitled to remove them further or to sell them. It follows that to put the goods under proper protection is in the interests of both parties. So that the goods will not eat their heads off in storage charges the Director has power to sell. It is within the experience of anybody who has had to deal with this sort of occasion that long storage charges can more than offset the value realised by the proceeds of sale. Really, clause 7 can be looked upon as an ameliorating provision.

The next matter to which attention was called was the proposal that the limit of advance under this Bill of $9,000 should be further increased to $15,000. Senator Keeffe made some odd remarks in this connection. He said that figures showed that a very low number of houses had been made available to servicemen under this scheme. He imputed this situation to the restricted limit of the loan. T have no doubt that Senator Keeffe is aware that the figures do not work out as he purported to show. He took the full period of 1919 to 1971 and struck an average over that period. He would know that in the period from 1950 to 1971- that is the period that this Government has been in office - the number of war service homes made available was 256,640. In the proceeding period from 1919 to 1950 the number of homes made available was 62,936. It would have been much fairer for Senator Keeffe to have ignored that barren period when, for a few years, the Labor Party exercised authority and when this matter was its responsibility.

If honourable senators look at the period during which this Government has been operating the affairs of the nation they will find not an average of 6,000 homes a year - as Sentor Keeffe worked out - but an average of about 12,250 a year. I regret to say that Senator Poyser sought to establish an argument on this basis. I respectfully suggest that is a completely fallacious basis. It is quite true that this Parliament has passed the Budget and has thereby quantified the appropriation available for social service homes during this current year. If we contemplate the adoption of $15,000 instead of the $9,000 limit provided by the Bill we will see that there will be a reduction of about 3,000 in the number of applicants for homes this year. Instead of building 7,000 homes we would probably erect about 4,000. If anybody suggests that $9,000 is insufficient to give full finance, it should be remembered that the consent for any second mortgage loan under this Act is required of the Director. Therefore, we know when second mortgage finance is granted. The figures show that 77 per cent of the purchasers are able to finance their purchase without the aid of second mortgage loans. Those are relevant considerations to this proposition.

Senator Poyser seeks to further his argument on the basis of an increase in land costs. It really baffles my reason to know how that can be a logical argument. It is an unfortunate fact that in the cities the tendency has been for residential land costs to increase steeply. This only shows that gregarious humanity, with all the attractions of decentralised settlement in towns and country throughout the land, prefers to herd itself into Sydney, for example, and pay extravagantly high costs in congested areas rather than enjoy the hawthorn hedges out near Goulburn or Long- ford, or somewhere like that. That proposition will not appeal to Senator Poyser. But the point is that if there is an increase in land cost that does not mean that the war service homes scheme is to be focused upon that level of land prices. Under this scheme we are lending money at the very advantageous interest rate of 31 per cent at a time when farmers and others have to borrow their money at 8 per cent or more. It is quite obvious that it would be destructive of the war service homes scheme if we approved transactions related to those grossly inflated costs.

Let me give the Senate one instance which ought to occasion reflection and perhaps some expression of credit to the war service homes administrators in regard to this matter. As honourable senators know, the Division buys land and develops it for eligible persons. The land is then made available to the applicants at cost. Only today we released 229 serviced building allotments at Watsonia, about 10 miles from Melbourne. The land is being offered at prices ranging from $1,275 to $1,570. In the market it probably would have cost considerably in excess of those amounts.

We are able to give this advantage as a result of prospective purchases or buying ahead of the market. We do not pay rates, and the interest that we pay is less than what the outside market pays. Presumably, we are able to make better contracts for developing. So, honourable senators will see that, instead of extending the limit from $9,000 to $15,000 and making it an extravagant and burdensome mortgage for the applicant, we acquire the land, develop it economically and make it available at less than the fantastic prices to which Senator Poyser referred.

The next proposition that is involved in the Labor Party amendments is one which really defies understanding. The Labor Party wishes to introduce new words al the beginning of section 20 of the Act instead of the words that appear there now, namely.

Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may. upon application in writing . . . exercise certain powers. The sort of powers that are referred to are to erect a dwelling house, to purchase land, to purchase a dwelling house, to complete a partially erected dwelling house, to enlarge a dwelling house and to discharge any mortgage. In lieu of that power of the Director being subject to general directions on policy given in writing by the Minister from time to time, the Labor Party conjures up a most fantastic amendment, namely, that the Minister can operate in respect of those administrative or managerial matters only insofar as there are regulations. That is a complete abuse of the principle under which the Senate from time to time has called in aid the utilisation of regulations so that laws shall be enacted under which administration shall take place. If, as Senator Little said, the Minister were to be deprived of the right to act in an administrative capacity and if the Minister,’ every time he wanted lo send a letter on policy to his Director, had to go through regulations, it would be a most unfortunately benighted idea to include in the Act.

Lastly, there is an amendment to section 29aa, which was introduced specially to enable the Director to repair, to pay costs of maintenance, to build fences and so forth to keep in order a property which is apt to fall into disrepair because the owner unfortunately has been overtaken by mental incapacity. The advances the Director makes for maintenance and repairs are added to the loan and ultimately are recoverable from the owner. This is simply a position of custodianship. It is completely inappropriate to many cases of incapacity to which the Labor Party wishes to extend the measure. I do not think anybody would wish to intrude into those cases the custodial powers that are provided for in section 29aa.

With regard to Senator Little’s suggestion that the members of the police force on Cyprus should be included as eligible persons under the Act, 1 will see that that is brought to the notice of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) in the course of the consideration that he is giving to the proposition which was put in another place and which is repeated here, namely, that eligibility should extend to serving members of the forces. It has been pointed out sufficiently by Senator Little that the criterion on which eligibility depends under this Act is war service; that is to say, people who served in either of the 2 world wars, in Korea, in declared areas, in Vietnam or in Malaya. 1 remind the Senate that many times we have excluded people who served in a philanthropic capacity in those wars. It would be entirely inappropriate to include serving members of the permanent forces as such. Their inclusion would greatly erode the availability of the benefit to war veterans for whom the benefit of this Act is intended to be available.

At the present time the housing arrangements for serving members of the permanent forces provide for some married quarters in connection with their serving areas. Also, under the Commonwealth and State Housing . Agreement up to 30th June last there was a stipulation that 5 per cent of the money provided to the States be made available for housing for members of the permanent forces. Since then the Commonwealth has made a special appropriation which this year is of the order of $8. 5m as compared with the amount of about $3.75m under the agreement last year. If serving members of the permanent forces receive the benefit of a dwelling under that agreement, they receive it at a rent which does not exceed 15 per cent of their pay. So, the maximum rent payable by a private ranges from approximately$9 to$14 a week. If these houses are not available on their barracks site or under the Agreement and they are transferred and require private furnished accommodation, then they are entitled to receive financial assistance in the form of temporary rental assistance. The maximum allowance for that goes up to $17 a week.

That only leaves me to put up a plea, even though it will not be for the last time, that when we come into this place we have some care for the people who provide these appropriations because the benefits that are being given out double fisted for war veterans and permanent soldiers and civil servants are getting unbearable.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

- Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move all amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator POYSER:

– Three of the amendments seek to amend clauses 3, 4 and 5. The other amendments seek to insert new paragraphs or clauses. Clause 3 reads in part:

Clause 3.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of “ Borrower “ and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “ ‘ Borrower ‘ means a person who has received an advance orexecuted a mortgage or other security to the Director, and for the purposes of sections thirty a, thirty-one and thirty-six of this Act, includes -
  2. a transferee under section thirty-five of this Act of an estate or interest in the land or land and dwelling-house that was formerly the estate or interest of a borrower in relation to the land or land and dwelling-house; and
  3. the personal representative of a person who was, immediately before his death, a borrower in relation to the land or land and dwelling-house;”;

Clause 4 reads:

Clause 4.

Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (4.) the words “ Eight thousand dollars “ (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words “ Nine thousand dollars “.

Clause 5 reads:

Clause 5.

Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ Eight thousand dollars “ (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words “ Nine thousand dollars “.

I move:

  1. In clause 3, before paragraph (a), insert the following paragraph: - “(aa) by adding at the end of the definition of ‘Australian Soldier’ in sub-section (1.) the following words, ‘and includes a serving member of the permanent forces;’.”.
  2. In clause. 4, leave out “Nine thousand dollars”, insert “Fifteen thousand dollars”.
  3. After clause 4, insert the following new clause: - “4a. Section 20 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words ‘Subject to this Act and to the directions of the Minister as to matters of general policy, the Director may, upon application in writing’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘Subject to this Act, the Director may, upon application in writing, unless prevented by the regulations’.”.
  4. After clause 4, insert the following new clause: - “4b. Section 20a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “The Director shall not, except with the approval of the Minister’ and inserting in their stead the words’ The Director may, unless prevented by regulations’.”.
  5. In clause5, leave out “Nine thousand dollars”, insert “Fifteen thousand dollars”.
  6. After clause 5, insert the following new clause: - “5a. Section 29aa of the Principal Act is amended -

    1. by inserting in paragraph (b) in subsection (1.) after the word ‘insane’, the words ‘or incapacitated’; and
    2. by adding at the end of sub-section (1.) the following paragraphs:
    3. she is an eligible person and is the widow of an ineligible person; or
    4. she is an eligible person and her husband is temporarily or perirtanently insane or incapacitated; or
    5. in the case of an unmarried person he or she is temporarily or permanently insane or incapacitated; or.
    6. where a person is the sole purchaser or borrower, he or she, or his or her spouse, is temporarily or permanently insane or incapacitated’.”.

The argument was placed before the Senate by both Senator Little and the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) that a major reason why the amount could not be increased was that the appropriation for the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Housing had been set already, and that if amendment No. 5 were carried this would cut back the availability of housing. I draw to the notice of the Committee the fact that Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is now on the notice paper and it provides for an additional $30m for the wool industry. .1 do not quarrel with that but this is the third Appropriation Bill introduced and it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Government to introduce a fourth Appropriation Bill for the purpose of increasing the allocation for war service homes.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I made a plea to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) that the Government consider for inclusion those members of the State police forces who have served the Commonwealth in areas that can be described only as areas of war, although they may have been engaged in war prevention in places like Cyprus. I did not hear the Minister reply and I wonder whether he overlooked this matter.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I specifically said that I noted what Senator Little had said in that respect and that I would draw the attention of the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) to it. I said I had no doubt that he would consider the matter as part of the general consideration he is giving to extension of eligibility under the Act.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

– In supporting the amendments moved by Senator Poyser I would like to concentrate my remarks on amendments Nos 2 and 5. These are the amendments which would increase the amount of the loan from $9,000 to $15,000. I acknowledge, as I am sure all honourable senators do, the tremendous value that the war service homes scheme has been to those who have served Australia in the armed forces. I regret some of the remarks made by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) but I do not propose to answer them because of the time limitation. He seemed to indicate a fear that we may be acting ^responsibly in proposing to increase the amount available for this purpose which is set out in the Appropriation Bill. He said that we must have due regard to the people who always pay anyway - the taxpayers. The Minister seemed to imply that the Government - I am not concerned with its political flavour; it just happens to be the Government of the day - was just handing out money for which there would be no return.

I want to correct that idea because that is the impression that most people would draw. I refer honourable senators to the annual report of the Director of War Service Homes for 1970-71 which was tabled within the last day or so. On page 5 of that report, under the heading ‘Erection of Homes’, an indication is given of the increase in the cost of a home in only 12 months. The report states:

It has been the practice to include in the annual report particulars of the average cost of homes erected under the Act during the year, including the average cost of lots on which the homes were erected. These details in respect of the year ended 30th June 1971 are given in Appendices ‘L’ and M Appendix ‘N’ shows the average cost of all homes built or financed under the Act’ during 1970-71 and indicates that the average cost increased from $13,940 for 1969-70 to $14,821 for 1970-71.

That is an increase of about $900 in one financial year alone. To support that general observation by the Director I refer honourable senators to Appendix ‘L* on page 31 of this report. I do not propose to read the total average cost of homes erected each year since 1st July 1961 but the table shows - I may seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard in due course - that over the period of 10 years from 1961-62 to 1970-71 there have been overall increases averaging $4,000, $5,000 and $6,000 in the cost of erecting a home under the War Service Homes Act. I refer honourable senators to an example. In New South Wales in 1961-62 the cost of a block of land and the erection of a dwelling on it averaged $8,480. In 1970-71 the figure was $14,990.

Senator Wright:

– The honourable senator is now referring to Appendix ‘M’, not Appendix ‘L’.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes, I am sorry. I thank the Minister. This example is repeated again and again in the other States. This indicates that there has been a substantial increase in the cost of erecting a home under the War Service Homes Act

It is well to recall that the size of the loan available to eligible applicants under this Act was last increased in November 1968 when the figure rose to S8,000. 1 again draw the attention of honourable senators to Appendix ‘M’ and the column for New South Wales. We find thai in 1967-68, when the Government decided to increase the amount of the war service loan to $8,000, the average cost of a lot .and home in New South Wales was $11,388. Today, according to this table, the average cos’ is $14,990- an increase of about $3,600. All that the Government has seen, fit to do is to propose, to increase the loan by SI. 003 to a maximum of $9,000. It does not relate the size of the loan to the facts clearly indicated in the report of the Director of War Service Homes.

In addition, I think it is essential to support the view I expressed earlier. This is to be found on page 2 of the report of the Director of War Service Homes under the heading ‘Summary of (he Year’s Activities’ where there is a table which indicates that for the year 1969-70 the total expenditure on the provision of homes was nol less than $55m. In the same year, 1969-70, total receipts amounted to $77,911,042. I now direct the at’ention of the Committee to the year 1970-71. Total expenditure on the provision of homes for that year was $61m - it will be noted that 1 am referring only to these 2 specific items - while total receipts for that year amounted to not less than $78,483,262. This indicates that there is a substantial return on the investment from year to year. This year, according to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) on 17th August, the amount being allocated for capital purposes for war service homes has been reduced by $lm to $60m. but there is no reason to believe that results of the kind that were achieved in the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 will not -be repeated this year. Therefore, total receipts can be expected to be in the vicinity , of about $20m in excess of the amount allocated by the Government in the 2 previous years and in this current year.

To fortify what I have said already about what may be described as a revolving fund which is costing the Commonwealth nought in the final analysis, I direct attention to’ page 19 of the report of the

Director of War Service 1 forties where, under the heading ‘Financial Operations’ the following appears:

The U”>ta! capital expenditure order the War Service Homes Act from the inception of the scheme to 30th June 1971 ‘ no’”- stands at $1,426,749,842.

Receipts since the inception of the scheme to .’Oi.’i June 1971, including interest paid on relief expenditure, had now reached a tout of $994,605,695.

On balance it means, in effect, that since the inception of the war service homes scheme in approximately 1919, some 52 years ago, there is currently outstanding about $50Gm. But notwithstanding ‘hat. in my view the scheme is nothing more than a revolving fund with money going out and money coming in. What the Opposition “is say,ne to the Government is that notwithstanding that this Bill provides the legislative machinery to meet the i ii te ntions of the Budget, it is not impossible for the Government 10 review the situation, based on the facts that they have placed before it in respect to the maximum loan available. I am mindful - I remind the Senate of this fact - that the Budget was designed to provide for a. domestic surplus of $630m. I do not think that another S10m, $12m or SI 5m made available to those who are entitled to the provision of what the Minister, in his ‘ second reading speech, described as a very valuable repatriation benefit - war service homes - would cause any difficulty. This is something that the Government could well afford, something that would be genuinely appreciated and, in my view, something that would not interfere in any way with the availability of finance to meet the many responsibilities that the Commonwealth Government has to the nation as a whole. I commend to the Minister and the Government our proposals, particularly that designed to increase the maximum loan from the proposed $9,000 to $15,000.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I seek some information. If the Minister cannot give it now, I ask that he provide it to mc by letter. What is the percentage of ex-servicemen who purchase land from the War Service Homes Division compared to the percentage who purchase land privately and then make an application for a loan?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I will have to refer this matter to the Department, butI will be happy to do so.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Poyser’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse)

AYES: 23

NOES: 29

Majority…… 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2602

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 December (vide page 2237), on motion by Senator Drake-Broekman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to raise loan moneys in order to make $4m available for war service land settlement in

South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Although the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, we intend to move an amendment. The Australian Labor Party considers that some aspects of the war service land settlement scheme should be examined to see whether some of the problems which face settlers who have received assistance under the scheme can be rectified so that similar problems will not be experienced by settlers under any future similar scheme. At this stage I move as an amendment to the motion that this Bill be now read a second time:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that a Joint Select Committee should be appointed to evaluate the operation of the war service land settlement scheme in Australia and to recommend guidelines for any future land settlement scheme’.

There have been many problems associated with the scheme and some of them have not yet been ironed out, as honourable senators will become aware during the course of my remarks. It has always been the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to raise the whole of the capital moneys required for the operation of the war service land settlement scheme in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The money raised on an annual basis for the purpose of the scheme is to finance capital works in connection with drainage pipelines and other projects which might be contemplated. The money which is to be provided to South Australia is to be spent in the Loxton area, which is in the Upper Murray region of South Australia. All honourable senators will be aware that Loxton is one of the main fruit growing areas of the Commonwealth. The area consists mainly of holdings which were allotted to ex-service settlers under the war service land settlement scheme which came into operation on 11th October 1945, at which time legislation providing for the scheme received royal assent.

I should point out that the scheme which began on 11th October 1945 was not a continuation of the land settlement scheme which was set up after the 1914-18 war but was a new scheme in which an attempt was made to iron out many of the problems that faced settlers who had received holdings under the first scheme. It attempted also to avoid many of the mistakes that had been made with the earlier scheme by providing training programmes, advisory services and finance. Many settlers’ who had received assistance under the scheme have been successful, some have not been so successful and some could not make a go of it at all. Under the land settlement scheme which began in 1945 there was an allocation of 3,047 blocks in New South Wales, 3,048 blocks in’ Victoria, 410 blocks in Queensland, 1,021 blocks in South Australia, 1,010 blocks in Western Australia and 552 blocks in Tasmania.

There was a variation in the number of blocks allotted to the various States and a variation in the size of blocks allotted, ranging from 300 acres to blocks of more than 1,000 acres. The considerations which were taken into account in determining the size of blocks included matters such as rainfall, soil type and, more important, the type of product for which the block was to be used. For instance, a block used for dairying or fruit growing would not need to be so large as one used for the production of wheat or for grazing purposes. It was necessary to give consideration also to a settler’s needs to enable him to carry on with a viable holding. The viability of this scheme has over the years continued to come before the Parliament for consideration. Originally it was believed that the scheme would become viable - and that additional funds would not be required from the Government, but because of rising costs, the loss of overseas market and greater competition it has been necessary for the Government from time to time to supply finance to enable a continuation of works in connection with the scheme.

No doubt all honourable senators are aware that over the years the war service land settlement scheme has faced serious problems, particularly in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Among these problems have been drought and other climatic conditions and a fall in the price of wool. These factors have severely affected the ability of some settlers to pay their way, especially as many of them were dependent on wool production. Most of the settlers increased their production but in spite of that their returns are lower in proportion to the level reached. Many settlers have found that their incomes have been reduced, even though production has increased. This situation was brought about, as honourable senators know, by the fall in prices, particularly for wool. Many settlers had little opportunity to diversify into other forms of production because of climatic conditions, transport costs and lack of facilities. These conditions particularly apply to Kangaroo island in South Australia and also to the Bass Strait islands off the Tasmanian coast. Farming conditions on those islands differ from those on the mainland. Farming under island conditions has special difficulties which do not apply to mainland farms.

I will not go along with the argument that the problems and difficulties facing soldier settlers were not confined to them but were’ prevalent right throughout the primary industries. 1 believe that soldier settlers have problems which do not exist in other fields of primary production, lt is true that ex-servicemen who wanted to go on the land were given an opportunity to do so. it is also true that many settlers made a success of their holdings. Other settlers have just held their own, but in doing so they have faced many severe problems.

In spite of the fact that war service land settlers were carefully selected and trained I think all honourable senators will recognise that some of them would not measure up to average management efficiency and would be inclined to failure through no fault of their own. Difficult marketing had found the poorer managers wanting. A lack of experience, poor planning and the drastic change in financial returns caused many of them to dispose of their properties.

One of the most vexing problems facing farmers, apart from those already outlined by me, was the long delay in fixing the rents that the settlers were required to pay on their blocks. I think it was in 1967 that legal proceedings on behalf. of the settlers were brought in South Australia and judgment was given by Mr Justice Bright. The case in point was Heinrich v. Dunsford. Mr Heinrich stated that his rent was fixed at $400 per annum and claimed that that was the amount that he had to pay right through the term of his lease. Honourable senators know what a long drawn out case it was. At page 6 of his judgment Mr Justice Bright said that properties purchased for the settlement of ex-servicemen had been zoned according to the similarity of the types of country and until all holdings had been allotted and re-valued in accordance with the War Service Land Settlemerit Agreement the rental could not be finally fixed. To enable payments to be made so that arrears would not accumulate the Department fixed a provisional rental of .$400. Mr Heinrich claimed that that was his correct rental. However, it was also stated in the agreement that it was only a provisional rental and it could be increased later.

One of the conditions of the allotment was that no rental or payment on account of advances would be charged during the first 12 months after allotment. This would be called an assistance period. In the case of Mr Heinrich the assistance period ended on 30th March 1954, but in 1963 he received a letter from the Director of Lands informing him that the State and Commonwealth governments had reached an agreement on the final rental and charge for structural improvements. The final rental was fixed at $962 per annum as from 1st May 1963. That is more than double the amount that Mr. Heinrich was notified that bis rental would be. We also must take into consideration that that rental was fixed 9 years after the end of the assistance period. Mr Heinrich objected and refused to sign the lease on those grounds.

Mr Justice Bright in his judgment also found that the proper method of fixing the rental for the petitioner’s land was to assess the value in terms of paragraph 5 of the conditions set down by the Department; that is, to take 2i per cent of the capital value with the adjustments provided therein. Page 22 of the judgment sets out the reasons for Mr Justice Bright’s decision. I will quote from the judgment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is this germane to the Bill before the Senate at the moment?

Senator DRURY:

– I think it is germane to the amendment I have moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– The amendment deals with the war service land settlement scheme in Australia but the Bill deals with South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Senator DRURY:

– But the amendment I have moved seeks the setting up of a Senate select committee and I am giving the reasons why the. Labor.’ Party seeks that committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would be grateful if you would get to it. . “ Senator DRURY- 4 think this is germane to the Bill. His Honour said:

So the rent was to be 2i per cent of a capital value based on productivity.; with some prescribed deductions and additions. ‘. This seems definite enough. It is to be noted again that the valuation of capital in para. 5 (5) refers to ‘that part of the total cost’ and it seems to. follow that the productivity value can never exceed the total cost and that in consequence the rent can never exceed 21 per cent of the cost or productivity value, which-‘ ever is the lower.

Further on in the. judgment the judge spoke along these lines continually. Since the institution of the scheme no final decision has been made on the matter of rentals. Last Monday I was approached by soldier settlers from the southeast of my State to see whether it would be possible during the course of this debate to ask the Minister to finalise the question of rentals. The settlers are upset, and I believe they are entitled to be, because of the apparent lack of interest shown by the Minister and the undue delay in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. I have been given 2 documents and, rather than, waste the time of the Senate in reading them, I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. The first document is a letter that was sent to Dr Rex Patterson, the Labor shadow Minister for Primary Industry, to see whether he could do something about speeding up the finalisation of the question of rentals. The other document is a letter that was sent to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). Both letters are dated 20th November 1971.

The PRESIDENT:

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

PRIVATE BAG 33, MILLICENT 5280. 20th NOVEMBER, 1971

Dr. Rex Patterson, Parliament House, CANBERRA. A.C.T.

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed a copy of a tetter to the Minister for Primary Industry.

The farms, the subject of the dispute were alloted between 1951 and 1959 under the War Service Land Settlement Agreement Act 1945.

Approximately twelve months after allotment the settlers were told that a provisional rental had been fixed and would apply until final costs of development were known, a final rent would then be fixed based on either cost or productive value whichever was the lower.

This final rent was fixed in May 1963 increas ing the rent as much as 300 per cent.

As a result of the settlers protests the then minister of Land in South Australia appointed a committee of inquiry led by Mr Tom Eastick the chairman of the R.S.L. in South Australia. The committee’s report was handed to the minister in December 1963. In February 1964 he told my committee that the settlers claims had been substantially upheld by the Eastick Committee Report and he would therefore take action to rectify, the position.

Later we were advised that the South Australiancabinet approved the adjustments recom- mended and the proposal had been sent to the Federal authorities.

The Commonwealth rejected the proposals except in the case of the Glenroy Forest Area where the rent was fixed at the appropriate level. In November 1964 we issued writs against the South Australian Minister of Lands in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

After considerable legal manoeuvring the case was heard as a petition of right in the Supreme Court of South Australia. A declaration was handed down by his honour Mr Justice Bright on September 8th 1970, requiring the Crown to fix the rent at 2½ per cent of a just valuation.

After considerable discussion between the state and Commonwealth officers, it was decided that it was not possible to make a valuation consistent with the judgement, using the methods required by the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth then made an offer of a direct reduction of 40 per cent in the rent previously assessed. This offer was rejected by the settlers representatives and after further discussions the state offered to contribute an additional $106,000 from State funds, to bring the rents down to the level recommended by the Eastick Committee.

A general meeting of the Settlers then considered this proposal and responding to the very genuine attempt by the state to settle the matter decided to accept the proposal subject to certain amendments removing anomalies created by the Eastick Committee recommendation.

These amendments would require the Commonwealth to contribute a further $150,000, approximately, to the write down. This proposal was accepted by the State subject to Commonwealth approval.

It is the long delay in receiving a reply from the Commonwealth that has prompted my, letter to the minister.

As no lease can be issued without the rent having been fixed the settlers do not have access to the equity they have built into their properties since allotment nor are they eligible for assistance under the Rural reconstruction scheme.

This situation coupled with the present rural recession is causing considerable embarrassment to some settlers andI ask that you examine the situation to ascertain if you can do anything to help us bring this very prolonged dispute to an end.

Any further information you may require will be made available promptly.

Yours faithfully

  1. V. MATTHEWS, Chairman. Zone 5 Settlers Investigation Committee. Phone: Furner 34 3084

Private Bag 33. MILLICENT 5280 20th November, 1971

The Minister of Primary, Industry

page 2605

CANBERRA

A.C.T

Dear Sir,

I wish to draw your attention to the continued proscrastination of your office in the matter of rent fixation for W.S.L.S. leases in zone 5 South Australia.

A proposal made by thesettlers to the South Australian Minister of Lands was posted to your office on the 24th September, 1971.

Despite appeals by our minister Mr Kneebone, the Member for the District, Dr. Forbes, and myself, no answer has yet been received.

Through Dr. Forbes’ office I was placed in contact with Mr Calhoun on the 30th October, and he said the reply would reach Adelaide by the 3rd of November. On the 4th of November I rang Mr Calhoun again and was told that due to holdups the reply would be delayed until the 10th of November. On that date and again next day I rang your office and was told that a departmental officer would contact me, and later Mr Calhoun rang to tell me that he had almost finished his report and the answer would definitely be in Adelaide by the 17th of November. I request that you give this matter your immediate attention.

Yours faithfully, C. V. MATTHEWS

Senator DRURY:

– My Party believes that the only way to examine the war service land settlement scheme thoroughly is to set up a committee, as I have proposed in my amendment. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I rise to support this Bill which provides for the raising of loan moneys to the extent of $4m for the purpose of making advances to settlers to cover current working costs for the purchase of stock and replacement plant, and for certain capital works requirements under the provisions of the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act. There are about 1,000 blocks of land in South Australia under this scheme - on Kangaroo Island, quite a lot of which has been set aside under the scheme, in River Murray irrigation areas and in areas in the southeast of South Australia. There have been instances of quite outstanding success achieved by some of the settlers. There have been instances of heartache and heartbreak in the case of some of those settlers who took up what was offered to them under this scheme. It appears to me that in those instances Where things have not gone so well, lack of capital or not having any equity at all originally was the base cause of the troubles. I appreciate that it was a correct attitude for the Government to adopt not to debar any applicant for a block of land because of his lack of equity or capital.

This is a very good policy.

Some of those settlers who were allotted lands which were not the best in background for the production of the commodities which it was proposed to produce on these lands, to my mind were not able to make the grade because of the difficulties inherent in their particular situations. The result is that there is in some instances a real requirement of Government assistance to this day. The moneys to be allotted to the 3 States under this Bill are $1,683,000 to South Australia; $1,600,000 to Western Australia; and $717,000 to Tasmania. In toto that is roughly the amount we provided a year ago for a similar purpose. So it can be seen that there is a continuing requirement for this money. We have been hoping for a long while that possibly the horizon would clear and that the requirement for assistance would be smaller. But with the adverse conditions at the present time in the rural sector of the economy there is a requirement that this assistance continue.

It is good to see that there are capita) outlays in regard to headworks, block drainage and so on in the irrigation areas of the regions of the Murray in South Australia. I understand that we are reaching a stage there where all that is needed in capital work under the land settlement scheme is being provided. But once we have all the backgrounds for these areas, I feel there still will be need to have a very close look at assistance to those settlers who could be put in a better position through access to further lands - perhaps lands which are bordering or adjacent to their holdings. I am pleased to note that in relation to South Australia the Minister gave consent - it would have to apply to the whole of the scheme because benefits which do not apply generally cannot be given in one particular area - to a provision whereby when leases are surrendered the remaining settlers will have the first option to purchase at a valuation set by the Lands Department in my State in conjunction with the federal authority. But the complaint has been that the valuations were too high and were not providing a background from which a viable unit could be expected. I believe that this sort of disappointment could well be sought to be overcome.

I would rather see more definite action taken to meet a given situation. I believe that everything possible should be done more or less in one fell swoop and then it should be said: ‘That is as far as we can go’. The settler, in the full realisation that he has received all he can reasonably expect to receive, would then be in a position to know that if he could not make a go of it he would have no further access to assistance. I believe that it is necessary to be generous in the first instance to ensure that the backgrounds are present. In that way a person would be able to say: ‘I have been given all the assistance I expect to be given and I have not succeeded. Therefore, I will be content to get out of it’. But I do think it is necessary to view in a very practical way the problems which from time to time confront settlers. I am not saying that in a destructive way; 1 am seeking a constructive attitude to remove those complaints that one hears to this day in certain sectors of the settlement scheme.

I have received from the soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island some suggestions as to matters which should be looked at from the angle of providing assistance to those settlers. They have indicated that basic to the proposals they have placed before me for my presentation to the Parliament is the inherent aim of the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act . to rehabilitate ex-servicemen successfully. The achieving of this objective is the fundamental purpose of these proposals. I believe that definite and prompt action has to be taken from time to time to ensure that success is achieved and that the settlers emerge to a position of freedom from control and direction in a given time.

One of the recommendations put forward by the body of settlers on Kangaroo Island was that the annual rent be applied as an instalment towards the freehold and that the instalments be retrospective to the date of the present occupiers taking up their leases, lt is said by the settlers that that would greatly increase their incentive and that it would be of the greatest ultimate advantage to the settlers and their heirs. The settlers want to get out of their indebtedness and they want the annual rent to be regarded as an instalment towards freehold. The settlers say that that would achieve the really basic requirement of freedom and proprietary ownership in a reasonable time. They have suggested that the War Service Land Settlement Act be amended to permit lessees to introduce members of their family as partners in the equity of the holding - sharing the responsibility that would apply in a normal perpetual lease - and that the partners or the dependants of the original war service lessee should have the opportunity of enjoying the same opportunities as would apply to the original lessee. It is considered imperative in support of this suggestion that, in particular, sons should be given the opportunity to acquire an interest in the responsibility for and equity of the lease.

We hear continually of the national concern about the drift of young people to the cities from pastoral areas. In the situation to which I am referring - that is, Kangaroo Island - there is an acute problem in regard to the employment of young people. There has to be an incentive for them to stay on the Island. It is basic that they be given an opportunity to do so. A couple of brothers who are required to work on their father’s holding for goodness knows how long without the recompense to which they would be normally entitled should be given some equity for their efforts. The collective efforts of a father and his sons should ensure that the asset belongs to the family in due course. Some compensation has to be given for the work which is put in on war service land settlement holdings by members of a family. lt has been suggested that compensation should be paid for losses incurred on -the

Island arising from the effect of yarloop clover on the breeding capacity of the sheep. The yarloop pasture is dominant in lots of the holdings through no fault of any of the holders. Money is required to remove it from established pastures and to renovate those pastures, lt has been suggested that action is required to be taken urgently if the severely affected properties are to remain viable entities. The cost on. Kangaroo Island of replacing breeding stock from the mainland greatly increases the financial burden on the settlers, and the value of aged and surplus stock from these affected areas, if saleable, naturally is greatly reduced. I should be grateful if the Minister for Primary Industry would have a look at these points and give some information on them in due time. 1 feel that replies to these sorts of suggestions would be greatly appreciated by the settlers themselves. They could well clarify some situations which are now, in the minds of the settlers, not constituting a very contented and happy background.

A further matter I should mention is a suggestion which was put forward in regard to depreciation on plant. In areas where there has been very hard clearing to be done costly machines have been required and there has been greater wear and tear on those machines. It is suggested that an amount of some dollars per acre be credited to the plant account of the settler to offset the cost of regrowth clearance, the establishment of new pastures.

I believe that there is a lot of merit in the amendment proposed by Senator Drury. The war service land settlement scheme in Australia could well be evaluated by a committee of inquiry, but I am not very enamoured of the idea of it being evaluated by a joint select committee. I think that the Government could determine the authority to which such an inquiry should be entrusted. It could well be one of the Senate standing committees. At this stage a number of references of very wide ranging interests, importance, and requirement in research have been made to the Senate committees. I feel that this is not the time to add to the number of inquiries but that we should bear this matter in mind so that as soon as the appropriate committee is free to look at and consider the matter it can do so. I support the Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– ls the amendment seconded?

Senator Wilkinson:

– I second the amendment.

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

– I thank the Senate for the expeditious manner in which it has dealt with the Bill and for the attention given to it by those who spoke in the debate. As Senator Laucke said, each year a similar Bill is introduced to provide money for carry-on expenses on certain developmental works in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania in regard to war service land settlement properties. Both speakers in the debate come from South Australia. Both mentioned the problems in that State. I can well understand their concern for the war service land settlers upon whom these problems have considerable effect. I point out to the Senate that the original war service land settlement legislation was enacted in 1945, and some of the original settlers moved onto their properties in about 1946.

I draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that there is only one scheme - that is, the one with which we are dealing - in which the Commonwealth is really involved. In Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania the Commonwealth provided all the capital and the States shared some of the losses. On the other hand, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria provided the capital and the Commonwealth agreed that it would share the losses with the States. That is why I find the amendment moved by Senator Drury on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to be a little illogical. What authority has the Commonwealth to say to the governments of Queensland, New South Wales or Victoria that there will be a royal commission into their war service land settlement schemes? I think the Commonwealth would be told to get out. It could not look at the war service land settlement schemes in those 3 States, lt is quite true that it would be able to look at the war service land settlement schemes in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.

I return to one of my opening remarks. Some of the original settlers were on their properties in 1946. They have had since that time, including during the wool boom, to get established. Many are placed very well financially’ at present. Many pay rents which, by today’s standards, are very low. Many have had very attractive offers for their properties: Some have accepted the offers and have got out with substantial capital gains. So I do not believe that the problem is as bad as honourable senators say it is, when the whole period of the scheme is taken into consideration. Where it is bad- is where the newer settlers have gone onto the land and costs have started to rise. They have gone onto blocks that they have had to develop. As a result, they have had considerable costs. They have gone onto the blocks at a time when prices for primary products are’ falling considerably.’ So these settlers are finding it very difficult to make ends meet.

I point out to honourable senators that this situation, pertains not only to war service land settlers but also to all those engaged in. primary industries. All primary producers, whether they be on war service land settlement blocks or on farms in any part of Australia, are experiencing the problems that these land settlers are experiencing. The problem is facing all primary producers. So these people of whom the honourable’ ‘ senators spoke should be treated in exactly the same way that ordinary primary producers are being treated. The Government is trying to help primary producers by deficiency payments, by the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission, by reconstruction loans and by rehabilitation or retraining schemes. For those reasons I oppose the amendment. The strange part about it is that I think the Opposition is supporting the Bill. Whilst it seeks to add to the motion for the second reading of the Bill the words that in the opinion of Senate a royal commission should be appointed, the Opposition has nothing against the Bill.

What will happen if the Bill is passed? The money will be made available. Of the total $1,683,000 that is being made available to South Australia, $1,233,000 is for credit facilities - in other words, for carryon expenses. The remaining $450,000 is made available for developmental work - the very necessary drainage work in the Upper Murray region of South Australia and irrigation headworks. This is very necessary work. The trees have been planted. I understand that if the drainage works are not completed the salt table could rise and kill all the trees. The work must go on. If the Senate expressed the opinion that a royal commission should be established the Government might have a look at the situ*ation and say: *In the light of the recommendation to establish a royal commission should we go on with the work?’ I just ask that question. I have not yet spoken to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) about the amendment). These are the kinds of matters that could arise. I oppose the amendment.

I make brief reference to a couple of matters that Senator Drury raised. I refer to the important matter of the valuations for rent purposes in zone 5. I think Senator Drury and other South Australian senators, particularly Senators Laucke and Davidson, have asked questions in the Senate about this matter. The information I have is that the valuations for rents were fixed in 1963.

Senator Young:

– You forgot me.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am sorry; I include the honourable senator. The valuations for rents were fixed in 1963 on what was believed to be a proper basis and one which the Commonwealth still considers can be supported as fair. The Supreme Court of South Australia found that the rents were not properly’ notified, but it made no finding on whether they were properly fixed. Attempts made to test the valuations against general principles laid down by the Supreme Court gave no clear result. On one view of the principle kid down in the judgment, a literal application of them would result in obvious and gross inequities as between settlers. In an endeavour to reach a settlement which would end the matter, the Commonwealth and the State agreed on an offer which would be applied, if acceptable by all settlers. It would have involved a write off of development costs of around $11/4m to be shared between the Commonwealth and the State on a 60-40 basis. The settlers rejected this proposition out of hand. The Commonwealth has before it further proposals from the State involving an additional capital write down of up to another $250,000. On examination so far these proposals seem to involve inequities between settlers. The examination by the Common wealth will be completed and an answer given to the States as soon as possible. Public moneys are involved and a responsible attitude to the matter must obtain.

Senator Laucke made the point that it has been said that the Act should be amended to allow families to go into partnership on a property or in a business. To my knowledge this matter has been raised many times over the years, both from a settler’s point of view and by honourable senators. The Government’s attitude in this matter has always been that this responsibility was given to ex-servicemen because of war service. Therefore the Government believes that it should not open it up to members of his family. Whether we will ever see the day when the Government will change its view, I do not know. I shall certainly mention the matter to the Minister and let him examine what the honourable senator has said. No doubt, in due course, the Minister will drop the honourable senator a line saying what the results of his examination have been. The Government has always stood firm on this point over the years.

The last matter I want to mention is in relation to Kangaroo Island. Senator Laucke raised this matter. The note I have states that it is an island located about 100 miles south east of Adelaide. There were 170 farms developed on the island. I think that three or four of them were old established farms and the rest were newly developed farms. Approximately 135 are still occupied by war service land settlement lessees. The balance have been transferred to other persons. All farms are leased for sheep breeding, fattening, wool growing and some cattle breeding with minor cereal growing mainly for fodder purposes. The settlers’ current problems arise from the wool industry situation but there are some special stock problems because of the introduction of yarloop subclover. This is giving rise to clover disease in sheep with associated low lambing percentages and losses. These problems are currently under investigation. Also there are transport problems because of the island’s location. The uncertainty regarding the continued operation of the motor vessel ‘Troubridge’ has been removed by the South Australian Government’s decision to purchase a vessel at the end of this financial year. The other points which the honourable senator makes I shall draw to the Minister’s attention. I ask the Senate to reject the amendment and support the Bill.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2610

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1971

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments.

Clause 3.

This Act is divided into Parts, as follows:

Part IV. - Predatory Pricing and Monopolisation (Sections 35-36).

Part IV. - Predatory Pricing and Monopolisation.

Clause 38. (1.) Practices of the following kinds are examinable practices for the purpose of this Act:

’ in or in connexion with the acquisition, or possible acquisition, of goods by a corporation from a person, inducing or attempting to induce that person to accept terms as to price or any other matter or conditions, including collateral conditions, that are more favourable to the corporation than those upon or subject to which that person is willing to supply goods ‘of the same kind and quantity to business competitors generally of the corporation, where the more favourable terms or conditions are, or would be, likely to lessen substantially the ability of a person to compete with the corporation;

in the supply of goodsor services, knowingly discriminating, directly or indirectly, against competitors of the. purchaser in that any discount, rebate, allowance, price concession or other advantage is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance; price concession or other advantage that is available to such competitors in respect of a supply of goods or services of like quality and quantity;

House of Representatives’ amendment

No. 1.

Clause 3, omit ‘Part IV. - Predatory Pricing and Monopolisation (Sections 35-36).’.

House of Representatives’ amendment

No. 2.

Omit Part IV.

House of Representatives’ amendment

No. 3.

Clause 38 (1.) (a), after ‘person’ insertby any express or implied threat or promise’.

House of Representatives’ amendment

No. 4.

Clause 38 (1.), omit paragraph (b).

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

When this Bill was first considered by the Senate a number of amendments were made to it against the wishes of the Government. The Bill as passed by the Senate has now been amended in the other place which did hot see fit to accept the changes made by the Senate. The effect of the amendments made in the other place is to delete from the Bill the provisions creating offences of predatory pricing and monopolisation and an examinable practice of discriminatory pricing by a supplier of goods or services. Some words omitted by the Senate from the provision relating to the obtaining by a buyer of preferential terms are also re-introduced.

When the Bill was first before the Senate I indicated the reasons why the amendments were not acceptable to the Government. I do not propose to canvass these reasons again in detail at this stage. Briefly, Mr Chairman, the position is that the Government cannot accept the amendments made by the Senate because those amendments are not compatible with the other provisions in the Bill. The defects in the provisions go beyond matters of drafting. If they had been just a matter of drafting, they could have been attended to. But the amendments attempt to strengthen the Act in particular ways and in particular areas without regard to the consequences they would have upon the operation of other provisions in the legislation. In consequence, Mr Chairman, the amendments would have precisely the opposite effect to that which was intended. They would weaken the operation of the legislation rather than strengthen it.

Leaving aside the question whether the overall effect of the amendments would be to strengthen or weaken the legislation, it is clear that the new provisions would inject a great deal of uncertainty into the legislation. This uncertainty is not something which could be cured by mere drafting. lt involves much more fundamental questions. For example, the monopolisation and predatory pricing offences overlap the existing examinable practice of monopolisation contained in clause 38. The consequence of this would be to make the existing provision completely ineffectual. In place of that provision there would be 2 new offence provisions. These provisions are cast in very broad language and would give rise to many questions of interpretation which it would be quite inappropriate to leave in provisions creating criminal offences - and offences, what is more, carrying heavy penalties.

If there are to be provisions creating criminal offences then the Senate will, I am sure, agree that there should be the minimum of uncertainty as to the meaning and operation of the provisions so that people wishing to comply with the law can regulate their conduct accordingly. There are, of course, great problems in the case of monopolisation in defining the practice with this desirable precision. It is for this reason, Mr Chairman, that the trend in other countries is to place more emphasis on civil procedures under which monopolisation can be restrained, where appropriate, either by a court or a body such as our Trade Practices Tribunal.

As for the predatory pricing provision, it poses quite an acute problem of drawing the line of demarcation between keenly competitive pricing, which is the aim of the legislation, and predatory conduct which is open to objection. Because of the difficulty in drawing this line of demarcation there is once again much to be said in favour of making the practice restrainable by some means of civil procedure rather than prohibiting it as an offence. Predatory pricing is, in fact, already dealt with in this way where it is engaged in by a person in a dominant position. It is in these circumstances that predatory pricing is likely to occur and it is for this reason that in other countries predatory pricing is almost invariably dealt with in the context of monopolisation.

The remaining 2 amendments raise quite important questions of philosophy. The amendment to the existing provision dealing with the obtaining of preferential terms by a buyer would produce an effect which could well be quite opposed to the basic object of the legislation, which is to promote competition. The new provision concerning discriminatory pricing by a supplier raises very important questions. Legislation of this kind has been the subject of very strong criticism in recent years iri the United States of America where it was first enacted. It is not the sort of provision which ought to be put on to our statute book, without at least very mature consideration.

I wish to assure honourable senators that the views which prompted the Senate to make the amendments it made when the Bill was last before it will be taken into account by the Government in its current review of the legislation. The present Bill, as I have indicated on previous occasions, is intended only as holding legislation to overcome the problems arising directly from the High Court’s decision in the concrete pipes case. The Government has made it abundantly clear that it proposes to introduce strengthening legislation. It will do this as soon as the important and complex problems which are involved have received the careful consideration which they deserve and which they will receive. For these reasons I urge the Senate to agree to the amendments made to the Bill in another place.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– There is no need to repeat the arguments on the amendments. We members of the Opposition adhere to our view that the matters inserted by the Senate and the deletions made by the Senate previously should stand. Therefore we oppose the amendments which have been made in the House of Representatives. I will not go through the various matters, except to say that the legislation in the form in which the Government has it has been- an obvious failure. The Commissioner of Trade Practices has said that little progress has been made. Monopolisation is the curse of this country. It is a major factor in producing inflation. Even the Government agreed about 10 years ago that monopolisation was helping to force up prices and to cause all sorts of difficulties in trade and commerce adverse to the public interest. If it is to be dealt with it is not being dealt with in the manner proposed by the Government. The Commonwealth Industrial Court said in the current case that the resale price maintenance provisions which were put in a special Act earlier this year stand, so we have those. On top of that we have some legislation which repeats the earlier useless legislation. What is the point of it if we do not have these amendments? There is just no sense at all in the legislation.

It is all very well for the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) to say that he is going to bring in strengthened legislation-, we want some effective laws meanwhile, notwithstanding the difficulties of proof involved in a criminal matter. That is a matter for the prosecution to deal with. One would think that the prosecution might not have much difficulty in some of the cases which unfortunately are able to continue under the present state of the law. Careful consideration was given to this matter, Mr Chairman. The AttorneyGeneral said that mature consideration should be given to it. These proposals were put up in 1965 and 6 years have gone by in which there has been opportunity for mature consideration to be given to the problem following upon what was advanced earlier by Sir Garfield Barwick in the case of monopolisation. For those reasons the Opposition sees no ground for altering its opinion that the legislation ought to be strengthened in the manner agreed upon by the Senate earlier.

Sentaor BYRNE (Queensland) (5.26)- This Bill comes again before the Senate in the light of an amendment carried in this place. The Bill was returned to the House of Representatives which rejected the amendment moved by the Opposition and carried in this place. On the occasion that the Bill was before the Senate previously the Democratic Labor Party supported the Opposition’s amendment. In doing so it supported for a second time an amendment identical to that which was moved in 1965. This is quite a serious matter because if this amendment were persisted with the fate of the Bill might be uncertain as to whether it would pass into legislation and whether, if it did, certain sections may be rendered inoperative or may be of little value. The Senate must consider that dilemma. In the light of the assurance given by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) that a definitive body of legislation will be presented in the new year, and that the suggestions embodied in the amendment moved by the Opposition and carried in the Senate will receive consideration in the light of the reexamination of the final form of the legislation, it becomes a serious question whether or not the Senate should persist with the attitude it adopted when the Bill was last before us.

The Democratic Labor Party has received representations on this matter in the sense that cases have been presented to us. We have received advice such as that which has been given by the AttorneyGeneral during the course of this debate, as to the implications of the effect which passage of this amendment might have, the uncertainty that might be created, and, what might be worse, the total commercial uncertainty that might emanate as a result of writing in this provision. In those circumstances and without a detailed examination at this stage it would be a tremendous thing for the Senate to create a situation whereby the legislation in toto was abandoned, even though temporarily, or whereby in the intermediate period it might emerge in a form which virtually is nugatory of the intentions behind its presentation and passage. These are. serious considerations.

As honourable senators will conclude, the Democratic Labor Party does not intend to persist with its support of the amendment, for the reasons I have indicated. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), has been most interested in and enthusiastic about this amendment over a period of years, and I assure the Attorney-General that we expect the serious consideration that he promised to give to this amendment when the legislation is being re-examined next year. That assurance will be kept under close scrutiny by the Democratic Labor Party. If an amendment of this character, substantially or identically in these terms, can be fitted into the legislation to achieve the purpose which the amendment obviously sets out to achieve, without the side effects and ancillary implications of which the AttorneyGeneral is afraid and of which sections of business are afraid, I assure the AttorneyGeneral that we would look for such insertion in the definitive and final legislation. In the light of that assurance and in the light, of the doubts and the real fears - I think they are not unreal fears - the Democratic Labor Party finds itself unable any longer to support the amendment moved by the Opposition. For those reasons we agree to the passage of the Bill in the form in which it is now presented to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This is a very important matter so I feel I should rise to speak once more. The Opposition believes that the public interest demands that there be some strong law against the improper use of monopoly power in this community. That is the reason for the amendment. We expect that the Government will abandon its attitude of endeavouring to provide a scheme which is completely ineffective against monopoly power. It is intolerable that the Australian community should be left without any protec tion against the use of monopoly power which is demonstrably against the public interest. It is regrettable that Australia is to be left without any real law capable of deterring monopoly in the period before the proposed strengthened legislation comes along. We know that the existing law is hopeless in that regard. It has been quite ineffective to date, leaving aside the question of any invalidity. We would expect the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) to pay attention to the manifest view of the majority in this chamber that any new law must deal in a practical and effective way with the abuse of monopoly power.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Committee for its prompt consideration of this matter. I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) said and I appreciate particularly what Senator Byrne said on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party. I assure them that the Government desires ils legislation to be effective. I think I indicated clearly that the Government’s concern about the amendments made by the Senate was that those provisions did not fit into this legislation which essentially is legislation of a holding character. I reiterate that the Government has made clear its intention to place before the Parliament, as soon as it is able, legislation designed to give more bite and more strength to this legislation. But this is legislation which necessarily takes time to prepare because it is a complex matter and we do not want to stifle that which it is the object of the legislation to produce.

I am sure all honourable senators will appreciate the coincidence that on this day when this matter comes before the Senate the Commonwealth Industrial Court, in ils judgment in the very first case in which the Government’s legislation on resale price maintenance came before it for decision, has unanimously issued an injunction at the suit of an applicant and required a defendant, against whom the offence of resale price maintenance was alleged, to be restrained to desist from engaging in that practice.

Senator Murphy:

– But that is on legislation which was not of the type that is now before the House.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It Is part of our trade practices legislation which was not, on the view which has been expressed to the Government and which has now been upheld by the Industrial Court, subject to the same challenge as was the other legislation. But it is an indiction that legislation passed earlier this year as an earnest of the Government’s intention to do something in this field has been shown to have teeth. We have that same objective and intention with regard to the balance of the legislation.

I acknowledge the attitude which has been adopted by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I assure Senator Byrne, in the light of what he has said, that the Government will take into account and give serious consideration, not only to these specific amendments but also to the objectives which these amendments were designed to achieve, and which the Government believes have to be looked at with a view to seeing how they fit into the pattern which the Government has in mind of preserving and promoting competition so that there are the consequential benefits which we believe flow from it.

Question put:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator E. W. Prowse)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2614

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1971-72

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December (vide page 2300), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– The Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1971-72 is designed to provide extra finance for the Australian Wool Commission following its appointment in 1970. I will be brief in my remarks because I do not think it necessary to go through the arguments that I advanced when the Commission was established. At that stage, I pointed out the difficulties that the Opposition felt were involved in establishing a commission with a restricted power as was envisaged in the relevant legislation, the Australian Wool Commission Act. Now that the Wool Commission is in existence it is necessary that we should keep it going, even though the Opposition does not agree with it 100 per cent. This is the reason why the Opposition will support the Bill. However, on behalf of the Opposition I have an amendment to propose to the Senate. I move:

The argument that I want to put forward will be very brief. One of the disturbing features when anybody moves an amendment in this place is that many honourable senators who have not heard the argument come in and vote on Party lines, irrespective of what the argument was all about. This applies to both the Opposition and Government supporters. For this reason I propose to state the facts, as I see them, in a very brief form so that honourable senators will know why I feel that the amendment that we are proposing is a valid one, an important one and one that should be supported by all sides of the House.

I propose to deal with the situation as we find it this year, commencing at 16th March. On that date the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, which has a membership of 75.000, came out with a pronouncement that it approved of the acquisition of (he whole of the Australian wool clip. On 22nd June, Mr H. S. Patterson, who was previously the chairman of the New South Wales and Queensland Wool Buyers Association, came out in support of an acquisition scheme for Australia’s wool clip. On 29th June Sir William Gunn, who has been an advocate of the present system of marketing for many years, also came out with the idea that we would have to adopt an acquisition scheme for the Australian wool clip. As honourable senators are aware, Sir William Gunn is Chairman of the Australian Wool Board. On 12th July there was a statement from Mr G. Chance. At this stage, Mr President, I understand that the wish is to draw this part of the sitting to a close, so I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 2615

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I ask for leave to make a statement relating to the activities of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

Mr President, the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange last reported to the Senate by way of statement on 13th May this year. As the Committee has not yet completed its inquiry and report, it is considered desirable that a further report by way of statement should be made before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas recess. Accordingly I present the following statement.

The work done by the Committee since the last report has been considerable. Since 13th May the Committee has taken a further 4,500 pages of evidence from a further 40 witnesses. During that period it has met on 48 occasions. Much of the evidence has been taken to complete the pro gramme projected at the time of the last statement. The Committee in this respect has continued to examine people occupying key positions in the securities industry. These include official representatives of stock exchanges and the State Registrars of Companies, lt has examined several brokers and company directors, including some directors of Mineral Securities Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd. It has examined several employees of exchanges and the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges. It has taken evidence relevant to the regulation of geologists. In addition, since the last statement to the Senate, developments have occurred of such obvious significance to the securities industry, to the regulation of company affairs and to the capital markets of Australia that the Committee considered it essential to make some examination of them. I refer particularly to the extraordinary events surrounding the down-grading of the reserves of Queensland Mines. For the purpose of examining those events the Committee considered that it was desirable to engage the services of expert geological advisers. To that end Watts, Griffis and McOuat accepted appointment as geological advisers to the Committee. 1 have in mind also the failures of broking houses which have occurred. The Committee has examined several of these in detail and has extracted from that inquiry information and lessons of considerable significance.

The last public evidence taken by the Committee was heard on 20th October. Since that time a great deal of work has been done towards the preparation of the full report. Ii will be obvious to honourable senators that such preparation is a large task indeed. The Committee feels that it has undertaken a thorough,, in-depth examination of large sections of the securities industry. The Committee now has a responsibility to the Senate and to the Australian public to do justice to the material that has been amassed and to ensure that its conclusions and recommendations are sound and practical. That involves the sifting of 10,500 pages of evidence taken over 18 months, lt involves further work on material collected from many sources in Australia and overseas. It involves the completion of statistical analyses and case studies. It involves further analysis of legal and constitutional matters and existing regulations. It involvesa very substantial task of drafting and discussion.

The Committee believes that to bring in a hastily prepared report which purported nevertheless to be a complete report after such a brief deliberative stage would be to betray the confidence reposed in the Committee by the Senate and the public. Moreover, in our drafting and discussions it has become clear that the various parts of the report and recommendations should be tabled as an integrated whole. The inter-relationships of the parts are too great for any one to be divorced from the others. Being fully conscious of the need to bring in a full report at the earliest possible date, it is the Committee’s intention to continue working to a timetable which will enable it to present its report in the autumn session. However, Mr President, it is the Committee’s wish at this stage to indicate to honourable senators in the broadest terms the main tendency of the principal recommendation, and only that.

The Committee is of the view that there must be, for the whole of Australia, a Commonwealth regulatory body which will have a broad responsibility to oversee the securities industry. From its extensive research and hearings, it is satisfied that the real nature and extent of the problems involved have, in the past, been misunderstood. It is satisfied that the interests of this nation’s economy, growth and welfare, as well as the interests of all those persons and corporations, both within and without Australia, who are involved in the Australian securities industry require that the Commonwealth Government exercise the powers given to it at federation to legislate with respect to the securities industry.

There are certain features of such a body which the Committee sees as desirable. This body must have adequate power, in the constitutional sense. It must deal with the abuses which have been widespread in the industry and to this end have the power to investigate nationally and follow up effectively. It must have the expertise and the liaison to know what is most desirable for the industry and the flexibility and adaptability to act quickly and effectively. On the other hand it must be designed to keep the burden of red tape to a minimum and be able to allow for business needs and problems, and its structure must guarantee protection of the indi: vidual from arbitrary action. An effective, expert and flexible Commonwealth regulatory body is, in the Committee’s view, necessary for the securities industry in Australia at this time, to assist it in being an efficient servant of our economy. .

Finally I have one further matter to bring to the attention of honourable senators. Despite the Committee’s extensive public hearings, we still have many files containing documents and information on what appear to be serious abuses and malpractices which we have not investigated publicly. Moreover, the Committee continues to receive a significant flow of correspondence from local and overseas sources bringing to our attention matters which undoubtedly lie within our terms of reference. Individual members of this Parliament are among those who are directing a variety of complaints to us. Information available to the Committee and reports in the financial Press on the share markets suggest that insider trading is continuing to occur in advance of information being made known to the market.

The Committee believes that these are serious matters warranting investigation. However bearing in mind the need to proceed with the preparation of its report, the Committee believes that it should not delay that report by continuing its inquiry in these further areas without a specific direction from the Senate so to do. I thank you, Mr President, and honourable senators for the opportunity to make that statement. I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I simply indicate that there are further matters which honourable senators may wish to discuss. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1971-72 Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2615).

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had introduced the debate on this Bill. As I had spoken for only a few minutes, perhaps I should rapidly go over the points that I had made in order to pick up the argument wilh which I was proceeding. I did say that the Opposition is not opposing this Bill. Although we do not approve of the Australian Wool Commission we recognise that now that it does exist it is necessary to equip it with the necessary finance so that it will be able to meet its obligations. This has become more necessary in view of the international monetary situation which as yet has not been resolved. We feel also that if the wool buying that was necessary by the Commission in an endeavour to keep prices up were removed, if this support of the Commission were removed at this stage, it would be disastrous for the wool industry. I do not wish to say more about the Bill because 1 dealt with the Opposition’s attitude to this matter when the Bill which set up the Australian Wool Commission was before this chamber.

I wish to deal with the amendment that I moved which sta es. in effect, that the Senate is of the opinion that there should be complementary legislation introduced for a single statutory authority for the acquisition and marketing of the wool of the country. After I moved that amendment before the suspension of the sitting I started to give the reasons why I felt that this was in line with the thinking of the people involved in the wool industry in Australia. I was dealing with the opinions that have been expressed by responsible people in the last 9 or 10 months. The first matter to which I drew attention was the decision made on 16th March by the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, which has a membership of roughly 75,000. This body came out in favour of an acquisition system. Then on 22nd June Mr H. S. Patterson, the ex-chairman of the New South Wales and Queensland Wool Buyers Association also came out in support of an acquisition scheme. On 29th June Sir William Gunn, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board brought to public no’ ice his opinion that he was in favour of acquisition at some time. On 12th July - that is only 3 months so far with which 1 have dealt - Mr G. Chance, who is one of the members of the Australian Wool Board, and the President of the Wool Section of the Farmers Union in Wes’ eni Australia, came out with his approval for an acquisition scheme. He was speaking on behalf of the wool section of the Farmers Union of Western Australia as well as a member of the Wool Board. On 16lh July - 4 days later - Mr Anthony, the Deputy Prime Minister, also showed that he was leaning towards an acqusition scheme. This item appeared in the ‘Daily Telegraph’:

Mr Anthony, speaking at a Press conference in Sydney, said he believed ultimately the wool industry would have to look at some form of acquisition scheme … ‘If one authority has control of the supply it is a lot easier to control than when it is in the hands of a number of entrepreneurs’.

On 4th August the Australian Wool Board itself made a statement that it was in favour of an acquisition scheme. This report appears in the ‘Australian’ of 4th August:

The Australian Wool Board yesterday outlined a sweeping policy for 1971 and 1972, aimed at attacking all the wool industry’s problems at once. It recommends acquisition of the whole Australian wool clip to permit more efficient’ marketing, and submit a scries of proposals on rural reconstruction and debt assistance.

The following day Mr B. A. Wright, the President of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, recommended that there should be an acquisition scheme. This opinion was backed up a few months later on 25th November by the Council itself moving for the approval pf an acquisition scheme. On 1 3 th September - I think this is rather important, too - a report appeared in the ‘West Australian’ which reads:

The State Executive of the Country Party passed a resolution yesterday urging the Federal Government to acquire the entire Australian wool clip.

So now added to the voices of those other responsible bodies we have the Executive of the Country Party of Western Australia stating that it believes in the importance of an acquisition scheme. There was a news item on 28th September which stated that the Rural Action Movement of New South Wales accepted acquisition. On 13th November the Country Party Federal Council also approved of an acquisition scheme. This passage appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald’ on 16th November:

Decisions of the Country Party Federal Council - at which Mr Anthony spoke - confirm the stance of most nf ils Federal MPs in support of a total acquisition scheme for wool from next July.

On 26th November - we are coming pretty well up to date - both Sir William Gunn, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, and Mr Anthony were pushing for acquisition. I think the following passages are worth quoting from the ‘Financial Review’ of 26th November:

The re-organisation of the wool-selling system took a dramatic leap forward yesterday at the Australian Wool Industry conference in Sydney.

The Wool Board chairman, Sir William Gunn, with a planned but unannounced move, ‘took charge’ of the meeting to put forward a ‘procedure to grapple with the problems crippling wool’.

The result was that six members of the two major wool growing organisations, along with Sir William and officials of the board, the Australian Wool Commission and the International Wool Secretariat, formed an ad hoc committee and went immediately into secret conference.

They took with them Sir William’s seven terms of reference, which featured acquisition of the wool clip, production controls, amalgamation of the board and the Commission, and new powers for the IWS.

Both Sir William and the Country Party Leader, Mr Anthony, are pushing for acquisition, seeing it as the cornerstone of not only internal marketing reform but also the way to obtain international co-operation among the producing nations of the IWS.

The next day, 27th November, the Australian Wool Industry Conference came out in support of acquisition of the clip. This is referred to by the Government as being a very important conference because it represents the views of the country people. I think it is important to quote an article appearing in the ‘West Australian’ which roads:

The Australian Wool Industry Conference decided today to ask the Federal Government to set up a new authority to control the industry.

The plan, which involves merging the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission, would mean a drastic overhaul of the industry.

The conference also agreed that it might be necessary to replace traditional marketing methods by some form of acquisition.

The decisions, which are among the most radical in the industry’s history, come at a time when many of the nation’s 90,000 wool growers are struggling for survival.

They came after a statement to the conference by the chairman of the Wool Board. Sir William Gunn, in which he came out strongly in favour of the new authority and acquisition.

The final view that I wish to quote from the number of articles I have in front of me about support for an acquisition scheme by responsible people was expressed on 29th November, which is only a few days ago, in an article in the Australian Financial Review’. The article, which was entitled ‘Acquisition without too many tears’, read:

That small band of free traders still remaining within the Australian wool industry must realise by now that total acquisition of the clip is only a matter oftime.

The pro-acquisition forces who have been plugging away at their task of ridding Australia of its auction selling system for many years have suddenly been joined by a host of people frustrated by the failure of a succession of schemes to check the slump in wool prices.

The latest group to ‘cross the floor is the Liberal Party led by the Treasurer, Mr Snedden.

I think it is apparent from the recitalI have made of the views of responsible organisations and individuals in support of the idea of an acquisition scheme and of amalgamation of the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission that it was the duty of the Opposition at this time to move the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition. For the benefit of honourable senators I will repeat the terms of the amendment. It reads:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that complementary legislation should be introduced without delay to establish a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip and that this authority should encompass the functional responsibilities of the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission’.

I regret that not all honourable senators have been present in the chamber to hear what I have put forward about the views of responsible people in relation to this matter. I am sure that my speech has helped those honourable senators who are present to make a decision on whether the amendment is a worthwhile expression of opinion by the Senate. When a vote is called for on the amendment. I hope those honourable senators who have been present during my contribution to the debate will be able to convince their colleagues that it is worth while supporting the expression of opinion of the Senate I have sought on this tremendously important subject.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Primmer:

– I second the amendment, Mr President.

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I rise to indicate the altitude of the Australian Democratic Labor Party to the amendment which has been moved by Senator Wilkinson. I want to say at the outset that the introduction of an acquisition scheme in the wool industry is the policy of my Party. As it is the policy of my Party, my colleagues and I are committed to supporting the Opposition’s amendment, which is what we will do. However, I am sorry that the amendment does not go further. What I would have liked to have seen, and T would seek to bring it about by a further amendment except it would only complicate things at this stage - is for the amendment to urge the Commonwealth to establish a national rural finance corporation, so structured as to provide long term, low interest rural loans and to fund and re-finance rural debts. 1 do not think there is anything more important for rural people today than the establishment of such a national rural finance corporation. I remind the Senate that on 2 occasions this year the Democratic Labor Party has moved in this chamber for the establishment of such a corporation but, to the amazement of my Party, the Country Party of Australia, whose platform contains such a proposition, has on each occasions found reasons why it ought to vote against it. I do sot propose to say any more except that 1 am sorry that the amendment moved by the Opposition does not contain a proposal of the nature of the one I have just outlined.

The other thing I would like to mention - I think it is a tragedy that no reference has been made to it in the Labor amendment - is that the Commonwealth Government vacate entirely the field of probate duty. I do not propose to canvass that aspect any further. The Democratic Labor Party has argued this proposition on at least 4 occasions in this chamber. Nothing more could be said now than was said by my Party on those occasions. I regret that the amendment does not contain those propositions. Nevertheless, since my Party is committed to the policy of the introduction of a wool acquisition scheme, it will be voting for the amendment proposed by Senator Wilkinson.

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

Senator Kane has made an impassioned plea to the Senate on certain matters. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate S30m to be lent - I stress the word lent’ - to the Australian Wool Commission in order to supplement, as necessary, its working capital.

Senator Kane:

– We are not opposing the Bill.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– 1 did not interrupt the honourable senator when he was speaking. 1 want to make it clear that the money will be available for use by the Commission to the extent that it is necessary for it to purchase wool in the course of maintaining its reserve prices in the wool market and for the purchase of price averaging plan wool on hand at the end of the third pool period. There is nothing in this Bill about probate duty or the estabishment of a rural credit organisation. lt is a straight out decision by the Government to make available to the Australian Wool Commission $3 Om at a particular interest rate for a set period.

Senator Kane:

– Are you opposing an expression of opinion by the Senate?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am not opposing the honourable senator and he knows it. Bills come into this House on certain matters and one can get up and speak on those matters or one can canvass the whole area of rural finance or wool marketing. I just point out that this Bill is restricted to a certain area. That is the only point I wish to make.

We are dealing with a decision by (he Government to make $30m available to the Australian Wool Commission. 1 shall be as brief as I can. I just want to say that the Australian Wool Commission was set up 12 months ago in a situation of crisis in the wool growing industry. Wool prices had slumped lo what everyone thought were about 1948 levels, but in real terms those prices had sunk to much lower levels than the 1948 levels because of the rise in costs during the interim period. The main function of the Australian Wool Commission is to operate a reserve price scheme at wool auctions. The scheme aims at, first of all, protecting the wool growers from give away prices. It tries to engender stability in the wool market and it tries to give confidence to the wool buyers as to the value of stocks. The present Commission has had $86m made available to it to finance its operations. That is made up of $22m loaned by the Commonwealth and $64m loaned by the trading banks. Both amounts were loaned at an interest rate of 6i per cent. It has to repay S30m of the bank loan by 30th April 1972. I believe, and I think all honourable senators agree with me, that it is disappointing that the Commission has had to continue to purchase quite heavily to hold the reserve price levels of wool, but the Government has stated and reaffimed its belief that this is the best course to follow in the present circumstances.

I think it is fair to say that the demand for raw wool has been reduced to the immediate requirements of manufacturers on a day to day basis and that the Australian Wool Commission has been obliged to buy bigger percentages of wool offered at auction. All honourable senators know the present economic world set-up and the situation in regard to currency. Despite these adverse factors, the trade has bought about 70 per cent of the wool sold at auction. When the amount of wool bought by private trading is taken into consideration, I think it is fair to say that about 80 per cent of the total clip has been sold. After ten of the most difficult and the most depressed months in the history of wool the Commission holds stocks equivalent to less than 10 per cent of a normal Australian clip. It has been able to prevent a price slide, which I believe could conservatively be estimated at about 20 per cent. This has been borne out by the example of the wools for which the Commission has withdrawn its support and the price of which has since that time fallen by as much as 34 per cent. I say that if the Commission had not operated on a reserve price the rest of the clip could have fallen by up to 20 per cent. No-one can dispute the fact that the price of the lower grade wools have fallen by up to 20 per cent.

On behalf of the Opposition Senator Wilkinson moved an amendment. I sympathise with him. I share his concern about the matter. Only recently my Party, at its federal conference in Canberra, moved a motion calling upon the Government to consult with the industry about the introduction of an acquisition scheme. The motion went on to suggest that the industry should draw on the Reserve Bank for finance to operate the scheme. I am one of those who came into this place in 1958. In my maiden speech I suggested that the wool industry should have an acquisition scheme. Since those days in 1958 the wool industry has had a great deal of difficulty and argument about the type of marketing scheme that it should have. I can well understand the honourable senator’s concern about this. This is where I depart slightly from his thinking. I point out to the honourable senator that only recently there was a meeting of the Australian Wool Industry Conference in Sydney. Two federal bodies - the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the Australian Wool growers and Graziers Council - comprise that Conference. Over many years, as the honourable senator knows, they have been opposed in relation to the way in which the Australian clip should be marketed and in relation to many other matters such as promotion; research and so on. For the first time for many years these 2 federal organisations have come- together at the Australian Wool Industry Conference level. One organisation, the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, said that it wanted an acquisition scheme. At this Conference meeting the other organisation said that it was not opposed to an acquisition scheme. During the course of that Conference a committee was formed. Its job was to look at certain things.

So that the honourable senator may look at and study the matters at which the committee was to look I shall put them on record because I think they are matters which have to be studied in detail before we can say that we want the introduction of an acquisition scheme. The committee was appointed to investigate, as a matter of urgency, the broad outline of a plan designed to place the industry on a firmer basis in the long term. I know that the honourable senator would not disagree with that. But this plan involves the study of the following courses of action: The amalgamation of the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission and the composition, powers and functions of the new body. At this stags no-one has said what they should be. The courses of action also include: The improvements in wool marketing, including the merits or otherwise of an acquisition scheme with or without fixed prices. At present no-one has said how the scheme should be run. The courses of action also include: The manner in which wool should be disposed of - that is, by auction or by direct sale. At present no-one has said how the wool should be disposed of. I continue with the courses of action. They include: The changes in the handling and the transportation of wool and the application of new technological improvements. A committee has been set up to look into the transportation and the handling of wool from the wool shed to the manufacturer’s door. Various committees have estimated the cost of handling a bale of wool from the time it leaves the shed door until it enters the manufacturer’s establishment. But no-one is happy about this. So the Wool Industry Conference said that the committee has to look at this.

It has to look also at the improvements in the present system of shipping negotiations. I know that the honourable senator, who comes from Western Australia and knows the situation in relation to the shipping of apples from that State and the costs involved, would agree most heartily that the committee should look at that. The committee has to look also at the use of long term credit to enable wool growers to diversify into other forms of agricultural production and thus assist in reducing the wool production. For Senator Kane’s information, on previous occasions I have stated that the Government has 2 committees in operation - one to establish the feasibility of setting up a federal organisation to make available to primary producers rural credit and the other, established within the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the Department of Primary Industry, to establish the need and supply of credit to the rural industries. Until we have reports from those 2 committees I do not think we can say whether we should have an acquisition scheme.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Did not the Australian Wool Industry Conference decide that it supported acquisition?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am reading the Wool Industry Conference’s recommendations and the decisions it made about examining various matters. I am reading each recommendation. The committee was to make a study of greater co-operation between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the field of wool marketing. I think the honourable senator would agree most heartily with this. The committee is to consider also stimulation of demand and hence the sale of wool by co-ordinating, through the International Woo] Secretariat, the promotion of wool selling policies. This could include direct merchandising of wool, perhaps, on a government to government basis. We do not know. The committee’s job is to find out and to make recommendations to the Government. The direct merchandising of wool will involve changes in the organisation and function of the International Wool Secretariat and the need for more finance for this purpose. We have to look at this situation.

On the other hand the Government, having heard the industry say these things, welcomes the initiative taken by the industry in developing plans for its future. It will be appreciated, of course, that the Government cannot commit itself in advance of a proposal put forward by the industry. I think the honourable senator recognises this situation at this stage. The spokesman for the wool industry is saying: We have a committee and this committee has to look at certain things. Until we know the results of that examination, while we accept acquisition in principle we want to know more about it before we go to the Government with this scheme’. The Government has appointed a top level committee under Sir Richard Randall to examine from the Government’s point of view, after consulting various sections of the wool industry, what it believes should be done to assist the industry. This sort of examination cannot be done today or tomorrow. It takes time. While there may be many on the Government side who, like myself, believe that in the long term acquisition is the answer to the wool industry’s problems, the Government cannot come out and say that this is the answer until it knows the results of the wool industry examination and of the examination carried out by the Government itself. It is for that reason, and that reason only that I cannot support - and the Government cannot support - the honourable senator’s amendment.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I shall say a few words about this matter of wool and the amendment as originally moved by the Opposition. Recently there has been a great deal of talk in the Press and television as a result–

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse)Order! The amendment is no longer before the Chair.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I shall say a few words about the industry and the procrastination and delay which has occurred in the industry over the years. Recently a statement was made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on television, I think. The Prime Minister said that he expected to see some 11,000 or 14,000 wool growers leave the industry. That situation has been deliberately brought about by this Government because over the years it has been responsible for the procrastinations and delays within the industry. Strange as it may seem - although it is not strange to us on this side of the chamber because we have had our ears to the ground and it is not strange to me because 1 live among the people who are affected - it is the small growers who have been hardest hit by this Government’s procrastination and delay. It is very interesting to read statements that have been made by responsible people in the industry. Let me give a quotation from Mr Vines, the Acting Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission. In an address that he delivered to the Melbourne Rotary Club on 25th August this year he said, in part:

As a consequence of the irreversible changes in the conditions under which fibres are marketed, which have been brought about by the synthetic fibre companies, there should have been during the past 20 years a process of gradual, evolutionary change in the marketing methods of wool, with all concerned working together for the common good to bring this about.

This is the pertinent part of this paragraph:

This has been prevented by a combination of well-meaning reactionary forces within the industry itself, allied with some elements of straight-out self-interest.

I believe that statement, coming from the Acting Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission, to be very pertinent. In our opinion it is very much to the point. We have heard spokesmen for the Country Party stand up in recent weeks and admit that they have been clamouring for many years for the type of authority for which the Labor Party also has been clamouring. But, strangely enough, when it comes to raising their voices in this chamber they always come down on the side of the brokers, the buyers and the grazier element within the wool industry.

The giant referendum that was conducted in 1965 in the wool industry throughout the Commonwealth was carried among the small wool growers. It was the big wool growers and their friends - the brokers andthe buyers - who knocked the referendum on the head. Had that referendum been carried, in my opinion, there would not have been a need for an appropriation of money of the kind that is now being made to the wool industry, because the wool industry would have been standing on its own feet. It is very interesting to look at the graph published at page 23 of the Australian Wool Commission’s interim annual report for 1970-71. This graph shows the wool price index. In it we see, as we have seen so many times in the past, that the price of wool bottomed in late October of last year, just prior to the Senate election, and it peaked virtually on the day thai poll was conducted. This has been the history of the price of wool over the years this Government has been in power. The price of wool has always tended to bottom just prior to a poll of the people, and immediately before that poll the brokers and buyers - the people responsible for the manipulation of the wool market - seem to do a good turn for the Liberal Parly and the Country Party by pumping prices up for a few days, or maybe a week or two. Then immediately after the election the price of wool slumps again. This is one of the tragedies of the industry.

This Bill, as I understand it, is necessary because the private banks have put a condition on the loan funds that they have made available (o the Commission. Those funds are to be withdrawn early next year. Because of this, the Government has had to come to the party with a sum of money. Let mc say that we on this side of the chamber are not opposed, in any way or form, to the granting of this money to the Wool Commission. The cold hard facts of the situation are that, if the Commission were to collapse, the buyers, brokers and manufacturers throughout the world would experience the greatest bonanza the world has ever seen. They would be buying wool at, perhaps, Se or 10c per lb. it is imperative that the Wool Commission operate at least until some form of statutory marketing authority evolves.

The present situation has been brought about by the laissez-faire policies of this Government, which has always stood by this great auction system. To me it seems funny that in our society today there are very few commodities that are sold by auction, but wool is. It is strange that with our great reserves of coal, iron ore, natural gas and so on - you name it; we have it - never al any time has anyone suggested that the auction system should be used to dispose of these commodities. They are marketed at firm prices in the same way as secondary industry everywhere in the community markets its products. One of the few organisations that dispose of goods by auction is the Department of Supply. One can go periodically to Tottenham in Victoria and see the manipulation that goes on there among car and truck buyers as they jockey with one another, with their pies and what not, to beat down the prices of vehicles disposed of by the Department of Supply.

The same situation prevails in the wool industry. Any farmer or any member of this Parliament who has ever attended an auction sale in any part of Australia will have seen the way pies and rings work. I have had the experience of seeing one person buy for 5 firms. It is futile for anybody on the other side of this chamber to say that pies and rings do not operate in the wool industry, lt is very interesting to read the article by Nan Sanders in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of 27th November. She has had a great deal of experience with the Australian Wool Board. She said, in part:

Wool still clings to the outmoded auction system for its sales, a method less efficient even than the barter system and one which proves successful only when a reserve price is stipulated in advance for the product.

The small farmers of this nation were crying out and appealing to the Government in 1965. when this great wool promotion campaign hit the deck. They said at that time: ‘We are prepared to put money into promotion, provided the Government gives us a reserve price plan’. They realised at that stage that there was no hope for promotion unless a firm price was set. Can anybody deny that the small wool growers of this nation were right at that stage of the game? The cold hard facts of the wool situation, as I see them, are that at this stage it would not matter whether the price of wool doubled or halved; it would make no difference to the price of the end product. Again it comes back to the auction system. The cold hard facts are that all that is needed in the wool situation is 3 people - the producer, the manufacturer and the consumer.

In relation to the free auction system, what do we see? I have seen this in my own district: There are private buyers who buy from the farmers. They are buyers from the wool manufacturing firms. They take out what they want. All they use is the bellies and locks from the lots. Then they dispose of the fleece at a profit. There is no need for these urgers in the wool selling system. The sooner the auction system is cleared from the boards, the happier the wool growers of this country will be and the better off this nation will be. We have lost money left right and centre because of the procrastination and delay of this Government. I have said previously in this chamber that any government that sits on its backside and expects a consensus from the thousands of wool growers throughout the community, or expects them to come down with a firm decision at any given time, will sit there forever. Governments should have the courage to take the bull by the horns and say ‘We will do this’, and tell the brokers, the buyers and the graziers of this country that they will not be considered because the governments believe that in the interests of the Australian community - not only those of the wool growers - a statutory marketing authority system is the only one that can operate.

Of course, that does not say that we believe that the creation of a statutory marketing authority is a panacea for all the ills of the wool industry. I hope that the Government will give it a go and will try to do something by this means. Some people in the industry think it is the best method. Many people in the industry who are concerned about it believe that this is something that will give some hope to the industry. At least the Government should have a go at something like this before turning 11,000 to 14,000 wool growers out of the industry. If that many growers leave the industry the Government will kill great stretches of the Australian countryside This Government has done little or nothing for decentralisation. If it turns these thousands of wool growers out of the Australian countryside it will have done something despicable for which thousands of Australian people will never forgive it.

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

– I listened very attentively to what Senator Primmer said and while he was speaking I was wondering what Senator Wilkinson, Senator Cant and Senator Willesee were thinking about his suggestion that private wool buyers in Western Australia should be done away with, because they are responsible for buying 25 per cent of the clip in that State. I am sure the honourable senator’s 3 colleagues will give him a little talk after he leaves the chamber. I do not think that the Government has been tardy in introducing this Bill in which we are asking the Parliament to appropriate S30m for the wool industry. This will make a total of $116m available to the Australian Wool Commission. The Commission was set up in very quick time.

Senator Primmer:

– The Government can set up a statutory authority at the end of this session if it wants to.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Senator Primmer has just come into this place. My colleague Senator Young and I were in the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation for many years while Senator Primmer was still in the sticks somewhere learning about the wool industry. At that time we were making certain decisions. I do not want to get involved in this subject because I recognise what the honourable senator has said. He expressed a very popular feeling among some people who do not know a great deal about the wool industry. In 1951 this Government asked the wool industry whether it wanted a wool marketing scheme. Senator Primmer knows as well as I that that suggestion was voted out by the Australian wool growers by a substantial margin. In 1961 the Government set up the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Roslyn Philp. The Philp Committee said in its report that there should be a body which could speak on behalf of the entire wool industry. At that time there were 2 federal bodies, one saying one thing and the other saying the direct opposite. It was not until the former Minister for Primary Industry, Sir Charles Adermann, told these 2 bodies that the sooner they sat down around a table and got together to discuss their problems the better it would be for the industry. The result of the Philp report and the then Minister’s discussions with the industry was the formation of the Australian Wool Industry Conference. Then the industry said that it wanted another marketing system. It came to the Government in 1965 and the Government said: OK. We will hold a ballot.’ And what happened, Senator Primmer? The wool industry, by a fairly substantial majority, voted it out.

Senator Primmer:

– The Government even brought out the old commo thing to knock it on the head.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The wool industry voted against the idea. The honourable senator stood up here and said that the wool industry should do this and that, lt is all right for the honourable senator who has had no experience in the wool industry to say those sort of things. They are the sort of hackneyed phrases that have been put around the wool industry for many years. Let us get down to basic facts. Senator Mulvihill is interjecting and 1 do not know whether he knows anything about wool or fur, 1 do not know what he knows. I refer now to the position in 1969 when the Government said-

Senator Primmer:

– There was an election campaign on at that time, was there not?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Let us gel above that sort of thing. The Government suggested a price averaging system and the growers agreed and supported the Government substantially. Then we learned from experience that we had to go a step further. In 1970 the growers said, through their industry leaders, that they wanted a wool commission and that is what we have now. I have said already to Senator Wilkinson that there are further steps ahead which we must take but we cannot go ahead like a bull at a gate and say we want this, that and the other. We have to take the growers along with us. I have explained this to Senator Wilkinson, the spokesman for the Labor Party on this matter, and he would agree with what 1 am saying because he knows the industry. He has been engaged in it himself.

Senator Primmer:

– Has he?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes. 1 think Senator Wilkinson realises that we have to look at certain problems and overcome certain objections put forward by the 2 federal bodies.

Senator Primmer:

– This is the procrastination I have been ‘talking about for 20 years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

- Senator Primmer is entitled to his opinion. If one looks at the situation one realises that the examination made by the industry’ and the examination made by the Government can lead us to what Senator Wilkinson, speaking on behalf of the Labor Party, is aiming at for the 1972-73 season. I sincerely hope so. But I believe that the addition of the amendment to this motion, which we have dealt with and about which 1 do not want to say anything more at this time, will not result in progress to that stage. I have noted what Senator Primmer said and I will see that his remarks are conveyed to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) because I believe that anything said by any honourable senator in this place should be dealt with in that way. I will do that but I must say I cannot support his suggestions.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– 1 do not want to say anything more about the acquisition argument because I was beaten on that point, much to my surprise, as a DLP senator had supported the amendment moved by me. Clause 3 of the Bill refers to the amount of $30m which it is proposed to appropriate. This is in addition to the sum of SI Om which was advanced in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) by way of loan to the Australian Wool Commission. Nothing has been said about why it was decided to provide this amount of $30m and I invite the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrock man), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), to tell us why. ls this all the money that it is considered will be required at this stage? As the Minister said, well over $100m has been provided for the Australian Wool Commission but why has the sum of $30m been decided upon? Does the Government have any idea of how long this money will last? 1 appreciate the fact that it is anticipated that we will be selling wool and that no more money will be required for this purpose but why is the amount of $30m now being sought in this Bill? Why is the sum not $40m or $50m? Can the Minister give us the reason for this?

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

– When the Acting Minister for Primary Industry made the announcement that $30m would be provided, if necessary, to enable the Australian Wool Commission to continue its present reserve price scheme, he made the point which I made that it was very disappointing that the Commission had had to continue to purchase to hold its reserve price. He also stated that the Government had reaffirmed its policy in the belief that it was the best course to adopt in the present circumstances. In his report to the Australian Wool Industry Conference Mr Vines, Acting Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission, stated that since July the Commission’s stockpile had risen by 315,000 bales of a value, as at 11th November, of $34m. It then became necessary for that amount to be provided to finance the Wool Commission’s operations for the remainder of the season. The Commission therefore asked the Government for it and the Government, believing that its policy, as announced previously, had to be reaffirmed, has made this amount of money available to the Commission.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– 1 appreciate what the Minister has said. However, I notice that in his second reading speech he said:

If the fall were to average 6c per lb, the additional commitment for deficiency payments would be about $6Sm. 1 know thai we are expecting a more confident position to prevail in the wool industry at the coming sales, but the Minister did not really give me an answer to my question. Why was $30m chosen? Why was it not a little more? Was $65m given any consideration? Can the Minister provide me with the answers to those questions?

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

– The honourable senator was talking about deficiency payments. Deficiency payments do not come into this. This Bill will provide capital for the Australian Wool Commission to purchase wool should that be necessary. If the price of wool does not reach the reserve, then the Commission buys it in. The deficiency payments come under a totally different scheme.

Senator Wilkinson:

– It comes under the deficiency scheme.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes, it comes under the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Act which is something totally different from what we are dealing with now. We are dealing with making finance available to the Australian Wool Commission for the purchase of wool, should the price of a particular line of wool not reach the reserve price stipulated by the Commission.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed:

That the report be adopted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The reasons for this proposition have been advanced previously. There are some alterations in the scope of what has already been discussed in this chamber but broadly the proposition is similar to what was advanced a little earlier.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Very similar, and it was defeated.

Senator MURPHY:

– It is similar. If the Minister examines it he will see that there are some significant differences.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I know. There are a couple of traps in it.

Senator MURPHY:

– There are some significant differences in it. I do not need to expand upon the reasons behind the proposal which has been canvassed outside this chamber at great length.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I second the amendment and wish to speak to it now. I have not in my mind all the wording of the amendment that has now been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) but in general terms, with the exception of a reference to an immediate attempt to sell the stocks of wool that are held - this is what I think the present Wool Commission is trying to do - this is something that the wool authority should be doing, anyway.It raises again the point of acquisition in another form which, of course, is something with which I entirely agree. It follows what I was saying.

I did not have an opportunity - I have it now - of answering what the Minister said in closing the debate on my amendment. I did quietly interject that I thought that the Australian Wool Industry Conference had decided - this is the report that 1 received - to support acquisition of the Australian wool clip. 1 know that it agreed also to all those other matters which are part of the consideration of the wool industry. I know, too, that acquisition is not just a matter of saying: ‘We will acquire the clip’ and that is the end of it. I like using the illustration -I use it frequently - that if the people in Canberra want a lake, such as the one they have in Lake Burley Griffin, they agitate for a lake. They do not all have to become civil engineers. They do not all have to find out how to build a dam which will hold back the water. All they have to do is agitate for the acceptance of the principle of having a lake in Canberra. This is what eventually transpired.

What 1 was saying in relation to that part of the previous amendment which is now coming into this amendment was that we should be supporting an acquisition scheme. This is the major point of the whole exercise. I know that members of the Country Party and members of the Liberal Party feel that full acquisition will come in the very near future. They are not able to get away from Government policy which so far has not accepted an acquisition scheme. The Government has a committee which is looking into this problem and it is waiting on a recommendation from the committee. I appreciate this, but this does not prevent the Opposition from bringing forward this amendment as an expression of what it believes, and an experssion of what large numbers throughout the industry believe. In my view it is an amendment that the Senate should accept. I should like the Democratic Labor Party to look closely at the amendment which is now before the Seante and I hope that its members will feel that they can support the amendment which, if passed, would be added to the motion before the Senate. This amendment also seeks to give a direction, but it would not actually involve the introduction of a Bill to apply acquisition. By accepting the amendment the Senate would be adopting an expression of opinion.I have very much pleasure in seconding the amendment.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) because I tnink it is a very necessary requirement for the industry. The cold hard fact of the matter is, as we on this side of the chamber see it, that not only the Government but also many other people in our community have lost faith in the wool industry. The amendment sets out very clearly and concisely the type of operation in which we believe any government should engage if it is to restore faith in the wool industry. The mind boggles when one tries to recall the steps taken by the Government over the years in setting up committees, inquiries, conferences and goodness knows what to try to settle the problems of the industry. But it has achieved nothing. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Over the last 20 years the plight of the wool industry has gone from bad to worse. It is patently obvious to us that something drastic is needed and that what is needed so drastically is an acquisition plan.

Many people would not like to see an acquisition plan adopted, just as there are many people who were not in favour of the proposals implemented many years ago to pull the wheat industry out of its situation. Many people at that time disagreed with the proposals advanced by the then Labor Government to set up a statutory authority to control the whole of the Australian wheat crop. But today it is very hard to find a wheat grower who, by and large, is not thoroughly happy with the authority that was set up. It is quite conceivable to honourable senators on this side of the chamber that the same situation will prevail in the wool industry.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Mr President, I should like your ruling on a matter. The original amendment which was defeated by the Senate was:

At the end of the motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that complementary legislation should be introduced without delay to establish a single statutory marketing authority to acquire, appraise and market the entire wool clip and that this authority should encompass the functional responsibilities of the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission’.

Now we have before us a further amendment which states:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that . . . such authority be a single statutory marketing authority–

In between are some words which do not add anything to the amendment moved previously. It continues: and that it be empowered to acquire and appraise the entire wool clip–

What is different from the previous amendment in those words? It continues: and the Australian Wool Board and Australian Wool Commission be dissolved and that their responsibilities be undertaken by such authority’.

In the original amendment it was stated that the authority should encompass the functions of the same 2 bodies. I believe that in principle there is no difference in the 2 amendments. They both ask for the same thing. The first amendment was defeated in the Senate. I ask for your ruling on this, Mr President, before I reply to the debate on Senator Murphy’s amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the honourable senator taking a point of order under standing order 133?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Yes.

Senator Murphy - Mr President, speaking to the point of order, I suggest that whilst there is a certain amount of truth in what the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) is pitt ing forward and that in some respects there are matters in the amendment which were in the previous amendment, nevertheless there are some substantial differences.

Senator Webster:

– Are they in numbers or words?

Senator Murphy:

– The differences are these: Not only did the first proposition speak of complementary legislation, which is an important difference - there is no reference to complementary legislation in the second amendment - but also in this amendment it is suggested that the authority be invested with all necessary power to dispose of Australia’s accumulated wool rapidly and in such a way as to restore confidence in the future of the wool industry, which may affect the notion of power and what it is entitled to do. But more important is the proposition that the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission be dissolved. There was no such proposal in the first amendment. If I may cite an example of the clear difference between 2 such propositions in respect of encompassing responsibilities and dissolution, the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court have been encompassed by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Commonwealth Industrial Court. If honourable senators can understand the analogy, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court still exists and there is a member of it. It has never been dissolved. In o’her words, legislation was passed to encompass the responsibilities of that body, but the body was never dissolved.

This proposition goes beyond the point of encompassing responsibilities to deal with the dissolution of the 2 bodies.I suggest, with respect, that there is nothing in the earlier proposition which deals with that. In fact one might say that in putting the new proposition we had very much in mind the fact that an earlier amendment had been moved. Consequently, this amendment is deliberately and distinctly different from the earlier amendment, even though it covers, as I concede–

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It departs.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes. It covers some areas of the earlier proposition, but it is dis’inctly different. It departs. There is addition and there is alteration. If one examines the 2 amendments there is certainly a decidedly great departure in the second proposition.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not rely on any precedent from the Chair. I shall rely on a more ancient prophet who would advise that I should pursue the ways of righteousness and administer the paths of judgment. Therefore I do not uphold the point of order. The simple reason is that the words that an authority be invested with all necessary power to dispose of Australia’s accumulated wool’ are substantially different from the original amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson.

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

– As you are not upholding the point of order, Mr President, I would like to reply.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are not arguing against my ruling?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No, Sir.I would not do that. I just want to say that the Government opposes the amendment.I am not canvassing anything that you have said, Mr President. The Australian Wool Commission already has the power to dispose of accumulated stocks. The Opposition is saying in the proposed amendment that it believes that the stocks of Australia’s accumulated wool should be disposed of rapidly.

Senator Young:

– It is a vote of no confidence in the Commission.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– All that the Opposition is doing is moving a vote of no confidence in the whole of the wool industry set-up. It is saying that despite the fact that over the last 12 months the Commission has endeavoured to support a reasonable price for wool and to support the growers, it believes that the Commission or the single selling authority should put these stocks on the market as rapidly as possible. The Opposition, in its proposal, is seeking to pull the bottom out of the wool industry.

Senator Milliner:

– The Country Party has done that for years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– If the honourable senators wants me to go on for a couple of hours in reply to that interjection I can do so, but I do not think that his Leader wants me to do that. He wants to get this amendment out of the way as soon as possible.

Senator Milliner:

– Carry it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No, I will not. I am opposing it. If it is carried it will be a great disaster for the wool industry. Having for 12 months supported the wool industry, having averted a situation in which wool prices could be 20 per cent lower than they are at present, the Government is faced with this proposal. The Opposition wants the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission to be dissolved and a single authority established. The immediate task of the single authority would be to dispose of the accumulation of stocks as rapidly as possible. The amendment does not say at what price. It does not say what the state of the market is.

Senator Little:

– It states ‘in such a way as to restore confidence’. That is an indication of the price.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Words, words, Senator Little. What do you think the Wool Commission has been doing for the last 12 months? Apparently you believe that the Commission has not done any job at all.

Senator Milliner:

– Do you agree with the proposal for a single authority?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-I am talking about the Labor amendment andI do not want to be sidetracked. Members of the Opposition and those who support the amendment are saying that after the dissolving of the Wool Board and the Commission the new authority should dispose of the stocks as rapidly as possible irrespective of the climate of the market or whether there is a demand for the wool. If this amendment is carried it will be the greatest possible disaster for the wool industry at this time when it is facing all the problems of the cost/ price squeeze and a low price situation. The Labor Party wants to have an amendment carried that will pull the bottom right out of the wool market.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator’s Murphy) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2630

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

’ - 1 ask for leave to rearrange the business paper by calling on the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) and deferring order of the day No. 7, the Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill, until a later hour in the day. I do so at the request of the Opposition.

Senator Murphy:

– The Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill wilt follow?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– At a later hour and then we will debate it when you are ready. The reason I wish to rearrange the business is that I understand the Opposition wants time to look at the Bill and I am doing it for the convenience of the Opposition.

Senator Murphy:

– We do not need any time. It can follow the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2).

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

In that case 1 withdraw the final part of my remarks and ask for leave to call on the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2).

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 2630

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2567).

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– A number of Bills dealing with customs matters have been before the Parliament during this session. Some of them, of course, have been of great importance to the country and some have not- been quite as important. One could say that the Bill presently before the chamber is a Bill of no great magnitude. Its purpose is merely to validate the collection of duties under the customs tariff proposals introduced into the Parliament on 17th August. 23rd August, 7th September, 16th September, 30th September and 10th November. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) states that he expects the subject matter in the proposals validated by this Bill to be included in the next Customs Tariff Bill. We on this side of the chamber accept the expectations of the Minister on this particular Bill. I indicate here and now that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We will do all in our power to give it speedy passage.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party does not oppose the Bill and gives its support to the proposal.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - Since there is no opposition to the Bill, I suggest we vote on it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2630

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I present the 13th report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 2630

SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES) ADJUSTMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December (vide page 2384), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

  1. Now I understand that Senator Murphy and Senator Willesee do not want to do that, that they are not ready, and that they wish to proceed with order of the day No.
  2. Is that correct?
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The members of the Opposition do not have to forgive me. But I want them to realise what they are doing. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2631

STATES GRANTS BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December (vide page 2389), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Although the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) on this Bill was very lengthy, I think I can summarise the purpose of this Bill by saying that it relates basically to the agreement which was reached this year at one of the very famous meetings about which we hear so much, namely, the meetings between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the States. At the time of the holding of these meetings one sometimes sees cartoons in the newspapers depicting such things as a group of Premiers going cap in band to see the Prime Minister, who is usually shown as sitting up on a throne waiting to receive them.

The purpose of this Bill, as with successive States grants legislation, is to authorise the payment of financial assistance grants to the States. There are also capital assistance grants, which is a subject that the Senate will be debating in a little while, and special assistance grants. Since Federation these things have become more and more complicated. As honourable senators are aware, the Premiers and the Prime Minister meet from time to time and decide upon what assistance ought to be given by the Commonwealth to the States. Of course, if a full debate were conducted on this Bill it would necessitate the Senate sitting until well after Christmas as great complications are involved in the relationships between the States and the Commonwealth. It is an interesting study to go through the history of the way in which there has been a movement away from assistance on a per capita basis to special grants to meet particular problems. The Opposition does not oppose this measure because it is based on an agreement which has been reached with the States, although I suppose the agreements which are reached at these meetings could be compared with going to arbitration in that one never gets exactly what one wants.

The Bill also provides for the adjustments which it has been necessary to make following the handing over by the Commonwealth to the States of the right to impose a payroll tax. A series of Bills have flowed from that move. Grants of this nature are authorised by section 96 of the Constitution, which is a provision that is almost as well known to the Parliament as section 52. It sets out the general method of determining the formula grants which form the bulk of the grants payable under this legislation. As I have said, the Opposition offers no objection to this measure, although there are lots of things it is tempted to talk about in relation to it. For instance, I would like to talk about the necessity for additional grants to Western Australia and to the other States. But one could get into a very academic and philosophical debate if one began to do so. Therefore I think I should content myself with saying that the Opposition does not oppose this Bil).

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I am very happy that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I have not been able to get from Senator Willesee an indication as to whether he is agreeable to this Bill and the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1971 and the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1971 being treated as the one measure as they are all in fact part of the one proposal. I take it that he has no objection to that course being followed.

Senator Willesee:

– I think it would be better if the 3 Bills were debated separately as Senator Cant has a special matter he wishes to raise in relation to one of the Bills.

Senator COTTON:

– In that case I will confine my remarks to the States Grants Bill (No. 2). Senator Willesee referred to the fact that he would have liked to have spoken at some length about the various factors involved in this measure. I would have liked to have been able to do the same and, I am sure, so would many other honourable senators as it is a matter of very great interest. Plenty of material can be gained from a reading of the second reading speech in relation to this matter. A debate of some consequence could be held on it. However, for good and obvious reasons, I do not propose to do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time; and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2632

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December (vide page 2392), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak for a few minutes on this Bill. I realise that the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States have been finalised by agreement up until 1974-75. I realise also that there has been a change in the system of taxation and that certain taxation measures have been handed over to the States. Nevertheless, I think I should point out that my own State of Western Australia is suffering considerable financial difficulty. Western Australia is in a state of boom in its outer areas. This boom has required more expensive or higher cost services to be installed. Certain developmental works are required to be performed by the States that they cannot perform without further Commonwealth assistance. Even though a payroll tax provision has been handed to the States by the Commonwealth the moneys which will be gathered from its imposition will be insufficient to allow Western Australia to do the works it is required to do. For that reason, it is not able to progress as rapidly as it should. For several other reasons, there has been a build-up of unemployment in that State. The rate of unemployment should not be growing in a State that is in a condition of so-called boom.

The State Government has made application to the Commonwealth for $8m of assistance to construct a standard gauge railway from Kalgoorlie to Esperance to serve the nickel fields of Kambalda and Widgiemooltha, but the Commonwealth has found itself in the position of being unable to give this assistance. At the same time, the Commonwealth has refused to continue beyond a certain date the subsidy to the gold mining industry to enable the gold mines to be kept in operation until such time as the development of the nickel mines is able to absorb those people who are at present employed on the gold fields. So there is a two-way costing which can only contribute to employment. Not only does it contribute to employment but it means that workers and their families who have had a lifetime in isolated areas will be required to seek employment in the metropolitan area, thereby creating a demand on ail the community services provided in the metropolitan area - houseing, water supply, sewerage, power, roads and other services, in addition to schooling for their children.

In addition, the State finds itself in difficulty in continuing the operation of the State shipping service beyond Wyndham to Darwin. This means that the $10m worth of trade that has been built up between Western Australia and the Northern Territory will be transferred to the eastern seaboard. I would not hazard a guess as to how many workers are employed in the production of Si Om worth of trade goods, but whatever the number is those goods will not be produced in Western Australia. That will create further unemployment. Also the Commonwealth Government has agreed that the Commonwealth Railways shall purchase prestressed concrete sleepers manufactured in South Australia instead of jarrah sleepers from Western Australia. I do not know what costing has been done on this. It is an admitted fact that the concrete sleepers will cost 3 to 4 times more than the jarrah sleepers will cost. A jarrah sleeper has life of approximately 30 years whereas a prestressed concrete sleeper is said to have a life of SO years. That does not warrant an increased cost of 3 to 4 times for the concrete sleepers. I do not know whether anyone has ascertained what effect there is on the rolling stock. Prestressed concrete sleepers are dead sleepers and must impose on the rolling stock a greater strain than do live sleepers - the jarrah sleepers. A greater amount of maintenance of rolling stock will be required. My concern at this stage is that the purchase of prestressed concrete sleepers will mean the displacement of 50 or 60 sleeper cutters in Western Australia. Again this will contribute to unemployment.

During the Ascot by-election campaign the ex-Premier of Western Australia and his deputy, Mr Charles Court, travelled the electorate saying that in the State unemployment was increasing because a Labor government was in office. In the Senate only a couple of weeks ago it was said that under a Labor government in Western Australia there was 1.5 per cent unemployment and that under a Liberal government in New South Wales there was only 1 per cent unemployment. Rectification of the unemployment that is being caused in Western Australia is beyond the powers of the Western Australian Government without some assistance from the Commonwealth Government. 1 urge the Commonwealth Government to give serious consideration to the propositions put by the Western Australian Premier in order that the State will be able to maintain ils present position and be able to employ ali its work force.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - 1 note the comments of Senator Cant from Western Australia. He canvassed the problems in that State. He made particular reference to quite a number of things - ‘he need in Western Australia, expressed by the State Government, for a standard gauge railway from Kalgoorlie to Esperance and the request to the Commonwealth Government for assistance for that, the fact that the gold mining assistance is at a level which in his view will nol maintain employment, the need for something to be done about the State shipping service from Wyndham to Darwin in order to keep in Western Australia the market for goods that Darwin buys from Western Australia, and the comment about the loss of the jarrah sleeper market as a result of the purchase of prestressed concrete sleepers in South Australia. These problems are peculiar to Western Australia and I could, if I had sufficient time at my disposal, develop the general argument on what has been the position in the States over the years in regard to financial assistance from the Commonwealth - of which all this forms a part.

There is available a fairly substantial document on this matter which we would not have the opportunity to debate tonight. For the information of honourable senators 1 state its name- It is ‘Commonwealth Payments To Or For The States 1971-72’. It was circulated with the Budget Papers. It is a very valuable document. If at a later time honourable senators wish to study this matter further they should direct their attention to table 4 on page 22 and they will see the volume of financial assistance grants given by the Commonwealth to the various States. They will see that the growth in Western Australia between 1959- 60 and 1971-72 is at least as good as the growth of every other State - indeed better than that of most States, with the possible exception of Tasmania which has particular problems. I think that all I can do in the circumstances is to note the comments of the honourable senator and to see that they are drawn to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). 1 could observe that if the problem in Western Australia Ls of the gravity suggested by the honourable senator it can, indeed any State can, make out a case to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for financial assistance in order that the living standards and opportunities in that. State will not fall below those in other States. 1 could refer to the recent statement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on grants for relief of unemployment in non-metropolitan areas. Rather than have the debate develop into a very lengthy one at this stage, which it could very well do, I suggest that I refer the honourable senator’s comments to the Treasurer and that we proceed with the passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2634

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December (vide page 2394), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson;

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– At the outset I indicate that the Opposition proposes to support the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill. Its purpose is to provide grants by way of special assistance of about $7m to South Australia and $7,800,000 to Tasmania under the formula which has operated over many years in respect of assistance granted by the Commonwealth to enable the affairs of government to be carried out in the claimant States. Over the past several years Tasmania has remained a claimant State. I think the reason for that situation can be readily seen by anyone who has some understanding of the particular position of that State. South Australia was a claimant State and, for a time, so was Western Australia. Now Western Australia is not in that category. South Australia and Tasmania, at this moment, are both claimant States. I understand from reading the second reading speech that Queensland has made application for a special grant. At the present time that matter is in the course of consideration. In due course, we can anticipate that a special Bill will be brought down in the Parliament to transfer a sum of money to meet the needs of Queensland so far as its special grants are concerned.

I want to follow the trend which has been set in relation to the last two or three measures which have been before the chamber. I think I should use this occasion to indicate to the Senate the general matter of the financial viability - if 1 may use that rather loose term - of the States. In turn, the financial situation of local government, embraced within the financial arrangements of the States, is a matter which has been causing me a great deal of concern over a number of years. I have given voice to this concern, fear and apprehension on a number of occasions in this place. I believe that those fears arc generally accepted and shared by all honourable senators. With this 3-tier system of government I think we accept that it is terribly essential that the constitutional responsibilities which rest upon the various levels of government - Commonwealth, State and local government - should be adequately and properly discharged. When those responsibilities are not adequately and sufficiently discharged there is an imbalance in the total system of financing government instrumentalities and matters of this kind.

I refer at this stage to a notice of motion which appears as a General Business item at page 4505 of today’s Senate Notice Paper. It is in the name of Senator

Willesee. It raises this broad, general matter of the financial relationship which exists between the Commonwealth and the States. Of course it takes in the affairs of local government and semi-government institutions. I now serve notice that in the ensuing session of the Senate I shall attempt to raise this matter in some detail. Perhaps I am wandering away from the matter of special assistance as a specific item but the financial relationship between the 3 levels of government in this country appears to be very close. In fact, they have a relationship to the matter with which we are dealing at this time. I hope that honourable senators will give a great deal of thought in the period between now and the resumption of the Parliament in February next as to whether it is not a very solemn responsibility which rests on the shoulders of each one of us to recognise the disabilities, problems and concerns of the 3 levels of government. 1 believe that as one of the constituent members of the 3-tier system of government we should exercise proper authority in this Parliament to ensure that we take action which the community at large wants us to take so that there will be restoration of balance to the functions of the 3 levels of government. I hope that honourable senators will recognise the need to do this and that in the course of time they will support me in a general proposition to ensure that the initiative which should come from this level of government does, in fact, take place here. As a consequence of this action some proper authority will be established to ensure that we are not shirking our responsibilities which I believe is what we are doing at the present time.

I can foresee the time in the not too distant future when, if we permit the present trend to continue, there will be such an imbalance in the 3 levels of government in Australia that serious problems will arise and that the people of this nation to whom we owe responsibility will be denied certain functions of government, certain facilities, installations and institutions to which they are entitled. I know that this matter is somewhat away from the subject to which we are directing our attention at this time. But having made that pretty general comment I come back to the Bill.

This matter concerns me greatly. I shall turn my thoughts for a moment to the sit uation in Tasmania. It has disabilities which I hope honourable senators will recognise as being very special disabilities. Firstly, of course, Tasmania is a small State. Because of this it is a poor State but only in the economic and financial sense. It is fairly natural that unless something very spectacular takes place in a rather limited area then the financial viability of that area - in this instance Tasmania - is very much related to the limits of its ability to generate its own revenue and carry out its own functions.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission is an interesting set-up. Naturally it is implied that the basis of the allocation of the grant to a claimant State is made after a thorough examination of the financial performance of that State. A judgment is made on the performance of the State as to its needs in the foreseeable future - that is for the next ensuing financial year. After the end of that term and within a period of 2 years the Grants Commission takes a further look at what has happened. It takes a forward look at the possibility of the need for additional finance. The Commission then makes an adjustment based upon an accurate determination of the financial performance of the audited statement of accounts of the particular State. We often find that sums of money which are voted to the States vary greatly indeed. A couple of years ago - I think it was 1969-70 - the Commonwealth made a grant of S22m to Tasmania. Ultimately, at the end of the expiration of the period during which an examination of Tasmania’s actual performance was made in that year, an adverse adjustment was made. I shall not quote the sum of money but, in fact, the amount which had been initially voted was in excess of what was ultimately found to be the need of Tasmania. An adjustment downwards was made. Of course, in the next year, 1970-71, the adjustment was upwards. And so the situation goes on.

I shall make some comment about the manner in which the affairs of the States are judged and the basis upon which the judgment is made. For instance, a comparison is made with the performance of the standard States. In this situation we run into some difficulty. It is implicit - if it is not specifically stated - in the comments made during the second reading speech that here there is an area of imprecision.

From time to time, the Grants Commission takes a look at the basis upon which it assesses the needs of the States. Such an occasion occurred a couple of years ago when the standard States were New South Wales and Victoria. On that occasion the basis of the judgment was widened to embrace other States. I know that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has again come back and formed a judgment on the basis of the 2 standard States. Here one runs into the problem of trying to judge the performance of a State like Tasmania with its relatively small economy together with the great disability which it has of being subject so much to sea transport. Almost all the goods which are manufactured in and leave Tasmania are seaborne. We have this very great disability which no other State has. It is interesting to note a statement at pages 35 and 36 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade after it looked at the affairs of the Australian National Line. The Committee recommended that the Bureau of Transport Economics should be asked to attempt to determine what effect shipping freight rates had on costs in Tasmania and the disabilities which flowed from this situation into the various industries in Tasmania. 1 recall reading in that report observations made by the managements of some industries in the State to the effect that the freight factor is very substantial and it is anticipated that in the current year an amount of 8290,000 additional to the normal running costs of an industry will have to be borne by thai industry because of the freight disability. When a State is so dependent on its ability to move its goods to the market across the sea in ships, how can its performance be related to the performance of the standard States of New South Wales and Victoria?

Another disability inherent in this scheme is that a government of a particular political persuasion may be elected on the basis of a mandate which it receives from the public, based upon certain blandishments or offers of performance as a government; but, when it assumes office and begins to institute a policy on social services under which it agrees to offer benefits additional to those which are offered in New South Wales or Victoria, or wishes to give special consideration to education by providing some additional assistance, such as living away from home grants, special assistance in particular areas and things of that kind in respect of which it wants to exercise its own initiative, it cannot do that without incurring an adverse report from the Grants Commission and an adjustment Which takes away its right to institute that system which it wants to institute in the interests of the people of the State. As I said, I do not want to develop this theme at any great length at this stage. Senator Cotton nods his head in assent; we are in agreement on that.

Senator Cotton:

– It is an interesting subject, but-

Senator DEVITT:

– It is a tremendously interesting subject. I hope I have made the point. Perhaps I should let it rest at that at this stage. The whole question of the financial relationships of the 3 levels of government must be looked at. I do not think we can dodge the issue any longer. I do not think we can turn our backs on it. We will not solve the problem merely by turning our backs on it and saying: ‘In the case of our assistance grants to the States and the other financial arrangements that we have with the States, we leave the arrangement of the affairs of local government in the hands of the State instrumentalities’. That just is not good enough. The performance of local government in Australia at the present time is falling away or dropping back. The standard of people offering themselves for local government - the unpaid jobs in the administration of the affairs of local government - must fall away. Men with capabilities and qualifications to run the affairs of local areas will not offer themselves to an institution which is poverty-ridden and which cannot provide the services, installations and other things that they see as requirements of the community to be provided at a standard which is acceptable and economically right. Perhaps I should leave it at that at this stage. I hope for an opportunity early in the next session, by means of the notice of motion which is on the notice paper and which has been there since 12th March last year, to develop this theme so that we can consider seriously these problems, which are very important ones. I repeat the statement that I made at the commencement of my remarks: The Opposition approves this grant and supports the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to say a few words on this Bill in order to associate South Australian senators with it, as the grants go to our State as well as to Tasmania. I wish to let the Senate know that Tasmania is not the only State with disabilities. When we are considering disabilities we have to look at the problems of all the States. This year South Australia is receiving $7m of this special grant. That represents an increase of $2m on the grant last year. Whilst South Australia was a claimant State for many years, in 1959-60 its condition was such that it withdrew from being a claimant State because there were special penalties associated with that. In 1970 advice was given that the 4 weaker States could make claims to be recognised as claimant States. South Australia, in view of its financial position, had no alternative but to make a claim. The claim has resulted in a special payment being made to South Australia to enable it to apply the standards of facilities that apply in Victoria and New South Wales.

But among the penalties of being a claimant State is the control that the granting authority has over the government of the State. Many increases in rates and taxes in South Australia have been essential for the purpose of establishing equality of revenue raising, in particular fields, with Victoria or New South Wales. If hospital charges were not increased, that would be used to the detriment of the claimant State in its claim for special grants. Queensland has now become a claimant State. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, in his second reading speech, after referring to a State establishing its position as a claimant State and the acceptance of standards, said:

The Commission has announced no other major changes of principle or method in this year’s report. However, the Commission is in the process of reviewing its methods in relation to a number of important areas, especially expenditure on hospitals.

So the situation is that Queensland, which is now a claimant State, has a free hospitals system, and the Commission is reviewing the position in relation to its consideration of the claimant States, especially as to expenditure on hospitals. One wonders whether Queensland can maintain its free hospitals system while remaining a claimant State. Therefore, the authority is taken out of the hands of the State and put into the hands of the Grants Commission as to what standards must be complied with.

South Australia has its peculiarities. As I stated last week, it relies on industries that are affected by any recession that occurs in Australia. I refer to the home appliance and motor car industries. A recession that occurs in New South Wales, for instance, has an immediate effect on the industries in South Australia. As to other industries that we might establish or develop, we are noted for our wine industry. But, whilst the Commonwealth gives us $4m in special grants, it cripples the activities of a big section of the State by imposing a tax on wine which affects South Australia more than it affects any other State. This raises not only the matters Senator Devitt mentioned in regard to the relationship between local government and the other tiers of government but also the question of whether there should be a complete review of the method of reimbursing the States so that the reimbursements will be more in accordance with their needs.

If a State can develop an industry with an export potential, the Commonwealth grants a subsidy to it. I refer to schemes such as the beef roads scheme in northern Australia and the brigalow lands scheme in Queensland. If a State has an industry that produces for export, the Commonwealth taxes it, as it did in the case of the wine industry in South Australia, thus killing the export potential that we had; yet the Commonwealth pays money to another State for the purposes of development. I just want to raise the point that I think special consideration should be given to an investigation of the allocation of moneys among the States.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I rise to speak on this Bill only to draw the attention of the Senate to the stupidity of the financial arrangements operating in Australia today. This has been brought about, of course, by the maladministration of this Government which is supposed to have governed Australia for the past 22 years. I say supposed to have governed-

Senator Marriott:

– We will have an anniversary tomorrow.

Senator MILLINER:

Senator Marriott, an Assistant Minister, has nothing to do with the Senate with the exception of playing understudy to the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). I suggest that Senator Marriott remain silent, as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson said to him when he was first appointed Assistant Minister. If honourable senators consider the situation in Australia today, as evidenced by the second reading speech of the Minister for Health, they will see just how completely incongruous is the financial situation today in Australia. Notwithstanding the interjection from Senator Marriott I repeat that this can be attributed to the maladministration of the Government in power today.

Senator Marriott:

– Why did the people re-elect us?

Senator MILLINER:

– I refer the Senate to the second paragraph on page 2 of the Minister’s second reading speech. I want to read it for the benefit of Senator Marriott and other members of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Marriott:

– You are just trying to prove that you can read.

Senator MILLINER:

– Of course I am indicating that I can read but I would not be so complimentary to Senator Marriott because since he became Assistant Minister he has become part of the Establishment.

Senator Devitt:

– Which part?

Senator MILLINER:

– The hind part. That was contrary to the wishes of his colleagues in the Liberal Party, particularly when we consider something that has been discussed quite frequently in the corridors of Parliament House in the last few days. In the second paragraph on page 2 of the Minister’s speech he said:

As honourable senators may be aware, the Queensland Government has recently applied for a special grant for 1971-72. The Commission can be expected to submit a special report on Queensland’s application later in this financial year. If the Commission recommends payment of a special grant to Queensland, and if the Government accepts that recommendation, then legislation will have to be introduced to provide for the payment of the grant before the end of 1971-72.

I repeat the phrase: ‘and if the Government accepts that recommendation’. Could one suggest that the Government will ref use the recommendation? I suggest that this is part and parcel of a deal by the Government with the Country Party and Liberal Party Government in Queensland to manipulate the finances of Australia. This Federal Government will accede to the request of the Queensland Government.

Senator Webster:

– That is a very unfair assertion.

Senator MILLINER:

– That is a very uncharitable statement from Senator Webster, the hanging senator who wants to hang people in 1971. What a shocking situation for a young fellow of that calibre who has said, quite cold-bloodedly, that he would hang people. My godfather!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! I think it would be better if Senator Milliner addressed the Chair and stuck to the Bill.

Senator MILLINER:

– In deference to you, Mr Deputy President, I will address the Chair but I repeat that for a young fellow to have an attitude such as that is a shocking indication of the inability of the Country Party to be part and parcel of this coalition Government. Let us examine why the Minister made this remark about Queensland becoming a mendicant State. The Queensland Government applied to the Commonwealth Government for a $10m grant to assist people in drought stricken areas in central Queensland. The Commonwealth Government rejected such an approach. The Queensland Government thought that that was wrong and in its Budget it allocated $10m to wool growers and other people in central Queensland. What happened then? After allocating that $10m Queensland applied to the Commonwealth Government to become a mendicant State. Therefore I ask you, Mr Deputy President, was it not stupid in the first place for the Commonwealth Government to reject the application and stupid for the Queensland Government to allocate $10m and then come back to the Commonwealth for a $10m grant? If there is any logic in that I ask the Minister to explain it to me. I am sure it would be impossible for him to do so.

That leads me to believe that the financial arrangements of the Commonwealth are being administered in an archaic fashion and until such time as the Government adopts some of the principles of socialism the Commonwealth’s financial arrangements will continue to be in this almost impossible situation. There are companies in Queensland making fantastic profits yet we find the Queensland Government, members of the Country Party who believe in the philosophies of the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, saying that it is broke. Queensland could be one of the wealthiest States in the Commonwealth but because of the maladministration of Liberal and Country Party governments, assisted by the Democratic Labor Party, it is becoming a mendicant State - something that Queensland has denied being for many years.

Senator McManus:

– Queensland was doing well.

Senator MILLINER:

– lt is useless for Senator McManus to say that the Democratic Labor Party has not endeavoured to keep these people in office. It has done so. I say to the Minister that as a result of the maladministration of the financial affairs of the Commonwealth, Queensland has now become a mendicant State; Queensland, one of the proud States of the Commonwealth which has never had to do this in the past is now on bended knees coming to the Commonwealth and asking to become a mendicant State. Mr Deputy President, I have stated these things because I believe they should be on the record.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– There is some mystique about the phrase ‘mendicant State’. It was coined many years ago in Queensland and it has become rather a millstone, in a sense, to Queensland. In the considered judgment of the economic and financial experts it was decided that Queensland should become a claimant State before the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As I understand it, that would be of very considerable financial assistance to Queensland and perhaps it could be canvassed to the advantage of that State. Because a State elects to become a claimant State under the Commonwealth Grants Commission, that does not make it, in any true sense of the term, a mendicant State. That is purely an emotive terms. I am not defending the attitude of the Queensland Government on these things. Naturally, I disagree with it politically. The matter has been considered and the action is taken, perhaps with some reluctance, because a State likes to think that in this period of its development it is in a position to sustain economic and financial viability, irrespective of Commonwealth support. Nevertheless, it has been decided in the best judgment of the economic advisers that Queensland should become a claimant State. I have no reason to believe that this will not be in the best interests of Queensland. Therefore, let us not be distracted from what is right and proper in the best interests of this State by the use of the emotive term ‘mendicant’.

I know that, like myself, Senator Milliner may well speak from a sense of State pride. I do not hold that against him. But I do not think it is right to describe the situation of a State that elects to become a claimant State as that of mendicancy. Queensland is a State that, in general terms, has a somewhat lower taxable capacity by virtue of the nature of the level of its industrialisation and primary industry, and the nature. of the State. It has particular financial problems which it has been considered can best be resolved to the advantage of the State in this way. Therefore, I repel the suggestions that the action taken in Queensland will denigrate in some sense the State and limit its sovereignty, although it may limit in some sense its economic and financial independence by virtue of the fact that there will be some Commonwealth scrutiny of its financial and economic activities, but in no sense can I see that this will be other than for the benefit of Queensland. The move has been made after long analysis and I trust that the judgment of the Government of Queensland is right and proper, and that this will be in the best interests of Queensland.

I know that Senator Milliner and I, regardless of how we may differ on the method, both have at heart the best interests for the advancement of the State. While Senator Milliner sees in this move something that detracts from the sovereignty of Queensland, I see something that in a fuller measure and in time will give that sovereignty a wider and deeper meaning and significance, and greater reality. In those circumstances, we wait to see the results, perhaps with some concern but nevertheless not without hope, that this decision of the Queensland Government will operate to the advantage of Queensland and that the additional Commonwealth assistance that will be forthcoming will stimulate its industries and allow it to continue to develop as one of the greatest States in the Commonwealth.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I will deal very briefly with the comments made by various speakers. The comments made by Senator Byrne from Queensland were, if I may say so, very proper, extremely sensible, most appropriate and wise because this is the pattern of what happens in this country and what has happened through time. We are a Commonwealth of people. At certain times, some States do better than others. Some States have greater population and opportunities. Whether it is admitted or not, historically it is a fact that we have a pooling of resources. The Commonwealth Grants Commission is designed to help from time to time those States which, at a particular point of time, may need some assistance from the common pool in a special fashion. Therefore, we had a State at one time subject to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, then going outside the Commission’s ambit but due to the fact that it went through a period when things were not good, perhaps again becoming subject to the Commission. In no sense is it anything other than a right to share in the common opportunities of this nation. This happened to South Australia. It once was subject to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, it moved outside the Commission and moved back into it again. Western Australia also was subject to the Commission and then moved outside it. This could happen at any time. Australia should be looked upon as a country where the resources of all the Australian people are to be devoted for the purposes of the Australian people. It is the purpose of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to equalise the distribution of those resources.

I thought that Senator Milliner mistook noise for sense. I do not think he added anything of economic value to the debate. Senator Cavanagh was concerned about the disability problems that arise when a State becomes subject to the Grants Commission. Perhaps they might be described as penalties for adjustments because some degree of financial restraint is placed upon the States by the Grants Commission which gives them the extra money. I do not want to take a long time on this point. Senator Cavanagh is a person who takes these matters seriously. Therefore, I refer him to the 38th annual report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission at page 43, paragraph 315, which contains a special explanation of the situation to which he referred. Without my reading it at great length, I think it might be of value to him.

Senator Devitt and Senator Cavanagh both referred to their respective States of Tasmania and South Australia. If they turn to the same report at pages 182 and 183 they will see a list of the witnesses from those 2 States who appeared before the Commonwealth Grants Commission in order to evaluate and establish the States’ claims for assistance. They will see that Tasmania was represented by 26 witnesses from the whole field of the administration of the Tasmanian service departments. South Australia was represented by 6 witnesses. There does not appear to mc in this analysis to be anybody from the Department of Health in South Australia at the hearings before the Grants Commission. Nonetheless, some State public servant may have been so charged. The report gives the positions of the people who came and shows the importance that they attach to the Grants Commission. It also shows how seriously the Grants Commission deals with these matters.

Senator Devitt, in observing a problem with which he is familiar, because of his experience in local government - something with which many of us, including myself, are familiar - referred to the 3 tiers of government and to the financial problems of local government. I want to make an observation about this. It is part of a continuing study of inter-governmental relations - Commonwealth, State and local government, all tiers of government, all with responsibilities and all with particular problems. I wish very briefly to make a few observations to honourable senators. I have referred to these specific figures before. I believe they should be referred to again. In thi financial years from 1949-50 to 1971-72 the total amount of money available lo the Commonwealth for its own purposes multiplied 6.9 times. The money available to the States from the Commonwealth from its own resources multiplied 12.4 times. So in those 21 years the Commonwealth has been increasingly generous to the States. The States have had a multiplication of resources available to them greater than the Commonwealth has had, in relative terms.

Local government is the creature of the State governments. Although we might express ourselves as being willing to see some change, 1 do not think quite the same happiness will be expressed about this matter in State government areas. 1 am of the view that the State governments have had adequate resources to help themselves and to help the local government bodies. The fact that they have not done so is not the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility. It is the State governments’ responsibility. But I do agree with Senator Devitt when he says that there is a need for a definitive study of inter-govenmental relations to make sure that the 3 tiers of government are given equal opportunities. Instead of directing attention to the Commonwealth Government in this area, I submit that more properly it should be directed to the State governments which, as I have said, have received this multiplication of resources at a greater rate than has the Commonwealth, and which are responsible for local governments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I seek the indulgence of the Senate for a few minutes to deal with one or two matters that were raised during the course of the debate in relation to the respective positions of levels of government. For the sake of the record - Senator Cotton raised this matter of the relativity of the amounts of money that have been received and used, by the 3 levels - I merely indicate that over a period of years during which the Commonwealth debt has decreased, the debts of State governments have increased 4 times and the debts of local government have increased by between 700 per cent and 900 per cent. This gives some indication, surely, of the problem, In relation to the matter with which Senator Byrne dealt at length arising from the comments which were made by Senator Milliner as to the loss of independence or sovereignty, let me assure Senator Byrne, for the reasons to which I have alluded in the course of my remarks, that, in fact, there is a substantial loss of sovereignty, independence and ability of a government to carry out its promises to the electorate as part of the functions which it adopts These are definite and distinct losses. I have seen this happen in the field of education where a State wanted to exercise its own judgment as to what it would spend on education but was unable to do so. 1 have seen it happen also with respect to the provision of public transport systems. In that case an adverse adjustment was incurred, as happened also with hospital services.

Senator Byrne:

– If you do not have the money you cannot carry out any of these things.

Senator DEVITT:

– But this is part of the constitutional system in which we have 6 States which are independent bodies within the terms of the Commonwealth Constitution. Therefore it should be the right of a State to be able to exercise its own political judgment on the basis of its election to government by the people of the State. I make the point quite strongly that in this situation a State suffers a loss of independence and it suffers a loss of ability to exercise its own initiative and judgment. That is one of the penalties that it pays for being a mendicant state. The term ‘mendicant’ is used at times and has been used over the years. As a modified term we refer to a ‘claimant’ state because this is more acceptable and does not offend in the same way as the term ‘mendicant’ does. But that is what it amounts to. I have raised these matters so that they will be on the record.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2642

SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES) ADJUSTMENT BILL 1971

Debate resumed (vide page 2631).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– This Bill is related to the remuneration and allowances payable to the holders of certain statutory offices. These are the people who are in this limbo of government where we have set up statutory offices, subject to some control by the Government. Examples of these organisations which we know so well are the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Trans-Australia Airlines. In a consideration of this Bill the Australian Labor Party seeks to do one of 2 things. First, by a series of amendments to Bills that came before the Parliament we insisted that instead of the salaries for these office holders being fixed by regulation they be fixed by substantial parliamentary enactment, that is, by a Bill presented to the Parliament, so that we could be better informed of the manner in which those salaries were being increased from time to time. At the same time, we allowed for a transitional period so that in the case of salaries which, had been fixed by regulation the Bills would take effect as substantial enactments from 1st January next year. Part of this Bill seeks to achieve that.

During the Committee stage the Opposition will move an amendment, the effect of which will be to freeze at their present level the salaries of these officers. The reason for this is that we are in an atmosphere of wage restraint, an atmosphere in which the Government talks about the need for restraint in the community, and because yesterday in the House of Representatives the Government by deliberate action decided that an arbitral determination dealing with parliamentary salaries and ministerial salaries should be reduced by two-sevenths. The ultimate result of that, because of other action taken yesterday by the Australian Labor Party, is that those salaries have been frozen altogether. I wonder whether the Government realises the important step that it has taken in respect of the upper echelons of wage fixation - the tall poppies as I think they are popularly termed. By deliberate choice, irrespective of what the arbitral decision was, the Government decided to reduce these salaries by two-sevenths. I reiterate that the result flowing from that was that the salaries have been frozen.

At a time when the Government is saying that there should be restraint in respect of the normal arbitral decisions which most people think of as being based on the metal trades industries in the national wage case, where so many people are affected but where the smaller salaries of the community are being dealt with it is important that there should be restraint in the upper echelons. It seems to me that the Government took the first step yesterday by applying restraint in those upper echelons over which it has control. I do not intend to deal with this measure point by point. I propose merely to lay a foundation so that the Senate will be aware of our general approach and what we are doing. I propose to explain carefully the amendment that we intend to move. I do not want to read it all out, because of the lateness of the hour.

The amendment has been drafted for us by the professionals and I assure the Senate that its purpose is merely to say that for the time being, at any rate - because this Bill can be brought up again in the new year - we ask the Senate to inform the House of Representatives that we are extending what the Government did yesterday and are freezing these salaries at their present level. The people with whom we are dealing are holders of statutory offices, including people such as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission, the Chairman and members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Chairman and members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and those officers who operate under the Criminology Research Act. I do not propose to read them all out. Honourable senators are aware of the sort of people to whom I am referring and the level of salaries that they receive. In some cases their salaries would have been getting towards $30,000- actually $29,250- if it were not for what I hope will be a successful amendment that I shall move at the Committee stage.

Their salaries were to move from about $22,750 to $29,250 and, in the lower ranks, from about $19,500 to $25,000. What we are proposing to do is to extend what the Government did yesterday. We are asking the Parliament to freeze salaries at a very high level. In this way it cannot be suggested that we are taking the bread and butter from the mouths of people. We take this action mainly because of the Government’s action yesterday. I hope that the Government realises that it may, for the first time, be moving into a field in which it is consciously supporting the pegging of salaries and allowances paid to the higher echelons. 1 foreshadow that at the Committee stage 1 shall move:

Leave out clauses 2. to 5. (inclusive) and the Schedules, insert the following clauses and Schedules: “2. - (I.) Subject to this section, this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. “(2.) The amendment made by this Act to the Criminology Research Act 1971 shall take effect on the day on which that Act comes into operation. “3. - (1.) The Acts’ specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act (being Acts containing provisions relating to the remuneration and allowances payable to the holders of the offices respectively specified in the second column of that Schedule) are amended as respectively specified in the third column of ‘.hal Schedule. “(2.) Section 1 of the Broadcasting and Television Act (No. 2) 1971 is amended by omitting sub-section (4.).

As the schedules extend over 3 pages and as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and Senator Byrne, on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party, are cognisant of them, I ask that they be incorporated in Hansard. A glance at them will reveal that it would not make very much sense if I were to read them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows): “4. .n Aci spc ‘(icd in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act. as amended by this Act, may be cited in the manner specified in the second column of that Schedule opposite to the reference to that Act in the first column.

“THE SCHEDULES

” Second Schedule Section 4.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– Some regret is associated with the presentation and discussion of this Bill. It arises, as I understand the position, in circumstances in which the Senate some time ago after a series of debates in relation to one cause or another decided that certain officers whose salaries had formerly been fixed by regulation or in some other way should be fixed by statute. The proposition was put to the Senate that the fixing of salaries by regulation should continue until a certain date and that after that date such salaries should be fixed by statute. Apparently that date has arrived and the time has come when the legislature must move to fix the salaries in terms of the resolution of the Senate. Hence the Bill is before the Senate.

However, the Bill does 2 things. Firstly it purports now to regulate those salaries by statute where formerly they were determined by regulation. Secondly, it purports to fix those salaries at a higher rate. I presume that the point to which Senator

Willesee has directed attention is not so much the method of fixation as the rate at which the salaries should be determined. It is to that point that I wish to direct my remarks.

The Democratic Labor Party was a party to the proposition that the salaries should be fixed by statute; that they should be fixed by regulation until a certain time and t hereafter by statute. Therefore the principle of this Bill is supported by the Democratic Labor Party. The level of the salary fixation is a matter of considerable concern. The people involved are statutory officers. Their salaries are necessarily high because their offices arc of great moment and responsibility. As Senator Willesee has indicated, the schedules show that their salaries are high.

Yesterday apparently there was a declaration of Government policy that in the prevailing economic conditions an indication should be given to the nation for restraint to be exercised as to the level at which salaries shall be fixed in order to assist to stem the process of inflation, lt is rather untimely perhaps that we are required to consider this particular Bill so soon after that decision was made, because it involves the position of honourable members of both Houses of this Parliament.

The DLP feels that, following that intimation of the Government’s attitude and because that intimation was an indication to the nation that an element of restraint should be exercised by those who have the opportunity to fix and determine salaries, the same principle should be applied, as far as lies within the competency of the Commonwealth, in areas of its own adminis’ rat ion and its own ability to control and regulate. This Bill comes before the Senate against that background. For that reason, because that is the disposition of the Government which has been accepted for the benefit of the nation, we believe it would be a logical contradiction if, immediately after that disposition had been shown, the Parliament should pass a Bill which would disregard the principle espoused.

I admit that obviously the inference can be drawn that in some spirit of vindictiveness or reprisal action is being taken in relation to this Bill. I assure honourable senators, as I assure the Parliament and the nation, that insofar as the attitude of the DLP is concerned nothing is further from our thoughts. It is very much in our wishes that the salaries appropriate to these very distinguished public officials should have been proceeded with unimpeded according to justice and relative to other determinations which have been made by arbitral tribunals and bodies that have the power to fix wages. However, we must face the realities of the situation. We must accept the logic, the inevitable and somewhat tragic logic, of the attitude at this time. It would be a departure from a principle so recently espoused if today we were to permit without intervention the fixation of these salaries at the higher rate while totally disregarding what is obviously the Government’s disposition. 1 appreciate that in these circumstances the Parliament could be open to a charge of vindictiveness or reprisal. Certainly nothing is farther from the thoughts of the DLP. Whatever action we take in this matter is taken with the greatest regret, but the Parliament would involve itself in an exhibition of contradiction and inconsistency if it did not similarly apply within the area of constitutional ability the administrative responsibility available to it and if it did not apply the principle espoused within the last 24 hours in another area of its constitutional and administrative responsibility.

For those reasons we feel that there is no alternative in the logic of the situation but to do what some senators are now disposed to do. lt has been suggested that if this Bill were rejected a vacuum would be disclosed in which no provision whatsoever would be made for those very distinguished public servants who are the subject of this Bill. That would be true. The alternative, therefore, is to provide by legislation for the fixation of their salaries at the existing level, or to use a term which has been applied, to institute a wage freeze in this area as in other areas.

If these good people are asked to make this sacrifice, and it will be a very substantial sacrifice - I do not discuss here the quantum of their present salaries or the quantum of the suggested and perhaps now abandoned increase - we can only hope that whatever sacrifice they are required by statute to make will nol be lost sight of by the nation and that any restraint imposed upon them will be accepted by them, even though reluctantly, with good grace. If this restraint is imposed it is hoped that it will inspire similar restraints. Otherwise the whole purpose of the exercise would be lost and the exercise of yesterday and of today would go for nothing.

We would hope that by virtue of this demonstration of attitude the Australian economy might very quickly be restored to a position where there could be a restoration of wage and salary equity which, for the moment, apparently is being laid aside in what are considered to be the higher interests of national economic and financial stability. That is our hope. It is something to which all honourable senators should dedicate their minds and to which the Government particularly should dedicate its mind so that the economy can very quickly be restored to a position where there can be a restoration of salar)’ and wage equity at the earliest possible moment.

It is very difficult to ask any section of the community to accept the sacrifice which is now being imposed on the people who are affected by this Bill, or other people who were asked similarly to make sacrifices so very recently. It is very hard to do. It would be a tragedy if, they having been required to make this sacrifice, it went for nothing. If this is to be an inspiration to the nation then let it be accepted in that way. Let the lesson be spelt out in all of those areas from one end of Australia to the other, from one level of income to the other, from one type of industry and employment to the other, so that the sacrifice of these people will not have gone unheeded and without value.

Debate interrupted.

page 2647

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2647

SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES)

Debate resumed.

Senator BYRNE:

– This is a sad occasion. It must be considered a sad occasion that in a time of rising prices, in a time of raging inflation, the just additions to salaries and the reclassifications of salaries for wider reasons may have to be denied. Nobody can be happy about the situation, including not only those immediately affected but also those who have the unfortunate responsibility of doing this. Those of us who remember can take our minds back to the depression of 1932 when wages and incomes were cut across the board by 22i per cent under the Premiers Plan. That is a period of Australia’s life that all of us try to forget and yet we must all be required to remember. This situation brings back ominous recollections of that period.

In supporting the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition we do hope, and we hope sincerely, that this tragic situation will be quickly rectified and that these men who are required to make this sacrifice - men who assume tremendous responsibilities, whose salaries, I trust in the estimation of those who have the responsibility of determining them, are not unrelated to comparable salaries in the Public Service and outside it, of men performing similar tasks of heavy responsibility - will have restored to them very quickly wage and salary equity. Personally I have the very highest regard for men holding office in public corporations and men holding positions of high distinction in the Public Service - men who are dedicated to their tasks and who bring a tremendous amount of knowledge and personal sacrifice to the work of the nation. Nobody likes to be a party to this action, but if this has to be done it has to be done. I do hope that the people of Australia will respond to what is now being done here and will respond to the sacrifice these people are being asked to make and the sacrifice which others have been asked to make within the last 24 hours. If that response is adequate and if it is immediate then we may restore very quickly a position in which once again we can hand out to people their just salary and wage entitlements without having the corresponding detrimental effect of striking at the very heart of the economic stability of the nation.

With those comments on this rather unfortunate situation, the Democratic Labor Party says with a great measure of reluctance, but in pursuance of a principle of restraint which has been espoused by the Government, which has been accepted by members of this Parliament as being consonant with the demands of national financial and economic stability, that it supports the amendment which has been moved by Senator Willesee on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. However, we trust that the necessity for this action will not be of long duration and that very quickly what these men are entitled to in terms of work value will quickly and fully be restored to them.

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

(1 1.4) - in reply - 1 understand that this situation is that the Opposition will agree to the second reading and then move amendments at the Committee stage.

Senator Willesee:

– That is right.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 wish to advert only very briefly to the generality of the proposal. However, 1 feel bound to say in response to the statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) when he linked this matter to Bills relating to salaries which were introduced into the other House yesterday that this Bill was introduced into the other House and was the subject of a message to this chamber for a considerable time before the Kerr Report had its birth. So it seems that the Opposition is acting in relation to a situation which was regarded as valid, proper and justifiable in every way, and 1 hope to demonstrate this very briefly in a moment. Quite clearly Senator Willesee pitched his case to the point that because the Government has decided that there shall be an exercise of restraint in relation to the Bills introduced into the other place yesterday this restraint should retrospectively apply in relation to legislation which was put down and passed in the other place. I would be interested to know what the Opposition did in the other place in relation to these particular Bills.

Senator Willesee:

– You know what happened in the other place.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONDo not walk me away from the point. 1 want to know, for instance, what the Opposition did in the other place in relation to these Bills. It is obvious that that barb went in and stung a little. Never mind. The fact: is that there is a proposal to move amendments because of something thai happened yesterday. Without arguing the merits of what happened yesterday, the Opposition says that we should exercise restraint at this next level. The amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition excludes certain officers concerning whom decisions of the Senate were taken that Bills be introduced by 1st January next year. Indeed, that was an integral part of the Bill in its creation. However, the foreshadowed amendment has handled that si Illation by excluding those officers from the amendment.

Senator Gair:

– Have these people received any increase?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I do not want to respond to the honourable senator.

Senator Gair:

– lt is just a simple question. Have they received any increase in their salaries since their salaries were determined?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not want to respond to a simple question because if 1 do so in your case other honourable senators will want to have a forum here when in fact this is a second reading debate. 1 think the proper course is for the honourable senator to speak at the Committee stage. The Bill proposes to increase salaries, for instance, of lay members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Deputy Public Service Arbitrators. These people have not had an increase since June 1968. Mark you, this was before the last increase was granted in parliamentary salaries. I say that to let honourable senators know where they stand. I suggest it would be an injustice for parliamentarians, for instance - that is what we are - to be extending this situation into the non-political arena in the way that has been suggested in the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They are not my words; they are his words. It is quite the wrong method of approaching this matter. The Opposition will put itself in the situation, and put the Parliament in the situation, of being accused of saying: If I cannot have my bat I will not let you have yours’. I reiterate that we will mete out summary justice, as apparently it is thought to be, to some people by means of a Bill related to a matter which was introduced into the Parliament before we actually did anything about the Kerr report. It is well to remember, as Senator Byrne said, that if an officer dies his widow will receive a lower pension if the Bill is not passed than she will receive if it is passed.

Senator Willesee:

– Are you sure of that?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am relying on the advice given to me by my advisers. I do not know whether they are correct. That aspect will have to be checked. Likewise, an officer who retires will receive a lower pension and a smaller amount in lieu of his furlough entitlement. The Senate should be fully informed of what will happen if it accepts the Opposition’s proposal. I believe that it is quite wrong to treat this group of officers in isolation from what has gone on in the past. For instance, I understand that Second Division officers of the Public Service received a salary increase in November as a result of the Public Service Arbitrator’s decision. Are the officers who come under this legislation to be made an exception of because of something that happened yesterday?

Senator Gair:

– Who gave the increase to the Second Division?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Second Division officers received a salary increase as a result of an arbitral decision.

Senator Gair:

– They got it from the Public Service Board. They gave it to themselves.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– No, they did not. Senator Gair should not incorrectly state the position. A special authority is constituted to determine Public Service salaries and the Second Division got an increase as a result of a determination by that authority. In carrying the proposed amendment the Senate will be making a distinction between public servants who receive salary increases on the basis of arbitral decisions and the very limited number of people whose salary increases are made by legislation. I can appreciate the climate in which this Bill is being debated, but I do not think the Senate should be put in the situation where it can be suggested that within 24 hours of a decision being taken in ano her place the Senate said: ‘What is good enough for us is good enough for them’. Those officers are not comparable with us. The whole basis of the inquiry by Mr Justice Kerr was to separate the Parliament-

Senator Milliner:

– Who is showing the restraint?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator will have an opportunity to speak at a later stage. I say with all the sincerity I can bring to it that honourable senators opposite are going to be very sorry if they do what they proposed to do.

Senator Gair:

– You have me crying already.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

That would not be difficult. I am very concerned about what the Senate could be doing. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has indicated that he proposes to put forward a particular proposition, that he should not choose as a vehicle to achieve his ends a Bill which was passed by the other House. I would be interested to learn whether the Opposition opposed this Bill in the other place.

Senator Willesee:

– No, we supported it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Opposition should not put a stricture of this nature on a Bill which was passed in the other place before the report of Mr

Justice Kerr was put down. The Opposition should pick on some other Bill which relates to parliamentary salaries. I suggest that it does less than credit to the Opposition for it to pick on a Bill which was in fact passed by the other House with the aid of the Opposition and to impose this stricture on it. I could argue further, but I do not intend to do so. A vote will be taken on this matter. It will be the vote of the Senate which will express the view of the Senate as a whole. The Government will oppose any amendment which is proposed.

Senator Gair:

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate has gone to some pains-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Leader ot the Government has closed the debate on the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. However, you will be able to speak on the Bill in the Committee stage of its consideration, Senator Gair.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

” Second Schedule Section 4.

I wish to make some brief comment on the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in closing the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I am sorry that he picked me up on the rather narrow approach I adopted earlier. Having regard to the time and to the atmosphere which prevails, I did not go into the matter very fully. But if the Leader of the Government wants me to talk about the whole question of wage fixation in Australia today it will be necessary for him to adjourn this debate until tomorrow and then to set aside at least an hour for me to speak because I could not discuss the whole question of wage fixation in Australia in less time than that. 1 tried to condense my remarks as much as I could.

The Leader of the Government spoke about dispensing summary justice. I think he moved outside of the field in talking about dispensing summary justice. The Leader of the Government kept referring to the fact that this Bill had been before the other place and he asked what the Opposition’s attitude to it had been in the other place. The Opposition did not oppose it. The reason for that is that the debate on this Bill in the other place pre-dated the deliberate action that was taken by the Government yesterday. I repeat that the Government yesterday took very deliberate action. The Leader of the Government referred to the report of Mr Justice Kerr on parliamentary salaries. I am not referring to that report; 1 am referring to the action that the Government deliberately took. Some of the so-called tall poppies who will be affected by this legislation are earning twice the salaries of some of the poppies the Government has cut down and could be earning 3 times the salary if these increases are approved by the Parliament. The Government has applied a certain rate of reduction to one group but not to another group. That was its decision.

Ever since the Budget was brought down the Government has been talking about salary restraints. Why has the Opposition picked on this Bill to express its views? It has picked on this Bil! because it is the first Bill before the House which it has had an opportunity to pick on. It is a Bill which deals with the salaries of very senior members of the Public Service. It relates to salaries approaching about $30,000 a year. So our withers remain unwrung. I think I should point out that the Second Division officers received an increase at the hands of an Arbitrator on, I think, 4th November. Surely, if the Government is going to move into the field of wage restraint, and its own people have said that it is necessary to exercise wage restraint in the national wage case, it is on very untenable ground if it says that the community cannot alford wage increases to be given to people earning around $70 or $80 a week - those on the bottom of the rung - while it does not restrain those on this salary level. I cannot understand why the Government does not grasp this fact. It would put the Government in a much stronger position if it were prepared to say that it is going to cut down on the senior salaries paid in Australia before it starts to cut down on the junior ones. In its attempt to reject the Opposition’s proposal tonight the Government has said: ‘We are going to oppose the national wage case. We are going to hammer day after day the claim that Australia cannot afford wage increases in the $70, $80 or $90 a week salary level’. But the Government can afford to offer some people a rise of $6,500, which will take them up to nearly $30,000 a year. If I were advising the Government I would tell it to reverse its position because I believe that if it were to do so it would be in a much stronger position than it is today.

The superannuation aspect is a matter with which I should not really deal. The position is that superannuation is not automatically bound to the salary received, as is the position with members of Parliament. Honourable senators should not get confused about this matter. The only relationship is that if one’s salar)’ goes into another range one has the right to buy certain units which entitle one to a certain amount when one becomes a superannuitant. But that is a different thing altogether. It only gives one the right. In many cases one does not buy the additional units if one is getting a bit long in the tooth because they are too expensive. Senator Wilkinson and myself have had experience of this through being in the Public Service. However, I am getting off the track. I do not want to deal with the side issues.

The problem that the Government has got itself into with regard to wage fixation outside that of the Arbitration Commission is that the Government has a proliferation of wage fixing bodies. When it wants to fix university salaries it creates a special commission to look at them. To some degree, the President and the Speaker are wage fixing bodies. The Government has this proliferation of wage fixing bodies. It should be doing something to bring them under one umbrella. That umbrella may be the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator. I do not know. The Government would have to look at the proposition much more carefully than I have. While each individual is saying ‘Let us fix this wage here and that wage there’, obviously each is entering into competition with the other. The Government is not applying the principles that it should apply. It is unable to draw all these together. This is one of the problems that it has in this proliferation of bodies to fix wages for senior public servants, for senior officials of universities and senior employees of paraCommonwealth departments, if I might so describe them. I do not want to enter into a long debate. If we were to debate the matter in the way in which it should be debated we would debate the whole subject of wage fixation - a very complicated and very fascinating subject, I assure honourable senators. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

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

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) went to great pains to try to establish that the amendment to the Bill was moved because of something that happened in the Parliament yesterday in regard to parliamentary salaries. It is true that Senator Willesee made oblique reference to the matter and that my colleague Senator Byrne also dealt with that point. He very rightly said: ‘Let the Government be consistent. If there is to be constraint on the wages of ordinary persons and if members of Parliament are to be asked to exercise restraint for the purpose of creating a good impression outside and of setting an example to all sections of the community, is it not consistent to ask that people receiving $30,000 a year or thereabouts should also be asked to exercise some restraint?’ As I understand the position - I can be corrected if I am wrong - these people have enjoyed the benefits of increased salaries since their salaries were determined by the Parliament. Each increase based on the increased cost of living has been passed on to them, just as it has been passed on to the tall poppies in the Public Service. The 6 per cent increase, or whatever the percentage increase granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was, has been passed on to these people. That is something more than was received by the pensioners, the recipients of child endowment and people who are unable to get a pension because they have been provident enough to subscribe to superannuation or other schemes which gave them a pension sufficient to debar them from getting an age pension. Such people do not gel any adjustment in their annuities because of the increased cost of living.

Let us make an attempt to be fair on this matter. We have repeatedly heard the Government say that to a large degree inflation has been caused by repeated applications to the court for increased wages and by the increased overheads that have been imposed on industry. 1 do not know whether that is true, but if it is and if that is the reason for inflation, let the restriction apply to all sections of the community. Let us not bar the worker from trying to increase his income and at the same time increase the salaries of those who receive in excess of what could be regarded as a comfortable living. 1 think our attitude on this matter is a consisent one. Let me tell Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson that it would not have mattered whether the report was made by Mr Justice Kerr or by any other person; I had intended to raise an objection to large increases being granted to these people whose salaries are determined by statute. I had intended to raise the ready increase of incomes to the highly paid officers of the Public Service. In 1.968 the salaries of parliamentarians v/ere increased. Our salaries were related to those on the lowest rung in the Second Division of the Public Service. Immediately our salaries were increased public servants in that Division received an increase of $3,000 a year in their salaries. Yet our salaries were supposed to be related to theirs. If justice had been done our salaries should have followed suit and we should have receieved an additional $3,000 a year then.

I think there has to be proper control of these things. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson disputed the fact that the salaries of these tall poppies in the Public Service are determined by themselves, in effect - by the Public Service Board. He should look at the salaries paid to members of the Public Service Board. If their salaries are increased there is a proportionate increase down to a certain level. The salary margins in the Public Service are too great. The lower ranked public servant is not getting the increase to which he is entitled, having regard to what his superiors are getting at regular intervals. All that we are saying is that if there is to be any sacrifice let it be fair and let everybody help to carry the burden. In recent months I have said here that it would appear that the only people being asked to make a sacrifice and to bear the burden of inflation are those on fixed incomes, on pensions, on child endowment and the retired person who is getting an annuity from a superannuation scheme to which he subscribed and a great deal of whose own money is coming back to him.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There has been no taxation relief.

Senator GAIR:

– There has been no review of taxation exemptions for a long time. The fairness of the case must appeal to anyone with a sense of justice and a sense of fair play. I do not think any of us will have any cause to cry. as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson predicted. I do not think that we will be very sorry for what we have done if the amendment is carried. If the position is as bad as he said, perhaps we could arrange for these people who are being asked to make a measure of sacrifice, consonant wi;h other people, to receive a special social service payment. It is too much for “ Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson or anybody else to appeal to us on these grounds. Next he will have me crying for bookmakers, and I do not propose to tlo that because they are capable of looking after themselves. These people have been on high incomes and have received increases to meet increased costs of living when other people could not get any increase under that heading, lt is only a year ago that a government under the leadership of Prime Minister Gorton handed out an increase of 50c a week in pensions, knowing full well the great increases that had taken place in the cost of indispensable items of foodstuff and clothing that these people were required to buy. Was that a demonstration of justice and fair play? Of course it was not.

If there is going to be a call for sacrifice because of the economic position and the rapid inflationary trend let it be uniform. Let everybody take their share of the burden. I turn now to judges’ salaries. They do not receive miserly increases of SI, 000 a year. They receive a mammoth amount. This kind of thing is going on all the time. Every time the salaries of High Court judges are increased every State court judge in Australia has his salary increased and increased handsomely. I assure the Senate - this is the main reason I rose to speak - that Mr Justice Kerr’s report has no bearing on my decision in relation to this issue at all. I had planned to register my protest against what I believe are unjustifiable increases for people whose salaries are determined by statute and the high poppies of the public service.

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

(11.32) - I do not wish to speak very long during this Committee stage of the Bill. I have only a few points to make. The first point I make - and I think Senator Willesee agrees - is that the ceiling figure in relation to these items is $22,654.

Senator Willesee:

– I was quoting from a Bill which came from the other place. I had the 2 papers mixed up.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Yes, §22,654 is the ceiling. That particular figure is interesting. I shall make a reference to it for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). The figure relates to the Second Parliamentary Counsel whose salary is increased from $19,610 to $22,654. I can remember a most stirling debate in this place when we were becoming frustrated because of delays in receiving legislation.

Senator Devitt:

– That was at the lower level.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I ask the honourable senator to wait for my remarks. It is a great old pattern that when honourable senators can sniff that there is going to be a bit of a hit they want to talk at once. The situation was that the Leader of the Opposition in this place pleaded with us in that debate - I do not have to go to the Hansard record because I think he remembers the occasion well - that we should do something to take this salary out of the public service environment where there was a limitation of salaries. Because of that situation we could not obtain a suitable Parliamentary Counsel.

Senator Murphy:

– That was lower down the line.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator’s statement is being qualified now but the situation is that we did take the salary of the Parliamentary Counsel out of that Bill to facilitate the passage of legislation through Parliament. The highest figure with which we are now concerned is $22,654 which is the payment for the Second Parliamentary Counsel. I say to Senator Gair who has made his point, and expressed categorically his views that he was not influenced by the Kerr report - I do not challenge what he has said - that it is fair to remember that it was an arbitrators determination which resulted in an increase as at 27th October this year - that is not long ago - being granted to some 800 people in the Second Division. This increase was the result of a determination by an arbitrator after a public hearing. On 9th December we are going to deny the same relative increase to about 100 special officers who are involved in this matter. As Senator Willesee properly said, we could have a big debate on the broad question.I am not going to do that. What I am saying is that the timing of what honourable senators are doing-

Senator Cant:

– We will have the arbitrator next time.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

If honourable senators keep interjecting on me I will take a little longer. The point I am trying to make is that as a result of an arbitrator’s determination - and a public hearing to boot - on 27th October some 800 public servants received an increase. Now. on 9th December, we say that that is all over. We are going to deny some 100 people in statutory authorities an increase and put them at a disadvantage with those to whom an increase has been given. However, numbers count in this place. If we have a vote the numbers will decide it. I can see that we on the Government side are obviously going to lose but 1 have said my piece.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Willesee’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse)

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse)The question now is: ‘That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted’.

Question put:

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse)

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2657

ADJOURNMENT

Civil Aviation

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I am sorry to detain the Senate, but this will be the last opportunity I will have this session to deal with this matter. I refer to the accident investigation report issued by the Department of Civil Aviation on the accident which occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport on 29th January this year and which involved DC8-63 aircraft CF-CPQ and Boeing 727 aircraft VH-TJA. It is unfortunate that this is about the only opportunity we will have to discuss this report because the Opposition considers that it does an injustice to Captain James, the Trans-Australia Airlines pilot, who was an experienced pilot as stated in the report. I understand that Senator Sim, a Government supporter, will be supporting the call for a new inquiry.

The Opposition’s representations at this late stage are occasioned as a result of requests by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots which, I understand, not only met the Labor Party’s transport committee but also since the accident made representations to the Director-General of Civil Aviation and the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). The Federation asked the Minister and the Director for a new inquiry. Over the years the Federation has suggested to the Government that the Air Safety Investigation Branch and its officers ought to be separated from the Department of Civil Aviation because it is contended - it seems, prima facie, to be a good argument - that one is appealing to Caesar from Caesar. The Federation over the years has made the point that it would be proper and consistent with international practice for investigations of this type, as they involve staff and personnel of the Department of Civil Aviation, not to be conducted by staff and personnel of that Department. These people should be separated from the Department. This is one of the related matters I wish to raise but it is an important one and ought to be considered on its merits as a primary argument. However, that is incidental, perhaps, to this report.

I said that the Federation had made representations to the Government. We do not know yet what the results are because we have not been informed by the Federation. We do not know whether the Minister has agreed to have a new investigation or whether he has agreed to take any action which might result in a review of the opinion expressed in the Department’s report. We agree with the Federation that the report unjustly condemns the captain of the TAA aircraft involved in the collision. I refer the Senate firstly to a letter sent to a number of honourable senators by the Federation. My letter was signed by Mr Brooksbank, the Secretary-Treasurer, and is dated 6th December. It states:

Mr dear Senator,

I enclose a copy of a mildly worded critique prepared by the Federation on the D.C.A. report, and I would like to stress the following for your assistance.

The propriety of D.C.A. examining and preparing behind closed doors a report on an accident to which it was a litigant. It must be appreciated that under Air Navigation Regulations Departmental Investigations can, per medium of a fine, compel aircrew to answer any question. This fine can be repeated every time the question is not answered.

There are no rules of evidence

There is no ability of witnesses’ statements to be examined by cross examination by parties other than the Department.

There is no right of legal or other representation or presence during any interrogation.

There is no right of appeal or ability to have the finding challenged.

There is no board as such. It is written by basically one man.

The letter goes on to refer to particulars of the accident which I will mention shortly. The Federation suggested that there was an urgent need for the entire resources of the Air Safety Investigation Branch of the Department to be transferred to the Department of Shipping and Transport or some other government agency not responsible to the Minister for Civil Aviation. The Federation said that this was not a new proposal but that it was first discussed in 1966. The current position is that one section within the Department of Civil Aviation must stand in judgment over other related sections on standards, procedures and actions, not only of individuals but also of policy formulation, or execution of responsibility. The Federation states that corrective changes ought to flow from the results of the accident investigation. I refer now to clause 8 of the conclusions stated in the report:

Although the obstructing aircraft could have been cleared quite safely by the adoption of a steeper initial climb angle, the pilot-in-command of VH-TJA-

That is Captain James - adhered to the normal take-off technique and the underside of his aircraft came into collision with the tail fin of CF-CPQ.

That is the Canadian Pacific DC8. The report continues:

Although substantially damaged, VH-TJA continued in flight, and after dumping fuel, landed at Sydney Airport again without further damage.

The cause complained about by Captain James and the Federation was as stated in the report as follows:

Cause: The cause of this accident was that the taxi-ing clearance given after landing was misread by the flight crew of CF-CPQ and this error was not detected by the aerodrome controller, who cleared VH-TJA for take-off. The flight crew of VH-TJA, on detecting the obstructing aircraft, did not then adopt the most effective means of avoiding a collision.

I suggest to you, Mr President, and to the Minister, that the cause as stated in the report in fact involves not only the crew of the Canadian Pacific aircraft but also the aerodrome controller and the flight crew of the TAA aircraft. The evidence put to the Labor Party Transport Committee leaves greatly in doubt the proposal that if the TAA aircraft had adopted any other procedure than the ordinary take-off procedure it could have avoided the collision. As a matter of fact the Federation showed the Labor Party Committee a faim and a number of other items of evidence - I understand they have been put to the Department - which would place greatly in doubt the suggestion that any other procedure than that adopted by Captain James would have resulted in probably greater damage than what was done by the ordinary take-off procedure.

Senator Devitt:

– They had the tail down.

Senator BISHOP:

– As Senator Devitt reminds me, the tail came down. Subsequent inquiries show, in accordance with the recommended procedures of the Boeing company, quite clearly that this type of aircraft does not take off like the short take-off aircraft that we see; that in fact the aircraft takes an inclined upward path, in which circumstances it could have had very disastrous effect upon the situation. In fact, as the Federation says, quite clearly the pilot and crew of the TAA aircraft carried out. the recognised regular take-off techniques. Conclusion 7 of the report states:

The flight crew of VH-TJA state that, at the commencement of their take-off, they did not observe CF-CPQ on the runway as an obstruction. Nevertheless CF-CPQ was observed al a time when the take-off could have been abandoned wilh safety. The pilot-in-command of VH-TJA elected to continue lire take-off and attempted to overfly the obstructing aircraft.

That is a conclusion; it certainly is not the affirmation of the pilot of that aircraft. This is what is stated on pages 2 and 3 of the report:

Captain James, in VH-TJA, says that his attention was not attracted to any obstruction in his aircraft’s path until he had commenced the rotation action for which the nominated speed was 131 knots. He says that it was at this point he saw the DC8-63 aircraft but he judged it too close to be avoided by abandoning the take-off unci so he concentrated his attention on continuing to use a normal take-off technique, guarding particularly against any over-rotation, in the belief that this would be the best means of clearing the obstructing aircraft.

This is a statement of fact and Captain James and the Federation say it proves that he carried out a proper and safe procedure. A great number of irregularities are disclosed in the Accident Investigation Report and the statement of the Minister. I want to refer to some of them. The surprising point is that in a report which discloses all these irregularities an injustice should be perpetrated by blame being placed solely on the head of the TransAustralia Airlines pilot who was a most senior and experienced pilot. Conclusion 9 of the report relates some of the irregularities noted by the investigating committee. Conclusion 5 is in these terms:

The aerodrome controller did not recognise the difficulties of visual perception in the circumstances that prevailed and this, in conjunction with the slow manoeuvre of the aircraft on the runway as well as ils direction of movement and position in relation to the taxiway entrance, led him to believe that CF-CPQ had taxied off the runway in accordance with the instructions issued.

We have a situation here in which the Department says that the aerodrome controller is at fault. He is making certain assumptions which, in fact, did not take place. In the circumstances why did the

Investigating committee come to the conclusion to which I have referred? Another one qf the irregularities is disclosed in Conclusion 6:

The aerodrome controller issued, to VH-TJA, a clearance for take-off when the runway was still obstructed by CF-CPQ.

That is a statement of fact from the report, which shows that the aerodrome controller was at fault. I remind honourable senators of Conclusion 5 which I have read. Another one of the irregularities was the change of aerodrome control frequency. I again refer to the report at page 24 where the following appears:

Another error made by the crew of CF-CPQ in the procedures they followed on this night was to change from the aerodrome control frequency to trie surface movement control frequency whilst their aircraft was still on the active runway and, as they believed, cleared to remain on the runway for a significant further period of time.

That is a breach of regulations. On page 34 of the report, the reference again being to the aerodrome controller, we see this:

The second significant error was the belief of the aerodrome controller that CF-CPQ had vacated the runway via Taxiway T and that it was safe to clear VH-TJA for take-off without obtaining a ‘clear of the runway’ report from CF-CPQ. Having regard to the limitations of visual perception, it is not difficult to understand how the aerodrome controller could be deceived in attempting to discriminate some three quarters of a mile away on a dark night and with a very shallow line-of-sight closure with the ground. Here again, piece by piece, the conclusions reached by the investigating officers show how the evidence weighed against the aerodrome controller.

Conclusion 4 is as follows:

A taxying clearance ‘. . . take taxiway right - call on 121.7’ issued by the aerodrome controller to C F-CPQ as it nea red the end of its landing roll was not given adequate attention by the flight crew, who misread it as ‘. . . backtrack if you like - change to 121.7’. The aircraft was then turned through 180 degrees to backtrack on the runway, instead of entering an immediately available taxiway as was intended by the aerodrome controller.

On page 27, amongst other things, the following appears:

The aircraft under his control preparing for departure al this time included VH-TJA, which had taxied to the holding point for Runway 16 and an F27 aircraft, VH-EWJ, which was also ready for take-off on Runway 16. Although this traffic situation was not one which presented any unusual problems for the aerodrome controller, his primary objective was to be able to clear the departing aircraft for take-off between the movements of the landing aircraft.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots points out that the report which has been placed before the Parliament states that prompt and proper action was taken by Sydney tower once the accident had occurred. However, shortly after the accident had occurred, and in the knowledge of its occurrence and before any examination for wreckage on runway 16 had been made, Sydney tower cleared an East-West Airlines F27, VH-EWJ for take-off on runway 16. During the F27’s rotation, the debris from the Boeing 272 and DC8 was illuminated by its lights.

The authors of the report were aware that VH-EWJ was cleared to take off into many hundreds of small aircraft fragments together with some larger components spread across runway 1.6. But they have chosen to be silent on this aspect of bad aerodrome control which nearly caused a second accident within minutes of the first. I have referred to the statements by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. The Minister might ask the officers of the Department for an answer to them.

I turn to the statement that the aircraft accident could have been avoided if the flight crew of VH-TJA had taken proper precautions to observe the runway ahead and had also, of course, applied a method of avoiding the accident. The Federation states that it is impossible to justify this argument because in its belief, had the crew proceeded to take other than the normal take-off procedure, there would have been greater damage than that which occurred. I wish to deal now with the weather conditions of the night. One of the witnesses before the inquiry, Mr K. T. Byrnes, a Qantas tugmaster driver, said this in relation to the weather conditions existing at the time:

There was a light breeze, about 8 knots from a general south-easterly direction. There had been quite heavy showers on and off, but there was a break at the time and it was not raining at alt at the time of the occurrence. It was a fairly dark night. There seemed to be low cloud, moving across in patches fairly quickly. It was not a particularly clear night, but the visibility at ground level was not too bad. I could see the tower quite clearly, and I could see aircraft on final approach with their landing lights on a considerable distance before they reached the runway, perhaps Iwo miles. From the end of runway 16, I think the whole of the runway lights would have been visible from an elevated position.

There is a rise in the strip and because of this, the full length is not visible from the end of the strip at ground level.

He was asked this question:

Did you see whether the DC8 cleared the runway to the right when it turned to the right?

He replied:

I think the aircraft was clear of the runway and then turned back onto it. I could not be absolutely positive of this, because there was intervening rising ground between the DC8 and my position. While I could see the lights of the aircraft and the reflected light from the top of its fuselage, I think the lower part of the aircraft and the aerodrome surface lights in its vicinty were obscured. The distance I was from the edge of the runway could also make this assessment difficult, but I believe, from my impressions, that the aircraft had cleared the runway.

He was later asked:

Is there anything further you can add which you believe may be significant?

He replied:

While I was waiting on the taxiway and the DC8 approached along the intersecting taxiway from my right, I had the impression that the pilot was unsure of the aerodrome because he asked where to now?’. I am particularly alert and careful when towing aircraft and I was a little concerned that he may have turned into the taxiway I was occupying.

To sum up, the position is this: Captain James carried out all the regulations and procedures. The union complains - it has put this to Captain James - that had he attempted to take any other ascent than the regulation one, the incident could have been more serious than it was. The accident investigation report refers to evidence from the Boeing people and from people who had been instructing the crew of the Boeing aircraft. In referring to Captain James and dealing with his background and record, the report states:

Captain Warren Owen JAMES, aged 50 years, was the pilot-in-command of this aircraft and he held a first class airline transport pilot licence which was not due for renewal until 31 May 1971. His licence endorsements authorised him to fly Boeing 727 aircraft and he had a first class instrument rating endorsed for ADF, VAR, VOR, ILS and Localiser radio navigation aids. Captain James’ total flying experience at the time of this accident was 19,874 hours of which 4,100 hours had been gained in command of Boeing 727 aircraft. His most recent proficiency check was successfully completed on 5 October 1970, and his most recent medical examination successfully passed on 30 October 1970. In the 90 days preceding this accident he had Sown 165 hours, all in Boeing 727 aircraft.

What does the Minister say about that? When he made a statement to the Senate and introduced the report he said, among other things:

It was rather a dark and wet night at Sydney Airport when this accident occurred. The aerodrome controller in Sydney Tower was responsible for observing the movements of aircraft on the runways being used for landing and take-off and for regulating the movements of all aircraft so that safety would be preserved at all times. Here, however, the error made by the Canadian captain was compounded by a separate and completely different error made by the aerodrome controller. By chance the landing run of the Canadian aircraft finished right opposite the entrance to a taxiway which the aerodrome controller expected it to use in complying with his instruction to ‘take taxiway right’. The direction of the turn taken by the Canadian aircraft was to the right, towards the entrance to this taxiway and because of the size of the aircraft involved and the wetness of the surface on which it was manoeuvring, this turn was carried out at a speed much slower than is exhibited by the types of aircraft more frequently using Sydney Airport. Furthermore, the aerodrome controller underestimated the deceptiveness of observations of an aircraft’s position on a night such as this and the need for verification of his observation, made over a distance of some three quarters of a mile. Unfortunately, the controller’s misjudgment of the position of the aircraft and his belief that it had entered the taxiway, removed from the safety back-up system, the first opportunity presented to correct the intial error made by the crew ofthe Canadian aircraft.

The Minister said also in respect of the first error:

I think that the situation is most effectively summarised in the section of the report entitled Causal Factors which commences on page 33. The first error, in terms of time, made by the people involved in this occurrence was made by the captain of the Canadian aircraft who misread the air traffic controller’s instruction ‘take taxiway right’ as ‘backtrack, if you like’.

The Minister then went on to explain why there might have been some mistakes about the phrase because of certain phonetic qualities. He continued to comment on the air traffic controller and then said:

As the investigation report makes clear, the error by the aerodrome controller on this night did not stem from any degree of carelessness or lack of adherence to proper instruction, but rather from the much more human error of underestimating the limitations of his visual observations made under the prevailing conditions. The training and instruction of air traffic controllers has been modified to ensure that they recognisethe difficulties of determining, at a considerable distance, purely by visual judgment, the precise position of an aircraft on the runway/ taxiway system of an airport, particularly under night conditions.

In those remarks the Minister was saying that a modification was necessary in view of the report of the accident investigation. He went on then to support this by referring to errors by the aerodrome controller and mistakes made by the crew of the Canadian Pacific Airlines aircraft. Then he referred to certain modifications that were necessary, and made 3 points. He said:

Shortly after this accident the Director-General also took up with Canadian Pacific Airlines the question of the degree of familiarity of their crews with Australian airports, acceptable methods of achieving that familiarisation and the need for cockpit procedures which would ensure compliance with Air Traffic Control instructions issued at our airports. These matters arc being further pursued by the Director-General in the light of this report. - Now that the report has been made public, the Director-General will also be taking up with TAA and the other Australian airline operators the whole question of the vigilance of flight crews whilst operating on and in the vicinity of airports. The matter will be featured in the Aviation Safety Digest which reaches all licensed pilots in Australia as well as many others around the world.

I propose now to refer to the statement in relation to the flight crew as it appears at page 5 of the accident investigation report. It states:

Captain Charles Edward Mograth, aged 40 years, was the pilot-in-command of CF-CPQ and he was the holder of a Canadian airline transport pilot licence which authorised him to fly DC8 type aircraft. He held a Class 1 instrument rating. At the time of this accident Captain Magrath’s total flying experience amounted to 10,723 hours of which 5,277 hours had been gained in DC8 aircraft. During the 90 days preceding this accident, he had flown 65 hours in DC8 aircraft. His most recent proficiency check was carried out in a DC8 simulator on 8th October 1970. Captain Magrath’s most recent medical examination was carried out on 26th October 1970 and he was not due for re-examination until 29th April 1971.

The last occasion, prior to this accident, on which Captain Magrath had flown into Sydney Airport was in July 1962, when he visited Sydney as first officer of a Bristol Brittania aircraft. Prior to the flight of 29th January 1971, however, on 7th October 1970, Captain Magrath carried out a simulated approach to Runway 16, Sydney Airport using the flight simulation equipment installed at the Operator’s headquarters in Vancouver. Although Captain Magrath had not seen the training film for Sydney Airport, he was supplied with the Pilot’s Route and Terminal Study Guide for the South Pacific Area which provides information relating to weather conditions, air traffic control procedures, navigation facilities, communications procedures, airport characteristics and search and rescue facilities for routes and airports in the South Pacific area, including Sydney. Captain Magrath was also given a final briefing relating to Sydney Airport prior to his departure from

Honolulu and he had in his possession the most recently issued Jeppersen Approach Chart for Sydney Airport dated 6th November 1970.

Evidence was given by other members of the crew of the Trans-Australia Airlines aircraft VH-TJA. First Officer Douglas Arthur Spiers confirmed what had been stated by Captain James. The Air Pilots Federation and the pilot of the aircraft contend that the conclusions in the report are unjust. I read again to the Senate the cause as stated in the report:

The cause of this accident was that the taxiing clearance after landing was misread by the flight crew of CF-CPQ and this error was not detected by the aerodrome controller, who cleared VH-TJA for take-off.

The report condemns the 2 people who cleared VH-TJA for takeoff and then goes on:

The flight crew of VH-TJA on detecting the obstructing aircraft did not then adopt effective means of avoiding a collision.

The union, Captain James and other authorities say that they did adopt effective means. I have suggested that there is substance in the claim made by the union to the Department for many years that the investigating group ought to be separated from the Department of Civil Aviation. I think the case made out is so good as not to warrant a great deal of argument.

Senator Devitt:

– It is unanswerable.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is so. The practice should not be condoned. It does not lead to justice. I am also told that on many occasions the organisation is not invited to attend inquiries. It is an ad hoc sort of arrangement. Sometimes it is invited, sometimes it is not. Other organisations are invited and the same sorts of procedures apply. There should be a rigid formula based on the proper investigating procedures. The investigating body should not be attached to the Department of Civil Aviation. It should be separated. I suggest that now is the time for the Department seriously to consider what the union has said in respect of this matter. The Opposition supports this proposition. We intended to propose a motion on this proposition during the debate on the Estimates but agreed not to do so because of the pressure of the late sittings.

The other question is the injustice suffered by the captain. He is an airman who has served for a long time. He has a good record as an outstanding and experienced pilot. He should not be condemned in this manner. Action should be taken to correct the injustice imposed on him by the report. I have discussed this matter with Senator Sim and I understand from further conversations with the Federation of Air Pilots that there is a suggestion that if the Minister does not agree to the union’s request for a new inquiry it will consider having an all-in discussion with the parties involved so that remedies can be effected.

However, it is true that no final remedies can be applied until a new method of dealing with air accident investigations is set up. It is obviously unjust that the present arrangement should continue. The investigating body should be separated from the Department, possibly in the manner suggested by the pilots. The pilots are prepared to accept a section of the Department of Shipping and Transport to constitute an investigating body after recruiting the necessary specialists from the Department. They would not be employees of the Department of Civil Aviation but of another Commonwealth department, if necessary. The proposition has enough merit to warrant consideration.

My purpose in speaking is to ask the Minister at this late stage to carry out corrective procedures. The Minister’s own remarks that I have read serve to condemn the conclusion that I have referred to. I trust that on the basis of our submission some alteration will be made to protect the name of the TAA pilot who has an otherwise unblemished record.

Friday, 10 December 1971

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I will be brief, as Senator Bishop has covered a great deal of the area that I intended to cover. I find myself in a slightly difficult position because I should state that Captain James, who is known to me, is a relation of my wife. Therefore it might be argued that I have some personal interest in the matter. I am sure that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) will accept that that relationship has had no influence whatever upon my thinking. I was concerned about this report long before I was approached by the Fed*eration of Air Pilots. I had handed a copy of the report to 2 very experienced jet captains for their comments. They are people of integrity who have never been slow to condemn pilots who they have thought have made errors. Their comments on the report were revealing and I had intended to discuss them at length, but because of the lateness of the hour I will not do so.

I wish to mention only two or three matters. The first matter is that the Minister knows that long before this accident occurred I was concerned at the method by which the Depatment of Civil Aviation investigates air accidents. I have been concerned because the Department through its officers could well be heavily involved in an air accident. Those officers could be litigants. 1 do not reflect upon their integrity. I believe that they are men of integrity, but they can be placed in a difficult position because their credibility can always be questioned. This is a most undesirable stare of affairs.

I have had discussions about separating air accident investigations from the Department. I acknowledge freely that there are arguments against that proposal, and they have considerable validity. However, while acknowledging their validity I have come down in favour of separation because of the factors I have mentioned. I have 2 propositions to put to the Minister which may to some extent overcome those problems. Senator Bishop referred to the possibility of a round table conference. I put it to the Minister most seriously that he should attempt to overcome the problem of the ill feeling that has developed over the report. A round table conference between the Department of Civil Aviation, Trans-Australia Airlines, a representative of the Federation of Air Pilots and a representative of the air controllers, who themselves are not happy, could be arranged. A whole group of people is not happy about the situation. Perhaps out of such a conference something could develop and there could be more goodwill than exists at present. I believe that the suggestion is worth considering as a means of overcoming the problem that exists today and the allegation that there is no longer credibility in the Air Investigation Branch.

For the benefit of all concerned that feeling must be overcome quickly. I am noi pressing for a new inquiry but I suggest to the Minister that this could be one means of overcoming the problem.

A second point for consideration is that it may be well worth while widening the Air Investigation Branch for particular investigations, so that it included not only departmental officers but also representatives of the Federation of Air Pilots and other professional bodies who would be full members and therefore have full responsibility for any decisions made. They must have full responsibility. If they wished to submit a dissenting or minority report they would need to be prepared to stand by that report. That suggestion may be worth considering. I have put it very briefly in view of the hour. I could develop it further. Perhaps the Minister will agree to discuss it further with me. It could be a means of overcoming the existing problem. I think all honourable senators would recognise that it exists.

I wish now to deal with the question of whether at some stage Captain James could have aborted his take-off with safety. With great respect to the authors of the report, I suggest that it is based on a series of assumptions which are unsubstantiated. It is heavily based upon a tape recording of the words ‘How far ahead is he?’. It is believed that Captain James uttered those words and he does not deny that he could have uttered them. He has no recollection of saying them but does not deny that he could have said them at a point when he had reached a speed of about. 100 knots and was at a stage of a complex night take-off procedure, working from instruments to visual. But Captain James admits that at some stage he was - I think I should quote his evidence because I do not think it has been dealt with adequately in the report -

Subconsciously aware of something abnormal somewhere ahead. It was not in my subconscious but I thought I saw a movement momentarily ahead but at no time did I think it was on the runway.

In other words, he looked up from his instruments and, as he explained, there was the momentary flash of a light.

If we look at the Sydney airport we see a number of lights. There are dredges near the edge of the runway. He saw this flash of a light. In spite of a feeling he had that there was something wrong he was cleared a few seconds later, as he suggests in his evidence, when the control tower cleared a DC9 to land. I think it is reasonable on the part of a captain, when an aircraft is cleared for take off and another one is cleared to land, whatever may have flashed across his mind for a moment, to assume that the runway is in fact clear. I believe that this matter has been too heavily weighted and it is based upon the word he’. I. suppose many of us use the word he’ or the word ‘it’ pretty loosely. There is no evidence apart from that to suggest that Captain James at that stage - at 100 knots - was aware that in fact there was a DC8 aircraft on the runway. All he saw was a momentary flash of light.

Another point on this aspect is in relation to the assumption that at that stage he could have aborted his take off with safety. I suggest that this assumption cannot be substantiated, lt is based upon an immediate reaction of 0.37 of a second to apply the brakes, lt excludes the fact that the Boeing certification allows 3 seconds to identify an object and decide what action will be taken, and that 3 seconds later that aircraft at a stage of rapid acceleration would have covered so much more of the runway and, of course, would have Iwi travelling a good deal faster. I believe it is correct to say that no te-is nave been carried out in Australia on various types of wet runways in relation to the distance it takes for an aircraft to pull up. The Department of Works sets an arbitrary figure of 1.9 per cent as the distance on a dry runway. This is challenged by many experienced jet captains who claim that it takes 3 times that length of runway. That may not be right. No-one knows what is right. My understanding is that up to the time of the accident no tests had been carried out in Australia. No captain would be certain at this stage on a wet runway - the runway was wet and acknowledged to be wet - whether, taking into consideration the difficulty which the report acknowledges of recognising distance, even if the other aircraft had been seen, the first aircraft could have been pulled up in a matter of split seconds. I believe that the report - again I am dealing very briefly with this - in its suggestion that it could have been done is based on a series of assumptions which cannot be substantiated.

I believe the most damning statement against Captain James, which has been dealt with by Senator Bishop, is that at rotation he adopted the normal procedures instead of adopting a steeper initial climb angle. Page 35 of the report states:

In the event, he decided that he could overfly or would attempt to overfly the obstructing aircraft using normal take off techniques. Even at this stage the aircraft had ample capacity to climb over the obstructing aircraft and Captain James’s adherence to normal techniques in the face of the very real hazard in front of him was erroneous.

I turn to the flight training manual for Boeing 727 aircraft which is issued by Trans-Australia Airlines. Captain James had been trained to follow these instructions and, as a training captain, had trained others to do so. The steeper angle of descent or climb is called over-rotation. The flight training manual states:

Over-rotation on take-off adversely affects take off performance. The nose high attitude will cause an increase in drag, delaying acceleration to lift off speed and may be high enough to actuate the stall warning device or cause buffet and further decrease performance. Over-rotation generally goes together with early rotation and is undesirable. Either over-rotation or a late but fast rotation can result in the tail skid contacting the runway.

These are the operating procedures laid down. I am advised by senior jet captains that if indeed Captain James had adopted the technique which is suggested in the report he more than likely would have killed 240 people because the aircraft would not have climbed at a steeper angle; indeed it would have dragged. For further proof of this I turn to a book which is written by D. P. Davies who is a British Air Registration Board test pilot. It is called ‘Mishandled Rotations’ and is a book dealing with the handling of big jets. This is a man, I presume, of great experience. He states:

Varying Vr cannot possibly effect an Improvement in take off distances without reducing the overall safety of the manoeuvre.

He states also:

We need not go into the exact consequence of all the incorrect techniques in detail but it is worth mentioning that early and high rotations produce large increases in drag which greatly extend the take off distance.

Here we have the TAA flight training manual - an authoritative book, as I understand it - warning against over-rotation. Yet if I understand the report, it is for not doing this that Captain James is criticised. May I say that the flight training manual has been approved of by the Department of Civil Aviation.

I would like to deal with a great number of other matters in this report but because of the extreme lateness of the hour I will not do so. I believe that the report has not criticised the captain of the Canadian Pacific aircraft sufficiently. I believe that his performance was, to say the least, poor airmanship. I think it is unbelievable that a captain of experience would backtrack on a runway without checking, knowing that aircraft have been cleared to land and aircraft are preparing to take off. Although Captain James is criticised for not seeing the lights of this aircraft, there are grave doubts as to whether his lights were on. However, the report seems to accept the fact that they were. The crew of the DC8 which was on short final approach claimed in evidence that when they switched their landing lights on at 300 feet they suddenly saw the landing lights of the CPA aircraft switched on. They then took action to abort their landing at the same time as the control tower heard from the aircraft and ordered them to abort their landing. This is not referred to.

The final point I wish to make - I do not understand why the report ignored this - is that the captain of the CPA aircraft was wandering on the main duty runway for some 40-odd seconds when he admits he saw the lights of an aircraft on the runway and took no action to vacate the runway until the last 6 seconds, at which stage he tried to get off the runway. So this seems to be another example of incompetence, to say the least, because if he knew another aircraft was cleared - in fact the aircraft was on the wrong frequency - and he saw the lights of an aircraft approaching, why did he not take avoiding action? To my mind he shares a very heavy responsibility. It is not my job to hit anybody over the head with a big stick. Everybody makes errors of judgment. I am not going to be hard on the men in the control tower. Errors of judgment are made. None of us is infallible.

However, I believe that this report is not a fair report. Therefore it is unacceptable to me.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I did not believe that I would be coming to the assistance of the crew of the Canadian Pacific Airlines aircraft because honourable senators will recall that 1 asked a series of questions concerning the experienced international air crews landing at Mascot airport. However, I am forced to do this because of the remarks of Senator Sim. I have not had the advantage of the advice of the Pilots Federation, nor have 1 had the advantage of the advice of people who may be close to Senator Sim. I am not being critical in saying that. I proposed the report merely because I felt at the time that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the report to apportion blame 3 ways, lt seemed to me that it was the responsibility of the Department of Civil Aviation, being implicated in the accident, to have sought a separate inquiry to free itself at least of the charge that it may have sought to lessen its own responsibility. The purpose of this debate at this late hour of the night is to seek a separate inquiry. I am not as yet convinced that the Department of Civil Aviation’s Air Safety Investigation Branch is not the organisation that should investigate aircraft accidents. But I do think that when the DCA itself is involved it would be of benefit to it to vacate the field and have a separate inquiry.

Having spoken to a pilot friend of mine who has had considerable experience and having looked at the evidence and gone carefully through the various sections of the report, I have reached the conclusion that no blame is attached to the pilot of the Trans-Australia Airlines flight. There does not seem to be any ground whatsoever to attach any blame to Captain James, the pilot of the TAA flight. Although the Canadian Pacific air crew was guilty of some error, it was nevertheless the prime responsibility of the control tower personnel to see that the runway w;».s clear before the instruction was given to the TAA flight to take off, bearing in mind that the Canadian Pacific aircraft was an aircraft which was completing an international journey, which was arriving late at night at a strange airport in bad weather. It should have received the courtesy that is normally extended to overseas aircraft landing at a strange aerodrome in bad weather. If I may, I would like to state what is my opinion. As my notes are full and fairly cohesive, perhaps the Senate will agree to them being incorporated in Hansard. lt would save time if they were.

It is my opinion that the Boeing 727 aircraft VH-TJA was cleared for take-off on the duty runway - R16 - before the aerodrome controller had positively established bv all the means available to him that the DC8 aircraft CF-CPQ, which had just landed from an international flight, had vacated the runway in accordance with his prior instructions for it to do so. The Issuing of a take-off clearance under these circumstances at night in conditions of fluctuating visibility and relying solely on visual observation of the position of CFCPQ amounts, in my opinion, to grave neglect of an elementary duty on the part of the aerodrome controller.

Senator Cotton:

– Are these the honourable senator’s comments?

Senator GEORGES:

– They are my comments. The consequence of this neglect put the lives of hundreds of people and millions of dollars worth of property to a degree of risk which is unacceptable. Later on in my notes I have developed certain arguments and I have quoted from and indicated sections of the report. As it would take me quite some time to put my case, 1 would like to incorporate the rest of my notes in Hansard, if it is in order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not in order.

Senator Cotton:

– I have no wish to hold up the Senate at this late hour of the night and I am sure that the honourable senator does not wish to do so either. If the honourable .senator had a prepared statement or something of that kind I would not object, but I do not know whether I should agree to the honourable senators notes being incorporated. I leave it to the honourable senator’s good judgment.

Senator GEORGES:

– I think it would be of assistance to everyone and it would save some time if permission were granted for my notes to be incorporated in Hansard, but if the Minister for Civil Aviation is not certain about what I intend to do I will not pursue that course.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is there any reason why you cannot incorporate your notes in a letter to the Minister for Civil Aviation?

Senator GEORGES:

– They would not appear in Hansard. I think they ought to appear in the official record.

Senator Cotton:

– If those notes are referred to my attention by way of a letter they will be put on the official files of the Department of Civil Aviation, which is where this matter finally has to be hammered out.

Senator GEORGES:

– But other people are possibly interested in this matter. Because of the nature of the report, I think my notes ought to be available to them as well as to the Department.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a way out of it. If the honourable senator incorporates his notes in a letter to the Minister it is possible that the Minister will seek leave to incorporate the letter he has received from you, Senator Georges, in Hansard at a subsequent stage.

Senator GEORGES:

– Can I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard tomorrow?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. Only the Minister can seek leave to do that.

Senator GEORGES:

– The matters which I wish to bring forward are different to the matters which have been raised already.

The PRESIDENT:

– Perhaps you should bring them forward now, Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 would like to offer some comments, which I hope will put the actions of the other parties in a proper perspective, relative to the series of events which occured as a result of, and which flowed directly from, the fundamental error as described above. First of all, I think that the crew of the Canadian aircraft was deserving of a higher degree of attention from the aerodrome controller than it actually received on this occasion. Basically, it. is a matter of common courtesy, if nothing else, to see that an international crew is assisted in every way possible to manoeuvre its aircraft safely and in accordance with ATC instructions as to its required disposition on the surface of the airport, and this was not done. It could be assumed that the Qantas pilots operating into airports around the world would expect to be assisted in this way. I hope that they are because they often have to land on strange airports. On this occasion, there is no escape from the conclusion that it was the aerodrome controller’s prime responsibility to direct the Canadian crew to vacate the duty runway as the circumstances demanded and, having done that, to make positively certain, by all the means that were available to him, that it had been vacated before permitting any further take-offs or landings on that runway. The qualifications and experience of the Canadian DC8 crew, which is what I questioned originally but I have changed my mind somewhat, or of any other international aircraft for that matter, are of minimal relevance in this context, as the relationship between an aerodrome controller and an international airline captain is similar to that which exists between a captain of a foreign ship entering Sydney Harbour and an Australian harbour pilot. If it is not, then I think it should be. I do not think that can be questioned.

On this occasion the aerodrome controller cleared the Boeing 727 VH-TJA to take-off, after acting upon a series of vague assumptions which were in essence based upon familiarity with a system of vacating a duty runway, as practised by Australian airline pilots, which under certain circumstances could in itself be questioned on safety grounds.

Finally, I come to the remarks made about Captain James in the report relative to this incident. As he was the captain of VH-TJA, which was to operate a regular public transport flight to Perth during the hours of darkness, he was required by law to plan this flight under instrument flight rules - IFR. ft is suffice to say that flights conducted under these rules are strictly controlled and that a very large onus for the avoidance of collisions in controlled aitspace, such as airways and airport control zones, is reposed in the air traffic control, in the wider interests of safety, particularly in conditions of zero or poor visibility.

Senator Jessop:

– Who wrote that?

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 did. ls the honourable senator questioning it? There is no doubt that I received some assistance in this respect, but it was not from the Federation of Air Pilots. Nevertheless, I went to a considerable amount of trouble. I asked question after question on this matter over a period of time and I was fobbed off time and again and my veracity was questioned. I went to quite a deal of trouble to make certain that I did investigate this report, with some assistance. I was entitled to seek that assistance.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are not under cross-examination.

Senator GEORGES:

– By way of interjection, I was.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then disregard it.

Senator GEORGES:

– It will be readily seen from what I have said that under I.F.R. conditions the responsibility for avoiding collision is shared between ATC and the pilot and that the system works only because there has developed a high degree of mutual trust between them. The rules which govern instrument flight in respect of collision avoidance are totally different from those which govern visual flight, as the latter reply on the maximum of ‘see and be seen’. I have questioned ‘see and be seen’ on a couple of occasions by way of question

Senator Jessop:

– What is this ‘see and be seen’?

Senator GEORGES:

– From the observation tower the controller should be able to see the aircraft and the pilot should be able to see the tower. It is self explanatory. The total onus for the collision avoidance is reposed in the pilot. This having been said, it follows that James had every reason to believe that the aerodrome controller would not have cleared him to take off on this occasion if the duty runway were occupied. That is fair enough. There should be sufficient trust in the control tower personnel for James to accept that the runway was clear, especially when it was to be an instrument take-off that night. I think that he was also entitled to believe that the controller had positively established by all the means that were available to him, and as part of a statutory duty, that the runway was clear and that the controller was not merely expressing a view that this was the case. The actual wording of the take-off clearance issued to VH-TJA does not indicate in any way that the controller was merely expressing a view that the duty runway was clear.

At this point it is necessary to note that the report makes no mention of the actual weather conditions that were prevailing on the duty runway at the time that James was cleared for take off, which was 2135 hours. There is one observation recorded at 2125 and another at 2155, but in the 30-minule interval between them, during which the collision occurred, there were wide fluctuations of visibility and cloud base, both in and around Sydney airport. Therefore it becomes very important to know, for the sake of James’s reputation as a pilot, the actual horizontal visibility on the duty runway at 2135, for without this information it is not possible to say with any certainty that he was able to see CF-CPQ from the point on the northern end of R16 - that is the runway - when he commenced his take-off. It is surprising that this piece of vital information was omitted from the report. There are occasions during I.F.R. conditions when airline aircraft are cleared by the aerodrome controller to take off in conditions of visibility which are such that a portion of the runway to use opposite to that from which a take-off is commenced is not visible to the pilot. On a runway as long as R16 at Sydney, which is in excess of 9,000 feet, such a situation would not be uncommon.

As the I.F.R. minimum visibility required by DCA for take-off by a Boeing 727 on R16 is 1 mile, or in certain circumstances as little as 800 yards, it is possible, in the absence of reliable and accurate information in the report as to the exact spot at which CF-CPQ completed its landing roll and the value of the horizontal visibility on the runway at the time James was cleared to take off, that CF-CPQ - the Canadian airlines - was at a point on the runway which was hidden from him, perhaps temporarily, at the time visibility was known to be fluctuating but which was also in excess of the distance required for a minimum visibility take-off. Perhaps lames commenced his take-off after receiving a clearance to do so by the aerodrome controller, after confirming by his own observations that he had up to 1 mile or even 800 yards of unobstructed forward visibility down the runway, which was all quite legal, even though he was unable to see down the runway beyond this distance from the point at which the take-off was commenced or was unable to see anything which may have been on it. So one can see the tremendous dependence that this airline pilot had on the air controller. I think that in this situation that trust was betrayed.

Senator Cotton:

– That is your observation.

Senator GEORGES:

– All that I have said is my observation. All I am doing is trying to establish the difficulty in which this airline pilot found himself and trying to explain that it is grossly unfair for any blame to be placed on him. I am also trying to establish that in spite of some fundamental errors on the part of the Canadian Pacific airliner it was still the prime responsibility of the air tower controller to see that the runway was clear. It is for this reason that we believe that DCA is too deeply implicated to conduct an inquiry.

I feel that at this stage I have stated my case. I do not think it is necessary to continue. I merely state, without further explanation, that it must be accepted that James was placed in a situation in respect of which it is all too easy to be critical when given the benefit of hindsight. In my opinion, taking into account the reservations stated, he acted in the best traditions of the piloting profession when confronted with an extremely difficult set of circumstances in respect of which the report contains no valid evidence to suggest that they could have been reasonably foreseen by him. This is a serious matter that has brought us to our feet tonight. It is a matter of the protection of the reputation of a pilot whose skill on that night saved the lives of many people. I agree with Senator Sim that one should not be forcing the blame home to a particular person, but it is most necessary because of the method in which the report was presented - it endeavoured to allocate the blame in such a fashion that DCA’s responsibilities would be lessened and that some responsibility would be passed to the Canadian Pacific pilot and from him to the TAA pilot - to raise this matter.

I think that the report is grossly unfair. I think that the TAA pilot, James, should be told what has been said in this debate so that he can have confidence that some honourable senators are prepared to carry out the investigation and to assure him that the responsibility, fault or blame should not be placed on him. I ask the

Minister to support Senator Bishop’s proposition that there should be another and an independent inquiry. I think that the matter should not proceed to litigation. If it does I would say that the Department would come off very much the worse. In the circumstances it is a matter of considering what should be done. Whatever is done, no man’s reputation should be damaged. At least James’s reputation should be cleared.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I think that the last remark might well have been left unsaid. People’s reputations have taken a hell of a hammering tonight. Let us leave that to one side. One or two things need to be said quietly. I quote what I said in the Senate when I presented the report in relation to this accident. Senator Bishop quoted fairly liberally from it. It is quite important that honourable senators should observe extremely carefully what I am about to say. When I presented the report I said:

Finally, Mr President, I should inform the Senate that, arising from this accident, a civil action has been commenced in the High Court of Australia. The policy of insurance held by the Australian National Airlines Commission in respect of the Boeing 727 aircraft VH-TJA contained the usual subrogation clause which gives to the underwriters an entitlement, at their own expense, to sue in the name of the insured. In this case the underwriters have exercised this privilege and, in the name of the Australian National Airlines Commission, they have issued out of the High Court of Australia a writ claiming unspecified damages against the Commonwealth and against Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. Consideration of this claim is the responsibility of my colleague the Attorney-General and, of course, officers of my Department will provide whatever assistance is necessary’.

In the light of that comment I am quite sure that honourable senators will understand my natura] concern at what has been said tonight. But I have far greater concern at what I might say. What I wish to elicit from this matter is: What is this really designed to do? Listening to people whose motives I do not question in any degree at all it becomes fairly clear that we are concerned with a report which, in a section called the causal section, endeavours to find out how this accident occurred. We find that it resulted from a combination of 3 factors. The report endeavours to set out the various levels of responsibility and how these things happened. It does not try to blame people although people are blaming themselves and others are blaming them for other people. We heard various propositions - some of them have been put to me before - that one party is not to blame at all and that 2 others are. I have listened to direct and indirect representation from all the people who are mentioned as part of the causal factors here. Of course each party blames the other 2 parties. I have a very difficult operation on my hands because I am the Minister politically responsible for the Department of Civil Aviation and for the Department itself. I am extremely anxious that justice should be done and that we should end up with a result which is satisfactory and not subject to challenge or innuendo.

Senator Milliner:

– Justice must also appear to be done.

Senator COTTON:

– I know that comment about justice appearing to be done. I have heard it before. But the innuendoes, the smearing of people’s reputations, the accusations which are dragged around and the things which are said - somebody is not to blame at all and somebody else is - concern me. Although it is late in the evening I am very pleased to have on the record-

Senator Poke:

– It is early in the morning.

Senator COTTON:

– Yes, it is early in the morning. That is quite true. Perhaps 1 was feeling fresher than others. I am anxious and pleased to have on public record all the various comments, references, accusations, criticisms, deductions drawn and the whole body of comment which seems to me to be taking quite an interesting shape. In the light of my first remark I shall make one or two fairly brief comments. I have noted what Senator Bishop said. I have noted all these things very carefully, as best I can, during a long series of speeches. They will be dealt with from the Hansard record quite seriously by myself and, I assure honourable senators, by the Department. Senator Bishop made an observation which 1 understand Senator Georges reinforced. I understand that I am requested, through them, to have another inquiry. Apparently the Australian Federation of Air Pilots has requested them to rise in the Senate and seek another inquiry. I note that as an observation made to me this evening.

Senator Bishop:

– I made the request, not Senator Georges. It is reinforced by requests from the Federation of Air Pilots.

Senator COTTON:

– I take it that speaking for the Federation of Air Pilots you are requesting another inquiry?

Senator Bishop:

– No. As I have indicated, I am speaking for Senator Bishop.

Senator COTTON:

– The honourable senator is becoming slightly confused.

Senator BISHOP:

– No, I am not. The distinction is that the Federation of Air Pilots has asked this of the Minister, I understand. It has certainly told me that it wants an inquiry but I am not making a request for the Federation. I am not a spokesman for the air pilots as the Minister well knows.

Senator COTTON:

– Yes, I have detected a confusion in several cases, both in the honourable senator’s speech and in other things which have been said to me.

Senator Bishop:

– I want to make a point very clear.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator Bishop:

– Yes, I do.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator can raise the matter at the end of Senator Cotton’s speech.

Senator COTTON:

– The honourable senator will not need to do so because the confusion to which I am referring is confusion between 2 sets of conditions

Senator Bishop:

– That is nonsense.

Senator COTTON:

– No. I listened very carefully. I thought the honourable senator said to me that the Federation of Air Pilots had requested him to ask for another inquiry. Now I listen to him and he says that he thought that they had asked me for an inquiry. The confusion I refer to is not in the honourable senator’s case. It is in another case. I say to the honourable senator: Please do not get yourself excited or feel that you are being misrepresented. It is not my intention to do this. This debate has allowed me to clear up something myself. I have referred to the problem of a High Court action which is pending. Because of such a case or because of some other inquiry which might be held I am very conscious that what I might say here tonight might prejudice the situation. 1 am being very careful indeed in what I say.

Senator Georges:

– But the report prejudices the situation. Why was the report tabled if that is the case?

Senator COTTON:

– It is customary to table reports like this. Honourable senators know that Trans-Australia Airlines is one of the parties in the High Court action. That must be clear to honourable senators. I suppose the best thing I can say to Senator Bishop is that I did take his observations quite seriously. I made the best notes that I could. I shall read the debate very carefully. Equally, I shall ask the Department to read the debate very carefully and to make comments to me either to support or deny factually the accusations which have been made here this evening on these various counts. Much has been made of the expression of various people that there should be a separation of air accident safety investigation in the Department. I think that to deal with that matter at great length tonight would be unfair to honourable senators. Bui this is not a suggestion. It has been canvassed many times within the Department. It has been canvassed by other people who have had something to do with civil aviation. There are 4 basic systems throughout the world. There is the system where the function is carried out by a completely independent body responsible to Parliament. This is the system in the United States of America but the investigating authority is part of the Department of Transportation, as is the Federal Aviation Administration which amounts to much the same thing.

Senator Milliner:

– The Minister is on shaky ground there.

Senator COTTON:

– No, I am dealing factually with the situation.

Senator Milliner:

– How does our record compare with America?

Senator COTTON:

– Very well indeed. Secondly, there is the system whereby the function is carried out by units within the civil aviation authority but responsible directly to the Minister. That was the system in the United Kingdom. 1 think that system is subject to some change now, not yet defined. That is also the situation in New Zealand. Then there is the system which we have in our Department of Civil Aviation with responsibility vested in the Director-General. But the Department is independent in spirit and practice. Another system quite commonly used is where air safety investigation is a normal integral function of the operational structure of the aviation authority.

Senator Milliner:

– Does the Minister agree that the report is fair?

Senator COTTON:

– I ask the honourable senator not to try to trap me. Senator Sim referred to the problem of pilots. I understand what he was trying to say. I look very careful note. He will know from me that in no way do I regard his remarks as being in the least biased, but fully objective. I do not agree with many of his remarks but I do regard them as objective. I shall take his suggestion for a round table conference quite seriously. I know that when he makes the comment he is not pressing for a new inquiry. He feels that a round table conference would bc desirable. I note the points which he makes about Captain James and what he says about the Boeing 727 training manual, the technique for take-off and the suggestion that a steeper climb might have been used. All I can say to him is that I note his observations. 1 note the observations made by other honourable senators. Other views are held in relation to this matter by people equally as competent.

Senator Georges has done a lot of work in relation to this matter. I know what he is really seeking to establish - that really and truly the TAA pilot has no responsibility; the Canadian Pacific Airline’s pilot has not a great deal because it was a visiting aircraft; and the burden falls on the air traffic control section. I think this is clearly established from the comments the honourable senator made. I do not think I have said anything which will prejudice in any way a judicial inquiry or High Court case. I would not want to do that because people’s reputations are involved. It is easy to stand up here tonight and say these things but in the end, at some time, some people may well suffer quite seriously in this exercise. On the other hand, the Department and I have a great responsibility for air safety. We believe that we discharge that responsibility adequately. We believe that the report as presented resulted from a factual examination. We believe that it was done objectively and dispassionately. As the responsible Minister I do not feel persuaded that any officer of the Department of Civil Aviation behaved other than completely properly.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia) - I seek leave to make a statement because 1 thinkI have been misrepresented.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator does not require leave if he claims he has been misrepresented.

Senator BISHOP:

– I wish to say something in relation to the exchange between myself and the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) over the confusion which arose. I do not act for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots in making these representations. Let us be clear about that. I have no commission from the Federation to do anything at all. But I have been supplied with information from it. I understand that the Federation has put it to the Minister for Civil Aviation and the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation that there should be another inquiry. That may or may not be correct, but I have been told that. I can read from a letter addressed to me from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.It is not confidential. It is dated 6th December 1971 - -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Does that letter relate to the matter on which the honourable senator claims to have been misrepresented?

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes. I used part of it earlier tonight. The last 2 paragraphs of it read:

We most strongly believe on the evidence that we have been shown that this is a highly biased report, valiantly attempting to whitewash the Department, and avoiding their basic responsibility. They cleared TJA to take off on an occupied runway, and then cleared EWJ to take off on a debris strewn runway. We demand that the report and investigation be reopened and that proper and professional representation re-examine the whole incident.

The credibility, and bence viability, of the accident investigation branch is now very seriously in question, with an almost complete loss of faith and trust by the professional airline pilots.

The letter was signed by B. A. Brooksbank. The only reason for my speaking again is to make it clear that I seek no prestige by saying that I represent the pilots. 1 do not represent them. I simply enter the debate in support of what the pilots are trying to get from the Department.

Senator Cotton:

– May I have the letter incorporated in Hansard? it might help me.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes. of course you may.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Australian Federation of Air Pilots 6th December 1971

Senator R. Bishop,

Parliament House,

page 2671

CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

My dear Senator,

Capt David Shrubb advised that you would like further information reference the accident between TJA and CPQ at Sydney on 29th January.

I enclose a copy of a mildly worded critique . repared by the Federation on the D.C.A. report, and 1 would like to stress the following for your assistance.

There are no rules of evidence.

There is no ability of witnesses’ statements to be examined by cross examination by parties other than the Department.

There is no right of legal or other representation or presence during any interrogation.

There is no right of appeal or ability to have the finding challenged.

There is no board as such. It is written by basically one man.

We most strongly believe on the evidence that we have been shown that this is a highly biased report, valiantly attempting to whitewash the Department, and avoiding their basic responsibility. They cleared TJA to take off on an occupied runway, and then cleared EWJ to take off on a debris strewn runway. We demand that the report and investigation be re-opened and that proper and professional representation re-examine the whole incident.

The credibility, and hence viability, of the accident investigation branch is now very seriously in question, with an almost complete loss of faith and trust by the professional airline pilots.

Yours faithfully,

page 2672

B. A. BROOKSBANK

Secretary/Treasurer

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1.12 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 December 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711209_senate_27_s50/>.