Senate
10 December 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2673

SOCIAL SERVICES

Petition

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

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

Petition received and read.

page 2673

QUESTION

WAGES

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. For some time we have been hearing the Government call for restraint by low income earners. When are we going to hear the Government’s proposals for restraint by those earning high incomes, especially those in the area of extremely high income who are lecturing the rest of the community upon the need for restraint?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI fell bound to say that the question posed to me is in the context of the historical events of the last few days.

Senator Milliner:

– Historical and hysterical?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Senate did not adjourn until about 1.30 this morning and it is now after 10 o’clock. One has to keep a sense of humour, but please do not tempt me too much. The fact is that the attitude of the

Government has been. to exercise restraint. Its view has not been narrowed to apply only to low income groups. I think that the policy of restraint as advocated has been pitched to the whole economy.

Senator Murphy:

– What about the Government’s legislative proposals?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI suggest that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. In more recent times we have passed Appropriation Bills and a whole series of other Bills and the Opposition has raised no voice of protest. Now. in the light of what has happened in contemporary times, apparently the Opposition has become conscience stricken.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Air: Why is the Government delaying until after the Parliament rises the annoucement of its decision on the Fill aircraft? In view of today’s reports that the cost will be yet another $45m, will the Minister make an interim statement on the Government’s plans before the Parliament rises for Christmas?

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

– I have said all along in answer to questions on this subject that the Cabinet will be dealing with this matter and will make a decision as to whether or not we should purchase the aircraft. The Cabinet has a submission before it but I cannot say, and it is not for me to say, when Cabinet will deal with it, In regard to the cost, the honourable senator has been taking his information from some newspaper reports. In due course an announcement will be made as to the cost of the aircraft. I have never hidden the fact that the basic, cost of this aircraft is $5.95m. I have said time and time again that there have been increased costs for modifications to the aircraft. Honourable senators should remember that some of those modifications are safety modifications. There has been an escalation in cost over the years.

page 2673

QUESTION

SHIPPING DISPUTES

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the Minister considering proposals for changes to the

Navigation Act? Do some of these proposed changes relate to discipline on ships and the handling of disputes between crew and master?

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

– I know very little about this matter. The only comment I can make is that the report of the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources contains a section dealing with the need to make some changes to the Navigation Act. I have not had a chance yet to read that report in detail, although I am anxious to do so, or to direct that part of it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Beyond that I cannot help the honourable senator but I shall seek to find out the information he requires.

page 2674

QUESTION

TAX DEDUCTION: WIGS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that people who suffer from alopecia caused by certain medical conditions are unable to claim, as a tax deduction, the considerable expense incurred in the provision of a wig? Will the Minister consult the Treasurer in order to classify wigs as medical appliances in cases where the alopecia can be certified by a medical practitioner as being the result of an illness? I note Senator Prowse’s interest in this matter.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

We are getting into a dangerous area here. I can assure honourable senators that there is nothing unreal about my head in terms of hair. This question is clearly one to be referred to my Department. Representations have been made to me in relation to this matter and they are being processed and considered. If I am in a position to make a comment to the honourable senator during the recess I will certainly communicate with him and will subsequently have that information incorporated in Hansard. I can assure the honourable senator that the view he has expressed has been put to me and is currently under examination.

! UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to unemployment in the motor car industry. I ask: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to continu ing reports about the downturn in the motor car industry and about retrenchments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia? Will he cause investigations to be made about employment in the motor car industry and see what action the Government may be able to take to reduce the trend towards unemployment in an industry whose activities are very extensive and affect many other ancillary industries?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAs late as this morning I saw a reference to this matter which I read very carefully. I do not want to get into a controversial area, but all honourable senators will be aware that in the motor car industry in South Australia there have been problems with a particular organisation resulting in disputation in the industrial sense. Be that as it may, the point made by Senator Bishop is that there is an element of movement in the motor car industry. In the first instance I should like to refer the question for a departmental report at 2 levels, firstly from the Treasury and, secondly, from the Department of Shipping and Transport. When I have received replies 1 shall ensure that they are conveyed to the honourable senator.

page 2674

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Works. Are the extensions to the Senate end of Parliament House being constructed under the direction and supervision of the Department of Works? Did a stoppage of work occur on the building yesterday over the employment of non-union labour? As the completion of the the construction is important to senators, will the Minister confer with the builder to ensure that the type of labour he employs will not be a cause of further industrial unrest and stoppages?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I think it is within the knowledge of all honourable senators that this contract is under the direction of the Department of Works. My latest information is that construction is proceeding on time and is expected to be completed for the resumption of Parliament early next year. I have some suspicion that perhaps Senator Cavanagh knows more than I do about my stoppage of work yesterday.

page 2675

QUESTION

SALARIES

Senator MURPHY:

– Does the Leader of the Government see anything unfair in the suggestion that in this time of calls for general restraint on incomes there should be an effective ceiling at some comparatively generous level of $20,000 or $25,000 which would be achieved by imposing a supertax on all income in excess of that amount?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am being asked to express an opinion on a matter of policy. I suggest that I should not be asked that sort of question at question time.

page 2675

QUESTION

AUSTRALIANS IN GREAT BRITAIN

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration explain his and the Prime Minister’s continued silence on the future status of Australians in Great Britain under the United Kingdom Immigration Act and the long-term effects of common Market membership, particularly since the Prime Minister had lengthy discussions with the British Prime Minister, Edward Heath?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am unable to answer as to what the position is at present. This is an area where I feel that we would all be assisted if attention were given to it and a statement made. I shall convey the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister for Immigration.

page 2675

QUESTION

HOLIDAY PAY

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDMy question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is he aware that public servants, especially Post Office employees, who will be required to work on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day of 1972 have been told that because those clays fall on a Saturday they will be paid at a time and a half for the Saturday instead of a double time rate for the public holiday. Will the Minister examine this matter as one of urgency to ensure that those public servants who are required to work on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, those days being Saturdays, will in fact be paid at the rate of double time for work on those days?

page 2675

QUESTION

WAGES AND SALARIES

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed lo the Leader of the Government in the Senate. May the Senate be assured that the Government is actively considering the use of ali the legislative powers at the disposition of the Commonwealth to ensure that the restraint which is being called for in wage and salary increases will be applied to those in receipt of high incomes as well as the wage earners at the bottom of the scale?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I do not want to be ungracious on this last day, but it is apparent now 1 think to everybody that an attempt is being made to justify action in this place by the Opposition last night.

page 2675

QUESTION

REPAIRS TO SHIPS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Mindful of the deterioration generally at waterfront shipyards, does the Government contemplate a review of the Navigation Act to insist that ships flying the Australian flag have their entire repair work done on the Australian coastline?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not know nor do I think I could be expected to know but I shall find out.

page 2675

FILM CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE

Notice of Morion

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– By leave - I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Film Classification Ordinance 1971, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 25 of 1971, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1970, be disallowed.

I ask leave to make a short statement concerning this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WOOD:

– The Regulations and Ordinances Committee is concerned with certain aspects of this ordinance other than the aspects that prompted Senator Byrne to give a similar notice of motion concerning the ordinance. I understand that in order to preserve the Committee’s position if Senator Byrne decides not to proceed with his motion it is necessary to give a separate notice of motion. As this is the last day for giving notice, I have clone so in order to give the Committee more time to pursue its inquiries.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to Senator Wood that in the order of the business for the Senate there is a proper place for giving notices of a motion.

Senator WOOD:

– Mr President, I understand you were notified of this situation. As a consequence, I stood at the right time.

The PRESIDENT:

– You did not stand

At the right time.

Senator WOOD:

– I did.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do not argue.

Senator WOOD:

– Do not try to make a liar of me.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wood-

Senator WOOD:

– I am telling you I stood -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

page 2676

QUESTION

GENERAL BUSINESS: ORDERS OF THE DAY

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I ask leave to move that General Business order of the day No. 34 be dealt with following order of the day, Government Business No. 10.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MURPHY:

– I move:

The Dealth Penalty Abolition Bill was brought into this Senate a considerable time ago. I do not want to go into all the matters which proceeded between the Government and the Opposition but my understanding was that an opportunity would be given for this matter to be brought to a vote. I would like that to be done. I think the Opposition has been extremely patient. This Bill was sent off to a committee in the expectation that it would be brought back within a reasonable time. The committee has reported. It was suggested that the matter could not be proceeded with on the night that the Committee reported because someone wanted to examine the report in detail. Certainly there have been some simple amendments drafted by one of the Parliamentary Counsel but it cannot be said that there is any great difficulty in understanding those or that there is any objection to them. This matter ought to be proceeded with. If the Government votes against this motion I would regard it not only as an indication that it is trying to stall this Bill but also as not being consistent with the arrangements made from time to time between the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and myself.

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

(10.22) - Mr President, the situation is that in very recent discussions with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) I said to him that consideration at the best could be given to this Bill only after the conclusion of Government business.

Senator MURPHY:

– That was the recent discussion.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Yes, that was the recent discussion. In view of the need for further consideration of this Bill in the light of what has happened, the Government now takes the view that it is not appropriate today to consider this Bill after the conclusion of Government Business. Without wanting to have a debate on this -

Senator Murphy:

– That is not consistent with what you agreed with me earlier. I am not blaming you personally but there should be fair dealing in these matters.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Thank you very much. Senator Murphy, I insisted that you get leave to make your point and correspondingly I think you should let me make mine. I did say to you early this week, at the outset, that at best we could look at the situation of dealing with this Bill after we have dealt with Government Business. We have looked at it and I am afraid we cannot support your proposal to bring it on after Government business. Therefore I will have to resist your motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– During the time that I have been Leader of the Opposition and Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has been Leader of the Government in the Senate a lot of arrangements have been made.I have the greatest respect for him. What he said about what he told me this week is true. What is true also is what he said about the discussion which took place earlier and the understanding we came to that there would be an opportunity given to me to have this Bill dealt with.I am certain that the Government party has brought about a situation whereby the understanding given to me by the Leader of the Government in the Senate has been broken by the decision of his party. I am certain that the Leader of. the Government did everything he could to carry out the understandings he came to with me but if the attitude of those inthe Government Party is not to bring this measure to a vote I regardtheir conduct as dishonourable.

Question put -

Thatt he motion (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) - We are dealing with the placing of business. It is my understanding that, in relation to notice of motion No. 13 standing in the name of Senator Bryne, there is some understanding between the parlies in that they concur on the form of the motion.I am perfectly happy to have this matter dealt with now. I say this on the clear understanding that we will dispose of it fairly quickly. In view of the arrangement made, I am prepared to concede that Senator Byrne callon his motion.

Senator Byrne - Yes

page 2677

QUESTION

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF AUSTRALIAN ENTERPRISES

Motion for Appointment of Select Committee

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I ask for leave to move in an amended form notice of motion No. 13 standing in my name on the general business sheet.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BYRNE:

– I move:

Mr President, I do not propose to speak to this motion beyond saying that the terms of reference as originally presented were substantially these but there have been some departures following consultations between Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and myself, and also after consultation with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. ThereforeI think it could be said that there has been an accord as to the terms of reference and also as to the formal parts of the motion dealing with the staff and personnel of the Committee as well as its rights and powers. In addition, I think there has been some consultation with yourself, Mr President. As the Senate has already adopted in principle, by its resolution of 10th November, the proposition that such a Committee should be established, this motion is in pursuance of the resolution of the Senate and carries into effect the will of the Senate. Therefore I trust that it will receive the unanimous support of all honourable senators.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports the proposal. In fact, I might say that the Opposition is a party to it. This proposal follows what was proposed by the Opposition on 15th April 1969 when I moved that there be established a standing committee on overseas control of Australian resources, commerce and industry. At that time it was indicated during the course of the debate, curiously by Senator Byrne, that he did not see the necessity for such an inquiry. But times and opinions change. We are very pleased to see that the majority of the Senate accords with the view that was then advanced by the Opposition. It is not material who moves the motion. We support it.

This matter is of tremendous public importance. What is being done here this morning may be far more important than anything else that has been done in the life of this Parliament. We, Mr President, would hope that this Committee would set about its task understanding that we are really dealing with the destiny of this nation. The Committee is being asked to investigate how far the very substance of our affairs has been taken out of our hands and what ought to be done to restore to Australians and Australia the control of our own future. Therefore, on behalf of all members of my Parly, 1 indicate that we are parties to this proposal - enthusiastic parties - and that we commend it to the rest of the Senate.

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

(10.40) - 1 wish to make a couple of quick points concerning some of Senator Murphy’s remarks in which, 1 regret to say, he drew from the motion implications which the Government does nol accept. The motion calls for the appointment of a select committee to seek knowledge on a whole series of matters. To the extent that the committee will be seeking knowledge and not making pre-judgements, the Government believes that the motion expresses the wish of the majority of honourable senators. .1 would not subscribe to the views that Senator Murphy has expressed. The committee will not be conducting a witch hunt, lt should not bc inferred that the appointment of this committee is designed to demonstrate that there is something wrong or improper. The committee will be seeking knowledge. 1 want to make that point abundantly clear.

I have made the point on previous occasions that the Senate is becoming overburdened with committees. I have referred to the demands committees are placing on the Senate. My view is that we may be destroying the wonderful function that was envisaged when we created the committee system if too great a burden is imposed on senators and the Senate’s administrative officers. Therefore in that sense we suggest that the appointment of this committee is premature and we would resist its creation at this point of time. Because there is always the danger that one’s attitude may be misrepresented in the newspapers. I emphasise (hat I am saying that the appointment of this committee is premature having regard to the already tremendous task imposed on the Senate by committees. This may be a reflection on the machinery by which committees are operated.

I think this motion should be put to the vote now. I will not call for a division because obviously the majority of honourable senators want this committee and there is an arrangement between the 2 parties opposite. I want it clearly understood that 1 will be saying ‘no’ on the basis that I do not believe the time is appropriate for the Senate to be appointing this committee having regard to the work the Senate has on hand. 1 believe that it would be more appropriate for this motion to be considered during the life of the Parliament next year, when some of the work of the Senate committees may have lightened. I suggest that the obvious way to proceed now is to put the question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Now that this motion has been carried I want to make a comment in my role as President of the Senate. I refer honourable senators to the wording of this motion, particularly clause 7 which reads:

The Committee shall be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published -

I remark that the word ‘shall’ is an imperative - of such proceedings of the Committee or any subcommittee as take place in public.

I wish to inform honourable senators that the Hansard staff is already greatly extended and the Government Printing Office is not able to cope with the volume of business wilh which it is confronted. Therefore, as the Presiding Officer, I wish to announce in advance that I cannot guarantee that clause 7 of this motion can be fulfilled each day.

page 2679

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR GOVERNMENT AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Ministerial Statement

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

– Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement that was made yesterday in the other place by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in relation to additional assistance for government and independent schools.

The PRESIDENT:

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

I wish to inform the House of decisions the Government has taken to provide additional assistance to both government and independent schools in areas of special need. Decisions taken in association with Commonwealth and State conferences over the last 18 months or so have resulted in a significant increase in the level and rate of growth of general revenue assistance from the Commonwealth to the States. The current expenditure on primary and secondary education in State schools has benefited significantly from these arrangements and the Government is convinced that additional assistance in that area would not be justified. However, the States have not been able to allocate as much as they would have liked from their available capital funds for primary and secondary school buildings, they speak of problems including the provision of additional classrooms and associated facilities and the replacement of outmoded and cramped accommodation.

We have decided that it would be desirable to assist the States to increase their capital expenditure in respect of primary and secondary schools. We have given very careful thought to the form in which we should provide this assistance and we have decided that the best approach would be to provide this assistance by way of additions to the interest-free capital grants which the Commonwealth is making to the States as part of their annual works and housing programmes, and as a substitute for loan raisings. These capital grants are being paid for the purpose of assisting the States to finance non-productive capital works, without incurring debt charges on the funds used. However, as these grants are being made in recognition of the need expressed by the States for additional capital expenditure in primary and secondary schools, we would expect them to be so used by the States. We would prefer that science laboratories and libraries in secondary schools, for which there are existing special purpose grants, be excluded from these grants. The additional grants will also be paid entirely without any matching conditions attached to them. I should add that the Commonwealth expects that the States will continue with their own planned levels of expenditure in this area so that these grants will represent a net addition to the facilities in government schools.

The amount of the additional grants will be $20m of which part will be paid in the remainder of this financial year and part in 1972-73. They will be distributed between the States in proportion to the capital grants presently being received by them, which in turn are distributed in the same way as the States’ Loan Council borrowing programmes for works and housing. The additional grants will be amalgamated into the basic capital grants for the purpose of determining the proportion of the works and housing programme that the grants will represent in future years. The amount that each State will receive on the basis indicated is as follows: New South Wales, $6.36m; Victoria, $5.10m; Queensland, $2.53m; South Australia, $2.74m; Western Australia, $1.87m and Tasmania, $ 1.40m - a total of $20ra. I have written to the Premiers inviting them to agree to accept these grants on the basis I have outlined.

Since 1969 running costs of government schools have risen by at least 30 per cent to 40 per cent, and even more in some cases, and it is now costing over $300 a year to educate a child in a government primary school and over $500 a year to educate a child in a government secondary school. The general financial assistance grants from the Commonwealth represent about one-half of the States’ current Budget expenditure and on this basis it can be said that the Commonwealth is supporting approximately one-half of the increased expenditure by the States on primary and secondary schools.

The independent schools have received additional assistance from the States, but they are facing increasing difficulties in their efforts to provide adequate facilities for a reasonable proportion of the school” going population. Many of the independent schools have been paying their teachers salaries at rates significantly lower than those paid in government schools. However, there is now a number of awards which require these salaries to be increased to full parity with the operative rates in government schools over a short period. This development has resulted in relatively greater increases in costs in the independent schools than in the Government schools. The independent schools have limited capacity to charge higher fees and collect other income and for boarding schoolsthere are additional difficulties arising from the downturn in rural activity. The combination of these factors has resulted in a continued drift in enrolments to government schools.

The need for immediate additional assistance to independent schools is emphasised by the following current developments. The Roman Catholic authorities in Melbourne are considering seriously a proposal not to expand secondary schools but to concentrate resources in primary schools. In Tasmania a number of Roman Catholic and other independent schools are faced with the prospect of having to cease operations. The Government hopes that a contraction would not be necessary in either area.

As a further measure of assistance to the independent schools, the Government has decided to increase the rates of the annual per capita grants to both primary and secondary independent schools throughout Australia. These grants were first made available from the beginning of 1970 at annual rates of $35 per head in primary schools and $50 per head in secondary schools. Those rates will be increased to $50 per head in primary schools and $68 per head in secondary schools from the beginning of 1972.

These additional per capita grants to independent schools in the Slates are expected to cost$9.7m in 1972 of which half, i.e. $4.85m, will be payable during the financial year 1971-72. The amount in each State will be approximately: New South Wales, $3. 58m; Victoria, $3. 14m; Queensland, $1.46m; South Australia, $600,000; Western Australia, $700,000; and Tasmania, $220,000- a total of $9.70m.

Independent schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory share in the per capita grants which the Commonwealth makes available to independent schools in the States. They also receive a local component in their per capita grants broadly equivalent to those paid by the State governments to independent schools in the States. In addition to the increasesI have already mentioned, the local component in the annual per capita grants to independent schools in the 2 Territories will be increased from the beginning of 1972. The increases will be from $20 to $35 per head in primary schools and in secondary schools from$30 to$45 in forms1 and 2, from$40 to$45 in forms 3 and 4 and from$45 to$50 in forms 5 and 6. The increased grants to independent schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are expected to cost $347,000 in 1972, of which $173,000 will be payable during the financial year 1971-72. The Government will introduce appropriate legislation covering these measures during the autumn session of the Parliament next year.

My Government will continue to cooperate with the States in measures both direct and indirect to expand and improve education services in government schools. Our policy for the independent schools is that, relying on their own efforts and with assistance from governments, they should be able to continue to provide places at a reasonable standard for that proportion of the school population which in the past has sought education in non-government schools. The action we are now. taking is a further indication of our determination to assist those directly concerned to improve the standards in all types of schools.

page 2681

QUESTION

TRAINING OF VIETNAMESE AND CAMBODIANS IN VIETNAM BY THE AUSTRALIAN ARMY ASSISTANCE GROUP

Ministerial Statement

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

– Mr President, I ask for leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a ministerial statement that was made in another place by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) yesterday relating to the training of Vietnamese and Cambodians in Vietnam.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

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

I wish to inform the House of the arrangments that have been made for Australian military training elements to assist with the training in Vietnam of Vietnam ese and Cambodian Armed Forces personnel. The 2 matters under consideration are, firstly, the maintenance in Vietnam of a small Australian Army Assistance Group (AAAG) after the withdrawal of the Australian Force Vietnam; and secondly, the provision of Australian military instructors to train Cambodian military personnel at United States training establishments set up with the co-operation of the Vietnamese Government in Phuoc Tuy Province. As explained by Ministers earlier in the session, these matters were to be discussed with the other governments concerned. The Army Assistance Group is a matter for Australia and the Republic of Vietnam; the proposals to train Cambodian troops in Vietnam involve the governments of Australia, the Khmer Republic, the Republic of Vietnam and the United States.

Australian Army Assistance Group

The House will recall that on 30th March the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), when announcing a reduction in Australian combat forces then in South Vietnam, made the observation that the Australian Government will continue to assist the Republic of Vietnam, though the character of our assistance will progressively change. The Prime Minister went on to refer to various forms of economic assistance and training assistance.

On 18th August the Prime Minister informed the House that the Government was discussing with the Vietnamese Government plans to retain in the Republic some military training and advisory elements if they were wanted and if satisfactory arrangements could be made. The hope was expressed that these elements would continue to work in close association with the United States’ effort. I am now able to announce the conclusion of our discussions with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam. They welcome the continuation of this form of practical concern with their future, now that Vietnamese forces are carrying most of the burden of combat and Australian combat forces are about to be entirely withdrawn. In consultation with the Vietnamese Government, we are providing an Australian Army Assistance Group which will have a total strength of the order of 150, including 30 instructors assigned to the training of Cambodians in Vietnam to which I will refer later. The Group will include elements to assist in training at the jungle warfare training centre at its new location in Van Kiep in Phuoc Tuy Province, and to assist in advising and training Territorial Forces also in Phuoc Tuy. It will include a small group of engineering personnel, who will be needed at the Jungle Warfare Training Centre at Van Kiep and a headquarters and supporting element. None of the elements of the Groups will have a combatant role. The costs of maintaining the Australian Army Assistance Group will be borne by the Australian Government. The group will remain in Vietnam so long as that is mutually agreed between the 2 Governments and aslong as it has a contribution to make.

The Government considers that the small numbers of personnel of the AAAG to assist the Vietnamese in these ways will perform a valuable function. We have previously been engaged in this kind of assistance to the Vietnamese, and Army instructors have won for themselves a fine record. This effort complements the programme of economic and defence aid support to Vietnam which, as the Prime Minister announced last August, has been increased to $2 5 m over the 3 years from 1971-72. With the withdrawal of our combat contribution to Vietnam it is appropriate that a small group should remain as arranged with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam to continue assistance in the training field.

Training of Personnel of the Khmer Armed Forces

Since Cambodia took up arms to resist North Vietnamese aggression, its Government has made both general and specific appeals dating back to April, 1970, for assistance, and the Australian Government has given continuing consideration to these needs and to forms of help which would be appropriate and possible for Australia to give. For this purpose we have had a continuing exchange of information and views at the ministerial and official level with Cambodia and other countries interested in helping that country. As was stated in this House in November, Cabinet approved in principle the provision of a small number of Australian instructors to train Cambodian Armed Forces personnel at United

States training establishments in Phuoc Tuy Province, subject to the feasibility of and arrangements for the proposal being established in discussions between the representatives of the Governments concerned in Saigon.

Military representatives of Australia, the Khmer Republic, the Republic of Vietnam and the United States have now recommended practical arrangements for the training of Cambodian personnel in Vietnam, and the suitability of these arrangements has been accepted by the four Governments. Australia will participate in this scheme with a group of the order of 30 instructors, the exact composition of which will be determined in the light of training requirements. This group of instructors will be included in the total of about ISO men in Vietnam referred to above. They will be administered and supported as an integral part of the Australian Army Assistance Group. The costs of this group of instructors will be borne by the Australian Government and they will work within the framework of the United States training establishments in Phuoc Tuy Province. As wilh the arrangements governing the Australian Army Assistance Group, our participation in the scheme to train Cambodians at United States training establishments in Phuoc Tuy is by mutual arrangement between the Governments concerned and will be reviewed according to requirements.

The Australian Government is firmly of the view that the Australian contribution of instructors, though small in number, to train Cambodians will provide worthwhile and much needed assistance to meet the critical training requirements of the Cambodian Armed Forces. The requirements of the Cambodian Armed Forces for such assistance have long been recognised by the Australian Government. which, as announced earlier, is providing some training in Australia, and it can see added advantages in participating in a scheme for Cambodian training in Vietnam. Australia has been giving material assistance to Cambodia, decisions on which have been announced previously. In June 1970 the Government made a special grant of $500,000 to Cambodia to purchase logistic and defence support items and lo help with economic aid. In September of the same year the then Minister for Foreign Affairs announced an additional $900,000 for aid to Cambodia including economic and logistic support items and. if necessary, arms and ammunition. This programme of special aid to Cambodia has continued in 1971-72 when $1.35m has been provided including $200,000 for the training of Cambodian Servicemen in Australia.

The Government believes Australians admire the way in which Cambodians are defending themselves against invading forces of North Vietnam. The Cambodian Armed Forces are small and not highly trained, and the Cambodian people are accustomed to peace rather than to the need now imposed upon them to defend themselves against military attack by the North Vietnamese. The Australian Government is convinced that Australians will consider that the assignment of some Australian instructors to train Cambodians in Vietnam is a most suitable and practical way of supporting the country in concert with others who are concerned. As I have stated, the instructors will be assisting at training establishments maintained in Phuoc Tuy Province by the United States; there is no intention of sending Australian Service personnel to Cambodia. The Government’s policy of not stationing Service personnel in Cambodia (other than the Service Attache at the Australian Embassy) is a long-standing one, and there will be no departure from this. I lay on the table of the House for the information of members 2 Memoranda of Understanding, the first covering the Australian Army Assistance Group in Vietnam, the second on Australian participation in the training of Cambodian military personnel in Vietnam. These documents, signed on behalf of the Governments concerned, set out the agreed arrangements concerning the matters I have just outlined.

page 2683

PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON GENERAL INSURANCE

Ministerial Statement

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

– 1 ask for leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a ministerial statement that was made in another place in relation to proposed legislation on general insurance.

The PRESIDENT:

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

I wish to inform honourable members of the provisions which the Government is considering including in the legislation being prepared for the supervision of general insurance companies in Australia. As I have stated previously in the House, it is not possible to introduce the proposed legislation in this session. A vast amount of ground has been covered, but a number of details have yet to be settled. In the meantime it will be helpful to all concerned if I outline in some detail the scheme of legislation which the Government has in mind.

The essential elements can be summarised quite briefly. General insurance companies would be brought under supervision by requiring them to obtain authorities to carry on general insurance business. By general insurance I mean all classes of insurance other than life insurance, which is subject to the Life Insurance Act. To obtain an authority, a company would be required to satisfy standards of financial soundness prescribed in the legislation. After receiving an authority, the company would be obliged to maintain the prescribed standards and would be subject to continuous supervision to ensure that ft did so. An authorised insurer who failed to maintain the standards, or who appeared to be in danger of falling below the standards, could be subject to inquiry and investigation, which could lead to the company being issued with such directions as were necessary to deal with the situation and, if those measures were unsuccessful, to the withdrawal of the authority.

These are the basic features of the proposed scheme of legislation as it would apply permanently to companies wishing to begin insurance business after the commencement date. Existing insurers carrying on business at present would be brought under the same system of supervision by means of transitional provisions in the legislation. Before describing the proposed system of supervision in more detail, I have some comments to make on the purpose and scope of the scheme.

Purpose

Honourable members will recall that the Government’s decision to legislate for the supervision of general insurance companies was prompted by the failure of some insurance companies from mid-1970 onwards, following many years of stability in the insurance industry. The companies which failed were relatively small and of recent origin, but their failure caused some apprehension that other companies may not be financially sound. The scheme of legislation proposes to tackle the problem by establishing the minimum standards of financial soundness to which I have referred and by providing a means of indentifying and investigating companies which do not measure up to the standards, with a view to their reorganisation or orderly withdrawal from insurance business. In the longer term the scheme aims to prevent weak, inefficient companies from entering the business and by continuous supervision to keep the industry in a healthy condition.

It must be emphasised that the introduction of legislation could not transform the financial condition of insurance companies over-night. It would take time for companies which fell below the new requirements to be identified and for their situations to be rectified. The proposed legislation would, however, open the way for a permanent solution of the problem. Furthermore, regulatory legislation of this kind cannot guarantee that no insolvencies will ever occur. It thus cannot guarantee that claims on insurance companies will always be met in full. If, however, financial stability of general insurance companies is established as a result of the legislation, the public will be given substantial protection in their insurance transactions.

In the preparation of the scheme of legislation, consideration was given to the possibility of establishing a fidelity or guarantee fund, to which insurers would contribute and which would be available to meet deficiencies arising from liquidations of insurance companies. However, this proposal would present difficulties, at least in present circumstances in Australia. It would require sound insurers to pay for the mistakes of weak insurers and it could be held to be unreasonable to compel sound insurers to do this at the present time, while doubts continue about the financial soundness of some companies. Furthermore, the creation of such a fund in present circumstances could tend to perpetuate weakness in the industry, by underwriting the activities of companies engaged in risky insurance practices, lt must be remembered that general insurance business in Australia is conducted for the most part by companies which are sound and efficiently managed. Only a very small percentage of the business is carried on by companies which could be regarded as financially doubtful. In considering ways of supervising general insurance companies, the Government wants to avoid giving an impression that many insurance companies are weak and also does not wish to bring down legislation which is so restrictive that it would stultify the business of the great majority of insurance companies.

Scope of the Legislation

The Governments decision, as announced, was that the Commonwealth should legislate for the supervision of general insurance companies. The scheme of legislation which has been prepared accordingly concentrates on setting up a system of supervision and does not enter into other fields, such as the issue of policies, premium rates, the payment of claims and other contractual relationships between insurance companies and policy owners.

Insurance Business

Turning now to the details of the scheme of legislation, insurance business would be defined as at present in section 3 of the Insurance Act 1932-1966 and would continue to exclude the types of business at present excluded, namely life insurance business and accident insurance business undertaken solely in connexion with life insurance business; benefits provided by a friendly society or a trade union for its members or their dependants; employer and employee superannuation schemes; funeral benefits schemes; and the business of insuring exclusively the property of a regligious organisation. In addition, business carried on by medical and hospital benefits organisations registered under the National Health Act would be excluded and also self-insurers at present exempt under section 1 5 of the Insurance Act.

Administration

The legislation would provide for the appointment of a Commissioner, who would be responsible for the administration, subject to the directions of the Treasurer.

Authorisation of Insurers

The legislation would prohibit the carrying on of insurance business other than by a company authorised to carry on that business under the Act. Applications would be made to the Commissioner, supported by information about the company and its financial position and prospects. The Treasurer would be empowered to grant or refuse to grant an authority and to attach conditions to an authority, but an authority would not be granted where the Treasurer, on receipt of a report from the Commissioner, was not satisfied as to the applicant’s financial soundness as determined by the criteria for financial soundness spelt out in the legislation.

Companies would be required to satisfy the following main requirements: A minimum paid-up capital of the order of $200,000. or the equivalent in capital funds in the case of a company not limited by shares; a solvency margin of assets over all liabilities excluding liabilities to shareholders, equal to 15 percent of annual premium income or a money amount equal to half the minimum paid-up capital requirement, whichever is the greater; a margin of assets in Australia over liabilities in Australia, excluding liabilities to shareholders, calculated in accordance with the solvency formula: satisfactory arrangements for reinsurance: reputable and efficient ownership and management: capacity to meet obligations.

With regard to the solvency requirement, I should mention that this is a test commonly used in insurance legislation overseas. Its effectiveness depends largely on the assets of the company being valued on a conservative basis and its liabilities being accounted for fully. For this reason, it is proposed that there should be a number of supporting provisions relating to assets and liabilities. It is not proposed that the investment policies of insurance companies should be controlled, but certain assets would be excluded for the purposes of the margin of solvency calculations and provisions in respect of underwriting liabilities would be placed under close supervision.

Transitional arrangements

The transitional arrangements would provide for all insurers who are carrying on business as at the date of this statement and who made application to be authorised to continue to carry on business. It is expected that the majority would be able to comply with the financial requirements which I have outlined, but special arrangements would be necessary to deal with those which could not do so. It is envisaged that an exemption would be provided for companies which could not meet the minimum paid-up capital requirement, but could meet the other requirements. Companies which could not meet the other requirements at the time of application, but which demonstrated a capacity to meet the requirements within 2 years would be given time to comply. In the remaining cases, action would be taken to investigate their affairs, under the inquiry and investigation provisions of the legislation. Where appropriate, directions might be issued for the reorganisation of a company, but if no alternative could be found, steps would be put in train to terminate the business.

Continuous Supervision

The effectiveness of the proposed system of supervision would depend to a large extent on the range and reliability of the information received by the Administration. The information should not only enable the insurer’s compliance with the financial standards to be policed, but also provide an early warning of any tendency for a company’s financial position to weaken. It is proposed that all authorised insurers should be required to furnish annually in respect of their Australian business a balance sheet, a solvency statement, an underwriting account and a profit and loss and appropriation account, all of which would need to be audited by approved auditors. They would also be required to furnish annually statistical returns showing, by class of business, premiums earned, provisions for outstanding claims, claims incurred, underwriting results and reinsurance arrangements, together with a return showing the run-off of claims for selected classes of business. In addition, there would be quarterly returns of selected assets and liabilities and monthly returns of premiums, claims and expenses.

The Commissioner would be empowered to require explanations of items in any of the accounts and returns and, if not satisfied, to give directions for variation. Members of the public would have access on request to copies of an authorised insurer’s balance sheet, underwriting account, profit and loss and appropriation account as submitted to the Commissioner, either at his office or at the principal office of the company. All other returns would be regarded as confidential. It is proposed, however, that selected information from the returns should be processed and published as aggregates for general statistical purposes. This would be an important byproduct of the legislation, providing information which would be valuable to insurers in managing their businesses, as well as being of importance generally within the community.

Inquiry and investigation

The scheme of legislation proposes that, if it appeared to the Commissioner that there was cause for concern about a company’s financial position, he would be empowered to demand additional information about the position. If it appeared that there was a risk of the company not being able to comply with its obligations under the legislation the Commissioner would be empowered to serve a notice on the company to show cause why the company should not be investigated. The possibility is that, on receipt of such a notice, the company would take action to correct the situation. If the company failed to show cause to the Commissioner’s satisfaction, an investigation could be made. Following an investigation, the Commissioner would be required to give the company a summary of the conclusions and he could issue to the company such directions as to its insurance business as he thought necessary and proper to deal with the situation disclosed, including a direction that the company should not issue policies in respect of all or part of its insurance business. The intention would be that every effort should be made to avoid failure. Directions given by the Commissioner would be subject to appeal, but it is proposed that, for the protection of the public, a direction not to issue policies should be effective immediately pending completion of the hearing.

Cancellation of authority

Provision would be made for the cancellation of authorities in particular circumstances, including a voluntary termination of an insurance business as well as a termination following an investigation.

Appeals

It is proposed that a special administrative tribunal should be established under the legislation, with a judge as chairman and with two members experienced in insurance, but not a director, officer or employee of a company or organisation actively engaged in insurance business. The tribunal would hear appeals on administrative decisions under the legislation which would be largely of a technical nature. Provision would be made for appeal to a court of appropriate jurisdiction on matters involving questions of law in the legislation. The outline I have given summarises in broad terms the provisions which the Government has in mind in respect of the authorisation and continuous supervision of general insurance companies. There arc. however, many other matters that would need to be provided for.

Deposit requirement

The deposit requirement is not expected to serve a useful purpose after the proposed system of supervision has become fully established and insurance companies come under continuous observation. Increases in deposits which were large enough to give policy owners a high degree of protection in the event of a company’s failure could put some companies out of business, including some smalt, but sound companies. A large deposit requirement could have the effect of weakening a company’s financial position by limiting the availability of its assets for use in its business. Under the proposed new system of supervision, there would be no need for large deposits to keep excessively small companies from entering into insurance business: that would be done by the minimum paid-up capital requirement and the solvency margin, ft is accordingly proposed that the deposit requirement would carry on under the Insurance Act 1932-1966 until the new system is fully established and that the deposits would be released 2 years after the commencement of the new legislation, or such later date as may be proclaimed. The Insurance Act 1932-1966 contains no provision for a release of deposits of this kind and a legislative amendment would be necessary to implement the proposal.

Lloyd’s Underwriters

The system of supervision which I have outlined relates to companies incorporated in the usual way. Lloyd’s of London, who have carried on insurance business in Australia for many years, do not fit easily into that kind of legislation, because Lloyd’s underwriters are individuals with unlimited personal liability who form syndicates of varying numbers to undertake insurance transactions in many parts of the world. Discussions are in progress with Lloyd’s through the general counsel in Australia for Lloyd’s on ways in which Lloyd’s underwriters could be brought within the scope of the proposed legislation.

State and Territory legislation

There is a wide variety of legislation relating to general insurance in the States and the Commonwealth Territories. Some of it is of a supervisory kind, under which licences are issued for companies to carry on general insurance business,, or certain classes of general insurance business. The remainder is for various purposes, such as payment of stamp duties and fire brigade levies, and the insurance provisions in a variety of laws on subjects such as hirepurchase, housing and local government. With regard to the supervisory legislation, such as the Queensland Insurance Act, which exercises control over the whole field of general insurance, and legislation in the States and Territories for the supervision of companies carrying on workers’ compensation and compulsory third party insurance, the State governments are anxious to keep their controls in being for a period after the proposed Commonwealth legislation came into force. This is reasonable, because it would take time for the Commonwealth administration to identify companies which are financially unsound and to take whatever action might be needed to rectify matters. The scheme of legislation envisages appropriate provisions being made to safeguard the supervisory legislation in the States and Territories for an interim period. Provisions would also be included to safeguard the remaining State legislation on general insurance.

External territories

It is proposed that the legislation should be capable of extension to the external territories of the Commonwealth by proclamation, but that provision would be made for exemption on the advice of the Minister for Externa] Territories (Mr Barnes), of substantially indigenous insurers in the Territory of Papua New Guinea, undertaking insurance business only in the Territory, from some or all of the provisions of the legislation. Similar exemption would also be allowed for certain insurance schemes involving some administration sponsorship.

State Insurance

Insurance business conducted by State governments and their instrumentalities falls largely outside the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers, and in any event there is no question of the financial soundness of the State government insurance offices. However, those offices form a large part, about 20 per cent, of the Australian insurance market. Discussions are going on with the State Governments as to the extent to which they would be prepared to co-operate volantarily in the spirit of the legislation, particularly in matters such as the furnishing of information without which Australian insurance statistics would be seriously incomplete.

Insurance Brokers

Following representations on the need to bring insurance brokers under supervision, it is proposed that the Commonwealth should legislate for that purpose. As honourable members know, the role of brokers in insurance transactions is to advise members of the public and to negotiate on their behalf with insurance companies. Many complaints have been received of abuses of this function and a broad measure of agreement exists that brokers should be brought under supervision. There is also wide support among the State governments, the insurance companies and rep resentatives of insurance brokers that the supervision should be conducted by the Commonwealth. The main essentials of a system of licensing insurance brokers, on the basis of prescribed standards of character, education, experience and financial trustworthiness, are already fairly clear from investigations and discussions which have been going on during the year. The Government will be pressing on with the completion of this work in conjunction with the completion of the proposed legislation for the supervision of general insurance companies.

Conclusion

I should like to conclude by thanking all the representatives of the State governments and members of the insurance industry who have assisted in various ways in the development of the proposals which I have outlined. It would not have been possible to reach the present stage without the information and advice which they have freely provided. It is a good example of co-operation between Government and industry towards a common objective of raising the financial standards of all engaged in the large and important business of general insurance. It will be evident to honourable members from the summary 1 have given of the main provisions which are under consideration that the preparation of this legislation is a substantial task. We shall be going ahead with the work with all possible speed and I hope that the legislation will be ready for introduction early in the next session.

page 2688

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Slates Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1971

States Grants (Secondary School Libraries) Bill 1971

Stales Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) 1971

Australian Commission on Advanced Education Bill 1971

Australian Universities Commission Bill 1971

page 2688

SALARIES (STATUTORY OFFICES) ADJUSTMENT BILL 1971

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed with the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 2689

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT (FIJI) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December (vide page 2395). on motion by Senator Greenwood:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Bill with which we are dealing is a simple one which the Opposition does not oppose. It relates to the appointment of an Australian judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, who is to travel to and take up residence in Fiji and, there, to act as the Chief Justice of Fiji. The person who has been appointed by the Fijian Government is Mr Justice Nimmo. I am sure that everybody in this place can spell and pronounce that name, particularly the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and previous Ministers for Health. He was the judge who carried out the inquiry on behalf of the Department of Health and the Minister some time ago. This Bill is necessary to overcome that section of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which relates to life-time judicial appointment in Australia, so that he may accept remuneration in Fiji and, at the same time, not accept remuneration in respect of his life time appointment here.

I do nol think there is any need for me to go into the reasons for Judge Nimmo’s selection by the Fijian Government, because this is that Government’s business, but honourable senators will know that Fiji became independent a little while ago. Fiji is a fairly equally divided multi-racial society of Indians and indigenous Fijians and perhaps it is because of that that the Fijian Government has required a Chief Justice to come from another country. It is natural and, J think, encouraging, that they should look to Australia in this, and the Australian Labor Party offers no opposition to Judge Nimmo taking up this appointment. We certainly wish him well in this new post.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2689

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 December (vide page 2416), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Australian Labor Party will be moving an amendment to this Bill at the Committee stage. The amendment is of an administrative character. This Bill arises out of the inquiries that have been conducted in Papua New Guinea. The Select Committee on Constitutional Development was set up way back in June 1969. Its task was to draft a set of constitutional proposals as a guide for future constitutional development in Papua New Guinea. The Government has updated its thinking on this subject and is now talking about independence for the Territory within the next 4 years. The Committee’s recommendations have been largely accepted by the Government with one exception; that is a recommendation to call the Territory Niugini. Papua and New Guinea, as we have known it over the years, is now to be known as Papua New Guinea.

The Committee was silent on the subject of the amendment that we propose to move at the Committee stage, copies of which are now being circulated. That subject is the Administrator’s Executive Council which, I suppose, roughly equates to a Cabinet. This measure provides for the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), after certain consultations in Papua New Guinea, to appoint 9 Ministers of the House of Assembly to become part of the Cabinet. We are adopting the wording of the Bill in relation to the appointment of the Deputy Chairman and are seeking to place the responsibility on the Ministry that is already established. The effect is that the Ministry, if I might call it that, would be selected by the Parliament itself and in turn the Ministry would select what I have termed the Cabinet.

As the Government and the Opposition want to see self-government in Papua New Guinea we feel that it is better to hand over the responsibilities and the forms of the Papua New Guinea Parliament, which seem very much like those of the Australian Parliament. The verbiage used in the Papua New Guinea Parliament is obviously borrowed from Australia. Instead of the

Minister’s saying ‘You shall have these people to do these things’, we believe it is preferable to have the Ministry itself choose the Council and have its decision ratified by the Papua New Guinea Parliament. This is a sensible way of moving towards selfgovernment and of getting the people of Papua New Guinea used to making their own appointments. It is also another way of removing from the Minister the necessity to make a decision which at some point could be resented, lt seems to me that there is a lot to be gained and nothing very much to be lost if the amendment is carried. I ask the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for External Territories in the Senate, to accept at the Committee stage the amendment T have foreshadowed.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I do not wish to close the debate if any other senator wishes to speak. I adopt this course only in response to the approach from Senator Willesee. Ordinarily 1 would reply to his remarks at the Committee stage but as he has foreshadowed one amendment at the second reading stage it is appropriate that I should indicate the attitude the Government would urge the Senate to adopt.

Senator Devitt:

– You are closing the debate now?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I will be closing the second reading debate but, of course, that will not preclude discussion at the Committee stage, if it is desired. The report of the Select Committee of the House of Assembly in New Guinea was silent on the method of selection of the 9 other Ministers of the Administrator’s Executive Council. The provision as drafted retains as far as possible the status quo of the present elected component of the Administrator’s Executive Council, which is made up of Ministerial Members who are appointed to that office by the Minister for External Territories. In effect, therefore, the Minister for External Territories appointed these Ministerial Members to the Administrator’s Executive Council.

Honourable senators will note that the Opposition’s amendment adopts the precedent that is set out in one of the subclauses of clause 10 for the election of the Deputy Chairman in the House of

Assembly, lt is provided there that the Deputy Chairman is selected by all the Ministers from among . themselves and his appointment is subject to ratification by the House of Assembly. But, of course, it is quite apparent that there is no parallel between the appointment of the Deputy Chairman and the appointment of the 9 other Ministers. It is the commonest practice that a committee should elect its own chairman and deputy chairman but, of course, it is not common practice for a committee to elect a large component of its personnel. The point I wish to make is that the Government would not presume to legislate for the method proposed by Senator Willesee for the selection of the 9 other Ministers on the Administrator’s Executive Council in the absence of consultation with and advice from the House of Assembly. It would be too great a departure from the present structure of the constitution that we have established for New Guinea following the inquiry by the constitutional committee in that country for us to alter the Bill in the way proposed by the Opposition, that is to say, effectuating the appointment of these 9 Ministers by making the appointment from the Council itself rather than by the Commonwealth Minister for External Territories making the appointment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– 1 refer to clause 10, which reads, in part:

Section 20 and 21 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead:

– (1). Subject to this section, the Council shall consist of -

nine other Ministers of the House of Assembly appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Aministrator, being a nomination made after consulting the Deputy Chairman; and ….

I move…..

Leave out paragraph (c), insert the following paragraph:

  1. nine other Ministers of the House of Assembly appointed by the Ministers of the House of Assembly, but such appointments shall not become effective unless and until the House of Assembly has, by resolution, approved the appointments; and’.

I add nothing further to the points that I made in my speech during the second reading debate. We agree with this Bill and we want to see this proposed development hastened along. In our humble view the acceptance of our amendment would contribute to that end.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2691

DRIED VINE FRUITS STABILIZATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 December (vide page 2420), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– I suggest that we have one second reading debate covering the 3 Bills dealing with dried vine fruits. However, a vote can be taken separately on each Bill. If the Senate agrees, I suggest that that course be followed.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– The Australian Labor Party does not oppose the 3 Bills relating to dried vine fruits but we propose to move 2 amendments in relation to the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill. I give notice at this point of time that the Opposition proposes to move these amendments in the Committee stage. I think it might be a good idea if the amendments were circulated at this point of time in order to give honourable senators an opportunity of having a look at them. The stabilisation plan for the dried vine fruits industry was introduced in June 1971 when the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Ian Sinclair, notified the people concerned - the Australian Dried Fruits Association, known as ADFA - that a stabilisation plan would be put into operation which would replace the plan that was introduced between 1964 and 1968. When the plan was introduced in those years the growers voted overwhelmingly against its introduction because they believed that it did not go far enough to assist them and they thought that the plan was not good enough. For those reasons the plan was defeated.

Until this point of time, of course, there has been no stability in the industry. Many problems have faced the industry, and perhaps the reason for this is that the growers did not accept the previous stabilisation plan. Had they accepted it perhaps it would have helped the industry to overcome some of these problems. When this new scheme was put to the growers in a referendum they voted overwhelmingly in favour of it. We hope that it will help to put the industry back on its- feet again. It is an industry which is vital to Australia, lt is not only an important national industry but it is vital to South Australia because a great deal of dried vine fruits are grown in that Slate. This fact was mentioned yesterday in the debate on the proposal to allocate money to the war service land settlement scheme in the Loxton area of the upper Murray in South Australia. This is a very important industry which is facing many difficulties. The Australian industry depends largely on overseas markets. Its overseas markets are decreasing. The industry will have to look elsewhere to achieve sales of dried fruits. lt has been stated that this stabilisation scheme will perhaps help to put the industry back on its feel. It will stabilise the incomes of growers who, in the past, have never been sure what they will receive. Complaints have come from growers from time to time. Deputations have come to Canberra to see the minister for Primary Industry. Many suggestions have been put forward. One of them was that this industry would continue to function and be able to improve itself if a statutory marketing board was established. Of course, some people within the industry do not agree with this suggestion. But there are still some who feel that a single statutory marketing board would be of great assistance to the industry. I will deal with this argument later in my speech.

As 1 mentioned, the industry has faced many problems. One of the greatest of these, apart from crop losses over the past couple of years, was the collapse of the International Sultana Agreement. Greece and Turkey brought about this collapse. They produced a great deal of dried vine fruits. They undermine the markets in the United Kingdon and Canada by price cutting and other ‘switch deals’ as they are called. We known what a great effect this had on the dried fruit industry in Australia. This action was taken despite the knowledge that all producing countries could trade satisfactorily at higher levels. Those levels were essential for the maintenance of the economy of the Australian industry.

Every effort has been made to get the producing countries to adhere to the international agreement on prices. In April of this year, a working committee from countries which are parties to the agreement met in London in an attempt to keep the agreement working on an acceptable basis to all those concerned. The meeting was not successful. In fact the United States refused to attend it. In June, a full conference was held but again negotiations failed. Although I believe that the United States did not attend or was not a party to the agreement, it did agree that it would work within the ambit of the agreement and would not participate in any price cutting or any switch deals.

One of the other factors that will affect the industry - I do not say that this action is aimed at Australian producers - is the proposed entry of Britain into the Common Market. We have heard a good deal of criticism, suggestions and ideas about what will happen to Australian primary industries when Britain becomes a member of the European Economic Community. But I feel that these problems can be overcome if we set to work to try to obtain markets to replace those that we could lose in Britain following its entry into the Economic Community. It has been pointed out that, should the United Kingdom join the EEC, the cost to Australian sultana growers would be S8 to $10 a ton on total production. This would mean a loss in the normal year of about $750,000. It has been pointed out that Australian fruits will not be barred immediately from entry into the United Kingdom. This is one of the problems that face producers in Australia.

The Board of the Australian Dried Fruits Association has warned its members that if Greece and Turkey persist with their present marketing policies and increase their production a drop in Aus? tralian export price levels must follow. More importantly still, the entire market in the United Kingdom and on the Continent could be lost to Australian growers if Greece and Turkey prove capable - I have no doubt that they would be capable - of supplying all the European Economic Community’s requirements. The Board also pointed out that the outlook is not attractive; indeed, it is frustrating when it is made so clear by market conditions that acceptance of an international agreement between all producing countries could work to their mutual advantage. This would help to raise the price levels without affecting the consumer’s demands. Of course, the list of probabilities does not end there. The Board also went on to warn the Council that the normal high production could be increased unless some action were taken by State Governments to limit the planting of dual purpose grape varieties. We know that up to a short time ago the wineries were accepting greater amounts- of wine making grapes, and sultanas are amongst these. Of course, with the introduction of the 50c excise on wines the production of wine has fallen and therefore it is believed that the need for the wineries to take the extra grapes will no longer exist. I will not deal with the 50c excise any further apart from saying that it has had a marked effect on the production of wines and will, of course, have a marked effect on the dried fruits industry. This has been pointed out by many sections of the industry and by people who represent the industry. The further plantings of dual grape vines will impose a serious problem of overproduction. This problem was recognised by the Commonwealth Grape Advisory Committee which will present a survey of sultana production and marketing to the Australian Agricultural Council, recommending that the need for control over future planting be emphasised to the States. Let us hope that some good will come out of this.

Another problem that has faced growers is the inflationary spiral. The effects of inflation on the cost of production combined with the down trend in export prices has placed a very heavy financial burden on the industry. In this regard much work has been done at government level to secure carry-on finance for growers and to utilise to the best advantage the Commonwealth rural reconstruction scheme which is administered by the States. The fact that more should be done to help the industry has certainly been brought to the attention of those who are interested in the industry. The extra planting of dual grapes will increase the production of sultanas. The present production of sultanas in a normal season is in excess of 80,000 tons a year, of which only 13,000 or 14,000 tons can be sold in Australia. The balance has to be exported, at times at prices below the cost of production. Without any additional planting the real possibility is that the production of sultanas could reach 90.000 tons in the very near future.

All honourable senators know what happened in 1968-69 when there was a shortage of dried fruits because of seasonal conditions. With a heavy demand for this type of fruit by the wineries, this had an adverse effect on packing houses which were handling the fruit. Some of the most heavily hit sections of the industry were the relatively small South Australian cooperative packing sheds which are owned by the growers in the areas concerned. The Board of Management of the ADFA considers that the trend for heavy diversion of fresh grapes of drying varieties could continue for another 3 years. This would be another factor which could seriously affect the small packing sheds. The latest figures show that the amount of sultanas sold to wineries is up at least 25,000 tons, which represents about 6,000 tons of dried fruit. Most packing companies, particularly those in South Australia where at present the problem is centred, were formed by growers, in these circumstances growers seem to be lacking in foresight in their eagerness to supply wineries which at present are paying attractive prices for grapes grown for drying. A warning has been issued that this trend could weaken the structure of the packing companies that the growers own. Many growers are without financial reserves because of the downward trend in the industry, because of reduced incomes in the years when the crops were light and because of the heavy losses through rains in the 1969 harvest. Urgent assistance for these growers is therefore absolutely necessary at this point of time. 1 hope that the stabilisation scheme will go a long way towards helping the producers overcome some of their difficulties. Packing sheds and packing companies have provided some help, but the extent to which they can tide growers over the present period is governed by the finance that the companies can draw on from the value of the heavily depleted pack. In these circumstances Government support is essential. The ADFA said that it would assist growers in any approach to government, but it considered that it would be much better if such approaches were initiated by growers’ district councils. I believe that what would help the growers to a large extent would be a loan at a low rate of interest, similar to the loans which are being granted to Victorian and New South Wales growers by the respective State governments. This could be done by the State Government or by the Commonwealth. In addition to the finance through loans which the Board is seeking from the State Government, certain concessions such as rail freight concessions and a Government subsidy on the cost of treatment of the rain damaged fruit are further measures of relief which could be provided. These would certainly help the industry.

I have pointed out that in some sectors of the industry there is a move to establish a single statutory marketing plan which these people believe would be of great assistance to the industry. I feel that if the Government could give consideration to this, in conjunction with the stabilisation scheme, the industry would be able to overcome many of its difficulties. Only recently members of the industry approached South Australian members of Parliament regarding the possibility of this sort of thing happening. When the suggestion of a single statutory marketing board was put the Minister for Primary Industry said that there were many people in the industry who did not agree with the proposition. The State chairman of the Vine Fruit Section of the United Farmers and Graziers of South Australia, Mr J. Trevor, wrote to the minister giving reasons why he thought that the single statutory board for marketing all dried fruits would be of great assistance to the industry. The Minister sent a reply on 30th October 1971.I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

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

Dear Mr Trevor,

My thanks for the opportunity to meet you, Mr Hunte-Cooke and Dr Dawson and to discuss with you the petition which you presented in support of a single statutory board for the marketing of all dried vine fruits.

As you will recall, your proposal was raised previously at three meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council. However, none of the State Ministers were prepared to accept that such an authority should be established.

As Constitutional power to legislate for such an authority resides in the Stales, it is imperative that States be prepared to bring downthe appropriate legislation.

Youmay rest assured that I and my officers understand the proposal which you support and are prepared to considerit further if State Governments demonstrate their sympathy.

IAN SINCLAIR

Mr J. Trevor, State Chairman, Vine” Fruit Section, United Farmers and Graziers of S.A., P.O. Box 244. Barmera, S.A.5345.

Senator DRURY:

– Correspondence has been sent to the South Australian Minister of Agriculture, Mr T. M. Casey, M.L.C., about the proposition. It was written on 10th November. As far as I know, at this point of time there has been received no reply. There may be one now, but I do not know the outcome of the representation to the South Australian Minister of Agriculture. I believe that the stabilised scheme will help the industry. I also believe that if the Government could consult with the interested persons in the industry regarding the setting up of a statutory marketing organisation this would go a long way towards helping the industry. The amendments that I intend to move to the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill have been circulated. I feel that the amendments should be debated when the Committee stage of that Bill is reached.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Senate has before it 3 Bills which deal with the dried vine fruits industry. The passing of these Bills will enable a stabilisation scheme to be provided for an industry which is particularly important in Australia.It is important because there are in excess of 5,000 growers of dried vine fruits in Australia. They produce an item of food which is of great importance to the Australian community, an importance which is expressed by the fact that Australians are among the highest consumers of this product in the world, ranking only behind Ireland and New Zealand, both of which countries consume 6 lbs a head annually whereasin Australia we have sufficient support for a consumption figure of 4 lbs a head annually. This industry is important too because it is an exporter and earns that finance which Australia needs to develop in the way it has done in past years. The industry has problems which are not similar to those in other industries. It can be said that they are unique to this industry. Some are man made and some are beyond the control of man, but it is fair to recognise that there are difficulties which have become evident in the past few years.

There has been an accumulation of problems, firstly, in relation to weather and, secondly, in relation to the escalation of costs which can be said to be typical of many industries. This is something with which the Commonwealth Government has to cope in the next few years. The third problem relates to the smallness of farms which have developed. Their size limits to some extent the possibility of earning income at a level which one might wish to see for many growers. There is also the man made problem of salinity of the water that is used for irrigation. This applies particularly to water drawn from the Murray River. Whilst we in the Senate know that the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments have done much to attempt to solve this problem it still exists to a great extent. There has been great land speculation in rural areas, much the same as in urban areas. Even at this time there is a problem regarding the amount of capital required to get into a fair block. We also have the problem of the rise in overseas freight rates affecting the industry.

We have a very severe problem because of a breakdown that has occurred in the system of international marketing. In that regardI believe that in this industry - nobody would disagree with this point -there should be a system of sensible marketing so that a reasonable wholesale and retail price can be obtained for the products that are sold. We in the Senate have argued over the fact that even in the Australian market it is unacceptable that there should be any sensible marketing arrangement. That is not a point with which 1 have agreed over the years, but it is amazing how the whole of the community would suggest that there should be some orderly marketing scheme in the world for an industry such as this, yet we attempt to ignore this on the local market. There are problems in international trade which have been caused by the breakdown of international agreements. There are enormous problems facing this industry because of the emergence of trade blocs, particularly the European Economic Community. We will find in the ensuing years that the access of our product into that market or into the British market is ikely to be prohibited, to some extent, by the placement of tariffs against our product. 1 believe that Australians have given wonderful support to this industry. More should be done by way of promotion in Australia in attempting to find a diversified world market. For instance, Japan at the present time is taking, I think, some 460- odd tons of dried fruits a year and there is an enormous possibility of that trade increasing. Certainly we will be looking - undoubtedly the Government will encourage this - for the diversification of our present markets. One interesting point that should be made here is that the Federal Government has placed great importance on this industry as is shown by its willingnes to support the industry in the way it deserves to be supported. There is a division of opinion in this House as to the way marketing schemes should be brought about. There are those who would say that the Government knows best and that it should force upon an industry that which it feels is best. We have heard this said in relation to so many industries in relation to which this Government has proposed orderly marketing schemes or stabilisation schemes.

I feel that the Government deserves congratulations for the proposition which is now before us. It has sought to find out from growers whether they desire a stabilisation scheme. It is not so very long ago that the growers rejected a scheme that was proposed by the Government. However, in 1971, within some months - it could be said even within weeks - of the industry demonstrating by an overwhelming vote that the scheme proposed by the Government was acceptable - 98 per cent of those who voted being in favour of the scheme - the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) brought into the House of Representatives a suitable scheme for the aproval of members of Parliament. It is indeed heartening to see that the Opposition agrees with the actions of the Federal Government in this matter. In his second reading speech the Minister gave a very clear indication of the problems and the prospects of this industry. I would urge all those interested to read that 11 page document because it presents adequate reasons why the Federal Government should be supporting with this stabilisation scheme the very important dried fruits industry in Australia which, incidentally, is concentrated to a very great extent in Victoria. 1 would prompt the Government on one point. If every industry involved in primary production, particularly the dried fruits industry, is going to be faced with a 5 per cent or 6 per cent increase in costs as is the case in the current year, we will find that there will be progressively greater problems with industries in which the final selling price is stabilised and there is little prospect of the price increasing. This is the one matter that has to be tackled at the present time. Every endeavour must be made to sec that we control costs. Over the past few years the Federal Government has brought about a situation in Australia which is better than that in any comparable country. We have had a lower rate of inflation than has had any like country, but in the last year we have reached a situation in which costs are increasing find we are now facing the problems that confront our American and British friends.

Senator Milliner:

– Well might you smile if you make a statement like that.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Our powerful friends.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Perhaps this is not the appropriate time to talk with our socialist friends about what they would do or about how succesful they were when they controlled any country in the world! The interjections make firm the situation that the Labor Party in this place, at least, would press on industry the type of stabilisation scheme which that Party required. In the proposition which is before us, we see the opportunity for the growers in the industry to vote for the scheme they wanted, the fact that 98 per cent of those who voted supported the scheme, and the great willingness of the Federal Government immediately to introduce a scheme which is acceptable.I hope that this 5-year plan will be of great benefit to the growers in the industry. During this period,I believe, they certainly will have Government support for this scheme or any variation of it which they may require.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

-I support the amendments foreshadowed by Senator Drury. Before giving my reasons for supporting the amendments to be moved to the Bills which are before the Senate, 1 shall refer briefly to the remarks made by Senator Webster. He congratulated the Government on giving the growers in the dried vine fruits industry an oportunity to vote on this stabilisation scheme. He did not advise the Senate that the growers had no alternative. They had either to accept the proposals outlined by the Government, which were favourable to the Government, or receive nothing at all.

Senator Webster:

– Does not the honourable senator think that that is an alternative?

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– The growers could only say no and that would have meant that the future of the industry, with the loss of export markets, would have been very doubtful. Senator Webster also mentioned cost. This is a problem which is often mentioned on the Government side of the Senate, particularly with regard to rural industry. Senator Webster did not mention that the wage structure in the dried fruits industry is comparable to that in the pastoral industry. The employees in this industry are still on the minimum wage. So, the cost of labour should not be a burden on the industry. If there are other costs, that must be the fault of the Government.

Over many years the industry has been in financial distress. It was probably only between the years 1963 and 1969, while the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement was in existence, that there was any stability in the dried vine fruits industry. Signatories to that Agreement were Australia, Greece and Turkey. It must be remembered that Greece is a very big producer of dried vine fruits. I think our production of currants is about 8,000 tons a year, whereas Greece produces in the vicinity of 90,000 tons a year. Australia has faced competition over the years. This position will be further aggravated when the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community; we will not have the export opportunities to the United Kingdom which we have enjoyed over the past few years. The United Kingdomhas been a very big importer of Australian dried vine fruits. We will have to look elsewhere for markets; otherwise there will be huge surpluses in the River Murray area.

I understand that about 90 per cent of the 5.000 growers in Australia producing dried vine fruits are on settlements in the River Murray irrigation areas from Waikerie, Cadell, Barmera, Berri, Loxton and Renmark in South Australia to the other dried vine fruits producing towns of Mildura, Merebin and Red Cliffs in Victoria. Most of these settlements were occupied by returned soldiers after the First World War. They were settled on probably the most arid, desolate country in Australia. This country will not grow even saltbush or bluebush, so arid is it. However, with irrigation from the River Murray, these settlements were established. Of course, most of them were far too small. Although in 1 9 1 8 or 1 9 1 9 a property of 15 to 20 acres may have been viable, that certainly is not a viable proposition in 1971. Prices have increased considerably and the cost of production has increased. But the return to the grower has not increased at the same rate as have costs.

I refer to the annual report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board for the year 1970-71. In this report the economic condition of the dried fruits industry is set out. There is a summary of the problems confronting the industry. Rather than delay the Senate, I seek leave to incorporate a section of the report in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

During the period 1963 to 1969 the Dried Fruits Industry was carried on with a greater measure of stability than prevailed in many other primary industries. This stability was brought about by the following: -

  1. The International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement between Australia, Greece and Turkey negotiated in 1963.
  2. The Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Plan for the period 1964-1968.
  3. The outstanding quality of Australian Dried Fruits.
  4. The continual review being made by the Board and the industry of export marketing procedures.
  5. The Rate of exchange between Australian and Sterling Currencies prior to the devaluation of Sterling in 1967.
  6. Devaluation compensation to the Australian Dried Fruits Industry arising from Devaluation of Sterling in 1967.
  7. The preferential treatment accorded Australian Dried Vine Fruits in Commonwealth Countries and Ireland.

Thegeneral condition of the industry at the present time (admittedly it is subject to violent fluctuation relating to production) is less satisfactory than in any year since legislation was introduced in 1925. in order to constitute the Board, for the orderly export marketing of dried vine fruits.

This position in the opinion of the Board, results from many and varying factors, chief among these being: -

  1. The heavy increase of ‘the cost of production over the past decade arising from the General rise in prices in Australia for goods and services.
  2. The influence of speculative or ‘boom’ conditions on land values over a number of years which resulted in a limited number of cases in unwise borrowings.
  3. The extremely low production in Australia of dried vine fruits for seasons 1969 and 1971.
  4. The breakdown of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement which began lute in 1969.
  5. The lack of a Stabilisation Plan for the Dried Fruits Industry since 1968.
  6. The extremely high rates of freight for the carriage of Australian Dried Fruits to markets overseas.
  7. The introduction of legislation by a number of major importing countries to permit large duty free quotas of dried fruit from Mediterranean producing countries whilst making no such provisions for dried fruit produced in Australia.
  8. The reductions in preferences in a number of Commonwealth Countries arising from the Kennedy Round of Tariff negotiations.
  9. Competition from Mediterranean producing countries in Commonwealth countries arising from subsidies to producers and subsidies to packers on processing and packing costs and subsidies to buyers by way of freight rate and other concessions.
  10. The continued uncertainty regarding the entry of the United Kingdom and other European countries and Ireland into the European Economic Community.

  11. The continual rise within Australia of interest charges.

    1. Present exchange rates between Australian and Sterling Currencies.

The culminative effect of these and other factors has resulted in a general reduction of confidence in the present position of the Industry to an extent which was scarcely thought possible during the life of the International Sultana (Raisin) Agreement. In particular, the financial problems attaching to the production, processing, packing and marketing of Australian Dried Fruit, clearly indicate that, although the procedures adopted for the sale of these products in Australia and overseas are commercially sound and are continually being brought into line with present day marketing and merchandising methods, ways must be found in order that growers producing the harvest receive at an earlier period than formerly, a much larger proportion of the returns and assistance in such cases where his returns are insufficient to meet his liabilities.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– The report refers to the years which I have mentioned when there was some stability in the industry - from 1963 to 1969. It then gives a general summary of the possibilities of the industry. A paragraph in the report states:

The general condition of the industry at the present time (admittedly it is subject to violent fluctuation relating to production) is less satisfactory than in any year since legislation was introduced in 1925, in order to constitute the Board, for the orderly export marketing of dried vine fruits.

The report continues to give the reasons for the possibility of instability in the industry. Of course, this is the main reason why growers voted in support of the stabilisation scheme. Between 1962 and 197.1 dried fruits production in Australia averaged 84,690 tons per annum. The 3 highest production years during this period were 1964, 1965 and 1967, when 103,941, 104,208 and 103,581 tons respectively were produced. During the same period the lowest yields were in 1969 and 1971, when 50,641 tons and 58,409 tons respectively were produced. The tonnages in 1969 and 1971 were the lowest recordedsince the average for the 7-year period from 1925 to 1931. The Commonwealth consumption of dried vine fruits represents only about 20 per cent of total production. The remainder of our production relies on export. Although the consumption in Australia of sultanas, currants and seeded raisins is approximately 4 lb per annum and compares very favourably with that in other countries - the Australian Dried Fruits Association is to be commended for its activities in promoting the industry’s products in Australia - it is still well below the New Zealand per capita rate of consumption of 6 lb per annum. If an intensive promotion programme could increase our consumption to the same rate as New Zealand, this would represent an increase of 1 1,000 tons.

I mentioned previously that Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community must and will affect our export sales of dried vine fruits. The 1 970 season export to the United Kindgom represented over 28.000 tons, lt must be realised that there could be and probably will be a loss of this vast export market. The production of sultanas has been well over 75.000 ions a year for a number of years, which is the maximum quantity for which the stabilisation payments are made under clause 14 of the Bill. As the imposition of the wine excise continues there is no doubt that more dual purpose grapes, which were previously used for wine making, will have to be dried. In 1970, 81,800 tons of sultanas were used for wine making, whereas this year only 41,000 tons of sultanas were processed for wine making. The increased acreage sown will provide over 80,000 tons of fresh fruit. This will soon be in full production and should return something like 30,000 tons of dried fruit. This would indicate that the stabilisation payments, provided in the Bill for 75,000 tons, will be insufficient if one takes into account the increased plantings of 20,000 tons over the last few years together with the possible loss of the 41.000 tons of dual purpose grapes that, have now been processed for wine, and if one takes into account the 81,800 tons that were processed last year for wine. That could add another 5.000 tons to our dried fruit market. lt is also noticed that the Commonwealth financial liability is over-protected by provision in the legislation for a maximum pay-out of only S23 a ton up to a certain tonnage limit. This maximum pay-out represents slightly more than lc per lb. This can be compared with the wool deficiency payments scheme, under which the growers are already receiving approximately 8c per lb for wool and there is no limit to the amount of wool that can be sold in respect of which payment will be made. The im position of the excise on wine not only has had a disastrous effect on the wine producing industry but will also affect the dried fruits industry. For many years growers in the dried fruits industry have relied on a certain amount of their production of dual purpose grapes - sultanas and raisins - being used for wine making. 1 can recall the time not so many years ago when growers did not have this outlet to the wine industry for their sultanas. They were forced to dry the whole of their crop. During the harvesting period growers have to contend with rain and hail which quite often destroy huge acreages of sultanas and raisins. Also, when the grapes are being dried they often have to contend with adverse climatic conditions.

In the future there will probably be no outlet. The Government has imposed an iniquitous excise of 50c a gallon on the product of probably one of the very few viable industries in the Commonwealth, an industry that has never accepted or asked for any payment - whether by subsidy or any other way - from the Government. Prior to the imposition of the excise the growth rate in the industry averaged 11.8 per cent over the previous 5 years, but this has been checked completely, according to the 1970-71 sales which are well down below those of the previous year. Loss of growth rate of over 10 per cent represented a sales loss of 2.4 million gallons in 1970-71. In the 1970 Federal Budget the then Treasurer estimated that the excise on wine would return $ 12.5m in revenue for that financial year and a total of $l5m during the 1971-72 financial year. However, the prediction of the Treasurer did not eventuate. Figures issued by the Government showed that the actual revenue from the tax was only S9.25m. Even if the excise did return to the Government the expected amount it would represent only an insignificant amount of the total of $695m that the Budget estimated would be raised by excise.

In 1971 wine makers processed 289,000 tons of grapes for wine and distillation, which was only 62,000 tons less than the record 1970 vintage. The expected harvest for next year is higher than average, according to tests carried out by the Victorian Department of Agriculture. It is anticipated that the vintage could be over 330,000 tons. This, of course, will aggravate the situation in the dried fruits industry. To keep up with the demand for the increase in wine consumption over the previous 5 years, growers increased production by various means only to find that the Government introduced the excise last year which has completely stopped the normal growth rate of this industry. Unless the Government removes the excise on wine not only will a lot of wine grapes be left to rot but also quite a lot of the dual purpose grapes, with which this Bill deals - that is, sultanas and raisins - will be left to rot on the vines.

Efforts by representatives of the wine industry, directed to the responsible Ministers, have failed to get the Government to remove this excise. A number of questions have been asked in the Senate by members on this side of the chamber and also by members of the Government side. Senator Laucke has asked question about the effect of the excise and the impact that it will have on the wine industry, and on each occasion we have been told that the Government is paying close attention to this matter and is watching the situation very closely. I do not know how long it will take to convince the Government that the excise duty has had a disastrous effect on the wine industry and that unless it is removed it is very doubtful whether the industry will fully recover.

The dried vine fruits industry is represented mainly by small farms, to which I have referred previously. These properties average approximately 22 acres and their average total production of dried vine fruits is in the vicinity of 33.5 tons. Sultanas represent 75 per cent of the total dried fruit production. The remainder is made up from currants and raisins. A grower with an average property would expect a maximum gross income of about $9,000. The production cost of a ton of sultanas, including labour, irrigation charges, fertiliser, rates and taxes and other miscellaneous charges, is more than $100 a ton. When this cost is added to the depreciation and the normal rate of interest on farm capital, etc., a very small amount is left for the grower from the $9,000 that he would receive for his crop.

The first amendment which has been foreshadowed by Senator Drury seeks to alter the penalty clause, which provides for a penalty of $200 for an offence in relation to returns, by deleting sub-clause (2.) of clause 10. The other amendment proposed is a deletion of clause 14, sub-clause (2.), which provides that a prosecution may be commenced at any time within 3 years after the commission of an offence. The Opposition believes that this period is too long and that 12 months is ample time in which to bring a prosecution. For those reasons we support the proposal that the 3-year term be reduced to one year.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the Dried Fruits Stabilization Bill I do so knowing that the legislation has the backing of the industry, the growers having expressed their opinion by way of referendum conducted by the Commonwealth. The setting up of Australiawide statutory marketing and stabilisation schemes for the marketing of primary products has long been a policy of the Australian Labor Party. Whilst there will always be those who argue that the law of supply and demand should prevail, that system will not work to the benefit of either the producers or consumers of the vast majority of primary products. Whilst I commend the Government for its action in ascertaining by way of referendum the views of the growers in the dried fruits industry and then acting without delay to legislate in conformity with the views expressed, I want to place on record my condemnation of the Federal Government for its continued refusal to take action to end the impasse that now exists between Victoria and the other Australian States which are united as one on the issue of a stabilisation plan for the egg industry.

Senator Webster a few moments ago made great play of the point that the Federal Government was always prepared to consult an industry on issues of importance. It did so in relation to dried vine fruits, but it has continually refused to do so in the commercial egg industry. I have appealed in this chamber many times for the Government to take emergency measures by way of a referendum of egg producers so that they too may have an opportunity of expressing themselves on a stabilisation plan. Unlike the measure now before us, a stabilisation plan for the egg industry would not involve the Commonwealth Government in any financial cost.

This is why 1 feel that the egg industry is being denied the opportunity to stabilise its own industry.

Senator Webster:

– Keep to dried fruits.

Senator McLAREN:

– I shall keep to dried fruits, but also I want to tie in a reference to the egg industry because Senator Webster mentioned that the Government was prepared to hold a referendum.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator is talking about hen fruit.

Senator McLAREN:

– Hen fruit is just as important to some people in this country as dried fruit is to others, I hope that this legislation will be beneficial to dried fruit growers. The Government cannot escape strong criticism for introducing an excise tax on the wine industry, a subject which was referred to by Senator Donald Cameron in his speech. This is tied up with the dried fruits industry and will have a big impact on the industry by reason of the fact that when we have a stabilisation scheme for the industry people who now have a surplus of wine grapes will be encouraged to turn their surplus production over to dried vine fruit production, which will aggravate the situation. When the situation in the wine industry deteriorates because of the falling off of demand for wine grapes, growers of dual purpose grapes will turn to the stabilisation plan to get a larger return from their dried fruit than they were getting from wine grapes. This is of particular concern to South Australia as three-quarters of the sultanas used in Australia for wine making are produced in South Australia.

South Australia’s share of the total 1970 crop of currants, sultanas and raisins is shown in a table which I have obtained in the Parliamentary Library. South Australian production of dried vine fruits in 1970 extended to 3,409 tons of currants, representing 41 per cent of the total Australian crop; 4,447 tons of sultanas, representing 5.5 per cent of the total Austraiian crop; 262 tons of raisins representing 7.4 per cent of the total Australian crop; a total of 8,118 tons of all grades representing 9 per cent of the total Australian crop.

Sultanas form the biggest crop in South Australia and a larger proportion of sul tanas has been used for wine than for drying. During the last few years there has been an increasing diversion to wine because of the low prices received for dried vine fruits and the high prices being paid for wine grapes. However, we find from the report of the Australian Wine Board that it is now expected that by the 1972 vintage there will be a surplus of wine grapes and wine makers have indicated that the buying of sultanas for wine making could be curtailed. This bears out what I said previously, that this production will flow over into the dried fruit industry and will aggravate the problem there.

A further problem regarding sultanas which will affect both South Australia and Victoria is the increased production expected from new vine plantings. The sultana grape acreage has not increased but old vines, some up to 80 or more years old, have been and are being replaced by new vines, the yield from which will be greater than from the old vines. The usable first crop from new vines came from 3- year old vines but the optimum age for a vine is 40 years, at which stage the grapes are at their peak. Producers are now carrying out much replanting of sultanas which means that production will increase in the future, due to the higher yield, at a time when world markets and per capita consumption of sultanas are decreasing. The same problems do not appear to arise in the case of currants and raisins. Recently a statement was issued by the South Australian Minister of Agriculture. It had been provided to him by the Grape Industry Advisory Committee and dealt with vine planting recommendations for 1972. I propose to quote from that statement.

It has been decided that recommendations for 1972 should discourage increased plantings of dual purpose or common varieties, while maintaining or increasing plantings of varieties for which there is a proven demand.

The Committee has also noted that statistics indicate a surplus of wine grapes in 1972, but the Committee’s recommendations for plantings are directed at requirements 4 or 5 years ahead.

I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of recommended varieties.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Varieties not recommended for planting or replanting in 1972:

WineGrapes

Albillo

False Cabernet Gros

Currants

Grenache

White Grenache

Muscat Gordo

Palomino

False Pedro

Clare Riesling

Sultana

Drying Grapes

Sultana

Waltham Cross

Varieties recommended for replanting to maintain existing acreage:

Wine Grapes

Doradillo

Frontignan (red)

Frontignan (white)

False Carignane

Mataro

Oeillade

Pedro Ximenez

White Sauvignon

Semillon

Sercial

Shiraz

Tokay

Trebbiano (White Hermitage)

Verdelho

Drying Grapes

Currant

Muscat Gordo

Varieties recommended for planting to meet an anticipated demand.

Wine Grapes

Cabernet Sauvignon

Rhine Riesling

*Malbec

Drying Grapes

New Varieties. As the local performance of these new varieties has not yet been established, planting is recommended but with caution at this stage. Consultation with the winery is advised.

Geweurz Traminer

Sylvaner

Pinot Noir

Pinot Blanc

White Riesling

Merlot

Chenin Blanc

Emerald Riesling

Rubired

Zinfandel

Flora

Pinot Chardonnay

Ruby Cabernet

Alicante Bouschet

Senator McLAREN:

– The Australian Dried Fruits Control Board in its annual report refers to the economic position of the dried fruits industry where the outlook is the worst since 1925. This is of grave concern, particularly to people in South Australia, because, as I have mentioned previously, of the effect that the excise on wine will have on the dried fruits industry. This is borne out by a statement at the Renmark and district show on Saturday, 23rd October by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) when he had this to say:

Wine production has increased very quickly and planting of vines is still increasing rapidly. There were difficulties of disposal of wine grapes by growers not protected by contracts with wineries before the application of the wine excise. However, it is true that wine excise must have had an impact on the industry. Unfortunately, it is necessary that money be raised from the taxpayers in many forms to finance the operations of Governments. For this reason it is not a matter of determining whether a new tax hurts but whether it hurts to excess.

We have heard comments in both this House and the other House that this tax is hurting the industry excessively. The Minister went on:

The South Australian River Co-operatives have certainly lost bulk wine sales of some volume.

He also said:

Production of dried vine fruits has been declining, hut with most co-operative wine makers in the area carrying heavy stocks, some rediversion of sultanas and gordos to drying can be anticipated.

These are not my words; they are the words of the Minister for Primary Industry in this Government. We have had a lot of adverse comment in the Press, mainly in South Australia, about this wine tax since it was imposed. As late as 3rd November this year an article appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser’ under the heading ‘Wine tax set back to industry’. In the ‘Australian’ on Thursday 4th November there was an article by Mr Oscar Mendelsohn, a wine connoisseur and writer. He said:

The present Federal Government has now been in power for so many years that apparently it no longer troubles to consider the effects of some of its actions. Anybody of normal acuity of mind could have foretold that as soon as the former Treasurer (Mr Bury) clapped an excise tax of 50c per gallon upon bulk wine that what has since happened was inevitable. In short, there has been a marked decline in the flagon trade of inexpensive wine.

We then have a report by Mr Preece, who is the President of the Australian Grapegrowers Council. He spoke in the same terms as Mr Mendelson. He said:

The introduction of wine excise duty by, the Federal Government in August 1970 has had a severe effect on the whole industry and we doubt whether the full effect can be assessed even at this point of time.

As I said earlier, this Government cannot escape strong criticism for its savage imposition of this excise on wine. Living as I do on the River Murray and having a very close association with the people both in the river area and the other nearby areas who are affected, I am fully aware of the feelings of those people towards the South Australian members of this Government who supported this excise last year in the Budget and who, apart from a few grandstanding efforts, have done nothing to have the tax removed. There are 9 Government members from South Australia who have remained very silent in their Party room during the framing of the present Budget.

Senator Rae:

– How do you know that?

Senator McLAREN:

– They have not made a move in this Parliament. It is all very well to ask how I know it. If they had made a strong move in the Party room they would have been prepared to come into the chamber and act on it. We saw the very thing that I am talking about happen in the other place only the other week. I mentioned this in my maiden speech. A motion was placed on the notice paper on 17th August by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) calling for the removal of the wine tax. He left that motion on the books until just a fortnight ago when he knew full well that no action could be taken. He has made a great grandstanding effort by putting his position on record in all the newspapers in South Australia but this has been declared a sham by the South Australian Premier. The honourable member for Angas advertised in the papers all along the Murray River that at a certain time on a certain day he would be speaking for the abolition of this wine tax in the House of Representatives. He also said that if any person wanted to know the exact time he would send him a telegram if the person concerned notified him. I would like to know how many telegrams he sent and what that cost the taxpayers of this country.

Senator Little:

– What has that to do with dried fruits?

Senator McLAREN:

– It has a lot to do with dried fruits because I am pointing out the failure of this Government to take some positive steps to have removed this wine excise which is having a great effect and will have an even greater effect in the future on the dried fruits industry.

Senator Jessop:

– What about eggs?

Senator McLAREN:

– 1 can refer to eggs too. Somebody said a while ago that I may not refer to them.

The PRESIDENT:

– Eggs are not relevant to these Bills.

Senator Little:

– How about giving the tomatoes a burst?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is all right. Some people are making a joke of this wine excise, but I am quite sure that people who live in the river districts and in the Barossa Valley of South Australia do not treat it as a joke. I can assure Senator Little that they are very concerned about the effect that the excise is having on their livelihood. It is all right for Senator Little to make fun of what I am saying here today. This matter is of great concern to the South Australian fruit industry.

Senator Rae:

– It is not the tax that is the joke.

Senator McLAREN:

– It is a joke the way that members on the Government side have been dilly-dallying about this tax and trying to make political capital out of it, saying one thing in this Parliament and then going back to the electorate and telling the electorate something else because they have not the courage to stand up for the things they are doing in this Parliament. I will refer to Mr Giles because he is my representative in South Australia.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do not vote for him next time.

Senator McLAREN:

– I never have. When the honourable member for Angas was upbraided by the people in the river areas for the action he took and because he was not prepared to go ahead and put his motion to a vote, he used the excuse that there was no way under the Standing Orders that he could bring it to a vote. This is a complete misleading of the electors on his part because there are many devices which we all know that he could have used to bring this issue to a head and have a vote taken.

Senator Marriott:

– lt is a long 5 minutes.

Senator McLAREN:

– I think I should be allowed 30 minutes.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have an hour.

Senator McLAREN:

– If they keep interjecting and making fun of this imposition on the grape growers in South Australia I might even take the full hour. I come now to events that have occurred in this place. Since this wine tax was imposed Senator Laucke, who lives in the grape growing area of South Australia, has raised the issue in this Senate 9 times, pleading with the Government by way of questions to abolish this tax.

Senator Jessop:

– You said before that he had not mentioned it.

Senator McLAREN:

– 1 said that he had not mentioned it and had not gone so far as to do something constructive to have the tax removed.

Senator Laucke:

– What do you know about being constructive with respect to a matter like this? Stop playing politics and get down to tin tacks. Do something constructive rather than being destructive in your attitudes.

Senator McLAREN:

– J will reply to Senator Laucke through you, Mr President. In the other place a fortnight ago we did do something constructive. When the honourable member for Angas was not prepared to go on with the issue which he broadcast and advertised all over South Australia the shadow Minister for Primary Industry moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow his motion to be put to a vote. The Labor Party would have supported his motion to have the wine excise abolished.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I raise a point of order. I have been very patient but I would like to see the honourable senator brought back to the Bills.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is a bit of a struggle.

Senator McLAREN:

– 1 can easily bring my remarks back to the Bills by referring to the comments of the Minister for Primary Industry when he linked the wine tax with the dried fruits industry. This is where the 2 things are tied together. I know it hurts some honourable senators on the Government side that I have brought this issue up. It hurts them for the simple reason that it is a very contentious issue in the electorates. Perhaps Senator Laucke and Senator Young would like to see this Bill passed without any reference being made to the way they have carried on in this Parliament, saying one thing here and another thing back in the electorates.

Senator Laucke:

– Mr President, I take strong exception to the inference just made. The utterance is most offensive to me and I demand its withdrawal.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Senator McLaren, Senator Laucke claims that the remarks you have made are offensive to him and I would be grateful if you would withdraw them.

Senator McLAREN:

– I withdraw them. What I am concerned about - I link this up with what I said previously - is that in the ‘Adelaide Advertiser’ on 8th December there was an article which referred to Mr Giles and the President of the Upper Murray Growers Association, Mr Hoffman. The article said that there would be a meeting of growers at Berri in January to press for the abolition of the 50c per gallon wine excise. The article said:

The decision to hold the meeting follows talks between the Growers Association and Mr Giles, Member for Angas, at the weekend. The meeting was arranged following the introduction into the Federal Parliament of a motion by Mr Giles calling for the abolition of the tax. The motion failed to come to a vote. Mr Hoffman said that growers felt there was an. urgent need for both the Government and the Opposition to declare themselves on the issue. Mr Giles explained to the Committee that parliamentary procedure prevented a vote being taken on his motion and that it was unlikely that the question could be raised again before February.

Mr Giles knew that when he left that motion on the notice paper for about 10 or 1 1 weeks. The article continues:

Invitations for 2 members of the Government and 2 from the Opposition to attend the growers meeting had been sent to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

The growers also have called on both the Government and the Labor Party to make their position clear on this tax. I thought the Labor Party’s position was made quite clear in the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in the 1970 Budget session. I made it clear in my maiden speech when I quoted a resolution carried by the Federal Executive of the Labor Party. For the information of honourable senators I shall quote that resolution again just to put their minds at rest. The Labor Party knows where it stands and what it is prepared to do. We cannot be criticised as can supporters of the Government for doing one thing here and another somewhere else. This motion was moved by the South Australian member of Parliament, Mr Clyde Cameron:

That, recognising the great importance and potential of the Australian wine industry, the Federal Executive deplores the crippling effect of the Federal Government’s unprecedented action in imposing a heavy tax on Australian wine. It congratulates Mr Al. Grassby, M.P., on his campaign to restore the wine industry to its pre-tax position and supports him in his call for the repeal of this unjust imposition upon the producers and consumers of wine.

When 1 quoted that resolution in my maiden speech I said to Government supporters, particularly those from South Australia, that if they were prepared to make a move in this chamber to have the tax abolished they would have the full support of the Labor Party. I repeat that statement: If they are prepared to initiate the move we will support them. When it comes down to hard facts it will be proved that we are sincere in what we say and that other people have not been sincere. I support the amendments foreshadowed by Senator Drury.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I wish to speak about the Bills that are before the Senate which are to make some provision to assist an industry that is getting into a very parlous condition because of circumstances beyond its control. I compliment the Government for bringing down legislation that will help it at this time. I think this indicates that there will be other legislation necessary to help many of our primary industries during a period of transition, particularly when the full effects of the changing pattern of European trade become felt in Australia. In the last 6 months I have received complaints from people engaged in this industry. The complaints have been mostly along the lines of the threat to it of increased shipping transport costs. I hope the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), will take note of this and that the

Government will keep a very close eye on the international shipping interests that are tending to further embarrass industries of this type by huge increases in the cost of transport.

The Bill is clear and straightforward and the Democratic Labor Party supports it. Three Bills are involved in giving effect to the ideas of the Government and the necessity to collect the levies to make this scheme possible.

The Opposition proposes to move amendments during the Committee stage and I wish to refer to them now in order to prevent’ any further waste of time then. We accept the Bills as they are. We believe that one of the amendments proposed could cause some hardship to some growers and aggravate the situation in which they find themselves. Another proposed amendment may make it very difficult to be able to launch a court case in order to ensure that those who are properly charged with the payment of levies pay them and do not escape their just dues, thereby placing a further burden on growers who play the game for the benefit of the industry as a whole. We note that the industry desires this type of legislation.

The proposed amendments to which I have referred would not be in the interests of the growers although perhaps it would appear that they would alleviate some responsibility facing those who do not pay insofar as the Government would not bc able to proceed against them to recover money owing if the proceedings were not taken before 12 months have expired. One of two situations has to be considered in this respect. The first is that, by weak administration, a grower could be allowed to defeat the whole purpose of the legislation by not paying his dues. The second is a situation in which the Department sets out to prosecute within 12 months. I should not think that would be in the interests of the growers. If a period of 3 years is allowed I should think there are other ways in which defaulters could be persuaded to pay. If they are in real financial difficulty they would have more time in which to pay before legal action has to be taken or the debt is abandoned altogether. A period of 12 months is not much time for a grower who has had bad luck. If he were allowed 3 years he may have a sufficiently good run to enable him to pay his just debts.

There would be a difficult administrative problem encountered with this legislation if it were altered to make the period 12 months instead of 3 years. If a grower avoided payment for 12 months he would be safe from prosecution. However, I do not think that is the real purpose of the amendment. I think it was designed to assist growers, not put them in a situation in which proper administration - and everyone would like to see this thing administered properly - would make them vulnerable to prosecution and the lack of proper administration would mean that it was very easy to escape responsibility.

That is all I wish to say about the legislation. I do not wish to discuss the other matters that have been brought into the debate. There are plenty of opportunities in this place to discuss specifically the wine levy. As an independent observer here I have listened to Senator Laucke time and time again fighting against the policy of his own Party in respect to the wine excise. Individually we are often caught in that situation in politics, particularly in federal politics. My view of Senator Laucke’s attitude in this Parliament is that he is not a man who is trying to do one thing in one place and another in another place. His actions have been those of an honourable senator genuinely interested in the situation in his State. Quite clearly he has fought even against the policy of his own Party. When all is said and done, all of us are bound to our parties, none more so perhaps than those of us on this side of the chamber, irrespective of our parties, who are in opposition to the Government. 1 do not join in any of the attacks on Senator Laucke whose voice has been heard on this question so often in this chamber. The Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill before the Senate.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– 1 wish to indicate my support for the 3 Bills relating to dried vine fruits now before the Senate. In considering these Bills the matter of the excise on wine does emerge because of the use to which certain varieties of grapes can be put. In recent years they have been used for wine but they could well be directed to the dried fruits sector because of conditions in the wine industry today. In speaking to these Bills now before the Senate I wish to deal with a problem which arises in respect to the disposal of grapes in either of their 2 forms. These Bills have a direct relationship to the matter to which reference has been made by Senator McLaren, that is the excise impost of 50c on a gallon of wine. I have, right from the day that I learned of the imposition of a 50c excise on wines, opposed that excise duty in every manner open to me.

Senator McLaren:

– You have not, senator. You did not vote against it.

Senator LAUCKE:

– I have opposed it. My attitude in this matter is constructive. 1 have not said one thing in this House at variance with what I have said at home in my electorate in South Australia or wherever it may have been in the wine growing areas. 1 have assured my grape growing friends and those in the wine manufacturing industry of my deep concern and I will endeavour continuously in every way I can to bring about the abolition of this impost in the realisation that this grape growing and wine making industry has had a very difficult past until the last 6 years. In that time we have seen a very great increase in the home consumption of table wines, the type of wine whose use it is good to encourage, as opposed to the highly fortified spirituous drinks. In the last 5 years there has been an average increase of 11.8 per cent a year in wine sales in Australia. Since the imposition of the wine tax announced in the Budget of last year the growth rate which was expected by the industry prior to the introduction of the excise has not eventuated. I have from the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) a letter which verifies this fact. The growth rate is down. In actual sales there has been a slight increase but not in accord with what was anticipated. We now have on hand some 60 million gallons of wine. On the basis of sales of 24 million gallons or less a year we have approximately 3 years’ wine stocks in Australia at the present time.

I look back to the difficult times that this industry experienced in the mid-1960s and just beyond the mid-1960s when the growers could not place their grapes. In one particular year some 20,000 tons could not be placed. Special pools were set up to take in these grapes. At that time there was an arrangement with the South Australian Government led by Sir Thomas Playford whereby an independent arbiter would determine what should be the price of grapes. The South Australian Prices Commissioner was the arbiter. The growers’ organisation and the wine making section had to submit evidence to the Commissioner who would determine what would be a reasonable increase in the price of grapes in a given year. That was at a time when there were surplus stocks hovering about the place. At that time it was not possible to vary the price - and the variations were upwards - by more than 30s or at the best £2 a ton because the wine manufacturing industry is so highly sensitive to public demand which in turn tends to vary according to price.

The excise levy of 50c, based on a crush of 140 gallons of wine from 1 ton of grapes, is worth $70 a ton, which is much greater than the grower receives, on an average, for his grapes. As I say, the industry was in a difficult situation until 7 years ago. Since then there has been magnificent growth in this industry. It had to battle for so long in the years up to 1970, but for 5 years up to that time there has been an increase of .1 1.8 per cent a year in sales. So you can imagine my concern when I learned that the Budget contained this impost as part of the revenue measures. Do honourable senators opposite expect me to vote on a financial measure which would destroy my own Party’s government? Do honourable senators expect that? Nobody has said this to me at any time in South Australia. I would not vote against the Party which provides the Government of which I am proud to be a supporter and whose policies 1 agree with - apart from this sort of impost about which I have expressed my deep concern. Indeed, I have worked continuously for its abolition.

Senator McLaren:

– But you tell the electors in South Australia that you are not bound by Party policy. You tell all your candidates.

Senator LAUCKE:

– 1 act honestly, I trust, in everything I do. It ill becomes Senator McLaren to make charges against people in a way which is not substantiated in fact or in decency. We on this side of the Senate have striven at all times to maintain a sense of respect, dignity and decorum and an appreciation of individuals in a decent way. The honourable senator is introducing aspects which to me are horrifying. We can do more for the betterment of those whom we represent by doing in a decent way those things which are within our scope and ability. I have acted in the most constructive manner that I have been able to, as have Senator Young and my other colleagues in this matter. I have persistently, with a barrage of correspondence, personal interviews and questions in this Chamber, sought to indicate the situation as it applies in this industry. 1 feel that I am getting somewhere with my colleagues in this matter, and I am doing it in a way which is in accord with the decency of representation and not by playing politics in a way which to me is obnoxious.

I say again that the incidence of the excise is and has been most detrimental for this industry. I am fearful as to the effects it will have on the industry. I do trust that the Government will see the folly of its ways in imposing this excise. 1 am perturbed at what can occur in the coming vintage season in the disposal of our grapes. There could be a reduction in intake to a degree that will cause great hardship particularly in the irrigated areas which produce excellent grapes of high quality and in great volume.

The growers of these grapes which are serviced into wine by the co-operatives will suffer most because the impact of the levy has been very detrimental to the flagon trade, the wholesale trade, the trade which is supplied in volume by these co-operative organisations on the River Murray. This volume tax has had a very great impact on the sales slot which is filled by the sale of this type of wine by the co-operatives. A flagon of wine which cost Si before the imposition of the tax now costs §1.50. This represents a 50 per cent increase. No product can carry that sort of increase and still expect to be buoyant in its distribution. I refer to the figures to which Senator Donald Cameron referred earlier. He said that the income from this excise for the period from its imposition till the end of the financial year was S9, 250,000. It had been anticipated that this income would be approximately $12,500,000. Surely this must show to the Government the harm being done to sales, as proven by the lack of expected revenue. The revenue received is not in accord with what had been anticipated by the Government. The sales are much less than anticipated, to the extent of approximately 6 million gallons. I have continuously brought these arguments before the Government, i feel that we are having them recorded by the Government Ibr firm action in the light of what has transpired. I know that on the basis of persistent representation for abolition we will get somewhere. This is the way to go about it, and no other-

Senator McLaren:

– lt will be far too late by the time the honourable senator gets to do anything about it. The honourable senator had a remedy. But he supported the measure in his speech on the Budget.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Yes, I supported it as a monetary measure within the Budget, while immediately ‘ registering complete opposition to it and seeking its abolition, ft is the only way we can go about it, and the honourable senator knows that. I am persistent in my endeavours to have this impost removed. I shall continue to work, as I have done, persistently for the abolition of the lax or for a major decrease in its incidence because of the detriment which it has been shown to cause to the industry. We can now prove that harm has been done; previously there was conjecture about it. I ask the Government again to give immediate consideration to the abolition of this tax or, at least for the time being, to a diminution of it to a level which would not represent an impediment to the wellbeing and growth of the industry. In conclusion, may I thank my friend, Senator Little of the Democratic Labor Party, for his words prior to my rising to speak. I support the Bills which are now before the Senate.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak to these Bills in unusual circumstances. As a member of the urban proletariat, f intervene with some trepidation in what is a rural matter and I am mindful of the strictures imposed last night by Senator DrakeBrockman. But I sympathise with Senator Laucke. Whether we come from a metropolitan or a country background, we know the value of the wine industry. I say at the outset that if at a suitable time Senator

Laucke feels he has to take his campaign a little further, he will find that he has many allies on this side of the Senate. Earlier this year when this industry ran into trouble and the Government took certain action with which I did not agree, I raised a very serious objection. It concerned the scandalous way that the retail market was being affected when restaurants in Sydney, and possibly Melbourne, increased their mark-up on wine. In effect, while the Government was after more revenue, the people whom Senator Laucke represents, and those represented by my colleague Senator McLaren and others on this side of the Senate, were involved in the squeeze play.

Each time 1 raised this aspect Senator Withers scoffed about it. He asked what right I had to question restaurant operations, and all that sort of thing. But I notice that in another place a former distinguished senator, now the right honourable member for Higgins, Mr Gorton, took the same point as 1 took. The Government is welcome to scoff at my attitude and to state that I was disputing the position. As the right honourable member for Higgins advocates it. I hope that Senator Withers will come forward and say that the right honourable member and I do not know what we are talking about or that he will be big enough to say that when I criticised the retail trade in Sydney for battening on the wine growers problems f was in accord with the facts. As I said when I entered this debate-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Mulvihill, I draw your attention to the short titles of these 3 Bills which are the subject of the cognate debate. They deal with dried vine fruits. I fail to see how the restaurateurs in Sydney come into this.

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take your point, Mr President, and content myself with saying that 1 was endeavouring to paint an extremely broad picture. You were kind enough to give me considerable latitude in doing that. I assure Senator Laucke that he has friends on this side of the House. We realise that what is being done today will not be sufficient to assist an industry that deserves all the assistance it can get.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– 1 rise to support the measures introduced by the Government to provide some stabilisation to the dried vine fruits industry for the next 5 years. I rise particularly to support my colleagues from South Australia on this side of the chamber. I rise also to answer, to a degree, the attacks made by Senator McLaren in his extraordinary speech a few minutes ago. I suppose that we might have expected such an attack from Senator McLaren, because in his maiden speech he used the privilege of this chamber and the privilege of his maiden speech to criticise the Government fairly strongly. I believe that this was a breach of privilege in regard to a maiden speech. So we are not surprised that he should try to cast aspersions on the efforts of members from South Australia in regard to the wine excise. He also chose to criticise our colleague in another place, the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). This is a most unfair criticism and it was probably brought on by jealousy on the part of the honourable senator. If he were in the same position, his Party would not allow him to act as Mr Giles acted. At least this demonstrates the privilege of members on this side of the House of taking some action against Government policies with which they do not agree. To say that Senator Laucke has done nothing about this position is quite extraordinary.

Senator McLaren:

– 1 said that he had done nothing by way of moves to have it lifted.

Senator JESSOP:

– The honourable senator does not know how many moves Senator Laucke has made to have this tax lifted. As a matter of fact, in Adelaide earlier this year, Senator Laucke and Mr Giles led a deputation to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) composed of senators from South Australia on this side of the Chamber. On that occasion, he personally put this matter to the Prime Minister, with the full support of my colleagues from South Australia. He received an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he would carefully watch the position and if it could be shown that serious damage was being done to the industry, he would be prepared to have another look at the matter. I am quite sure that Senator Laucke is watching this matter with even greater intensity than my colleague Senator McLaren; he is watching it very carefully. We will see strong evidence of his actions in this matter early next year when we see the figures that are expected to be provided by the industry. Whatever future action that Sen-: tor Laucke cares to take in this matter he will have the full support of myself, and, I am sure, my colleagues from South Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) speaks he will close the debate. Senator Cavanagh wishes to speak. I call Senator Cavanagh.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I just want to add a few remarks to the battle which seems to be raging. It is surprising how sensitive some people get over normal criticism which I do not think was unfair criticism between political parties. Senator Laucke and Senator Young have been very vocal in their pro:est about the charges on wine in questions they have asked in the Senate. But on no occasion have they made a move to remove the tax. The only Government supporter from South Australia who has made such a move was the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) in the other place. However, the honourable member’s move proved to be a phoney one. Apart from this there has been no indication by Government supporters from South Australia that they are prepared to assist this industry by removing the tax on wine.

When the excise duty was placed on wine an amendment was moved in the Senate for the purpose of defeating the Bill. We should ask ourselves how members of the Government Parties voted on that occasion. On 1 9th October 1970 Senator Drury moved the following amendment:

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the proposed amendment to Hem 16.

If we look down the list to see how honourable senators voted-

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– 1 rise to a point of order. I would like the honourable senator who is speaking to follow the line of the debate. 1 think that we are getting a bit far away from the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Mr Deputy President, 1 think that you are prevented from upholding the Minister’s point of order because the same question was raised with the President who ruled to the contrary. Assistance is being given under the

Bills we are discussing to the dried fruits section of the grape growing industry. However, the grapes used for dried fruits can alternatively be used in the production of wine. The need for assistance to be given to the dried fruit industry today has been brought about because a tax has been imposed on wine. The wine producers have been unable to sell their product and have turned to growing grapes for the dried fruit industry.

Senator Drury put up a very strong case in anticipation of what would happen to the industry. Senator Laucke took some satisfaction from the closing remarks of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) in the other place who said:

I have given an assurance on behalf of the Government that it will look at the effect of the new tax as a responsible Government should look at all new taxes.

Senator Laucke in his speech on 1 6th October 1970 said that he gained some satisfaction from those remarks, that he hoped that the Minister would keep this matter under consideration and that he hoped at some time in the future the tax would be removed. The tax has not been removed, and this has been to the detriment of the industry. Where the wine industry was one of the few profitable primary industries, today the growers are threatened with bankruptcy or poverty. It is nice to speak through the Press and to lead deputations to Prime Ministers and it is beneficial from a propaganda point of view to ask questions and then to circulate them to country Presses. But where has effective action to remove the tax been taken in this House? Action was taken in the other place but the mover was not genuine. My Party which has sympathy for the wine growers and knows of their hardship wants to see measures introduced which will facilitate the removal of this tax. As I have mentioned, a move to this effect was instituted in the other place but it was not a genuine one.

I think that every South Australian member, whether Liberal or Labor, has raised this question. A large number of people in the electorates of the Murray Valley area are dissatisfied with this tax. While we can say that one person has said this and another has said that, and that members on both sides of the Senate have said certain things, where has anyone done anything? The ‘Labor Party moved an amendment to delete this tax. At that time we were told that by way of an expression of the Senate that tax could be lifted at any time. But the Liberal members from South Australia have never promoted any effective move to oppose this tax. I could talk about how Liberal members from South Australia have spoken at different times. However, the record is there showing those who subscribe to the decision to impose a tax on wine. They are the guilty men. Crying out loud does not exonerate them from their guilt. They ‘have done nothing to exonerate their guilt from the time they imposed the tax. Senator McLaren was justified and probably had a responsibility and a duty to show the hypocrisy of those who talk loudly about the worries and hardships of the grape growers. However, they have failed to take action to relieve the growers from the problems caused by this tax.

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

– in reply - I hope we can come back to the 3 Bills with which we are dealing. I recognise that the wine industry in South Australia is a very important industry. This is borne out by the fact that nearly all the speakers who have taken part in this debate are South Australians. The 3 Bills that we are discussing endeavour to give legislative expression to the wishes of the dried vine fruit producers of Australia. The Bills provide the machinery for a stabilisation scheme. If any industry has had experience of what it is like to live under a stabilisation scheme and then give it away it is this industry. In the referendum that was held recently 98 per cent of growers voted for a stabilisation scheme. These growers have had the experience of having some sort of guarantee and then giving it away. They know what it is like to live under the conditions of a free market. Each honourable senator who has spoken has traversed the history of the marketing of this industry and the industry itself.

Senator Little:

– I did not.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I beg your pardon, Senator Little. I know that you did not.

Senator Little:

– It was not necessary to make long speeches.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is right, because these facts are contained in the second reading speech. I will not add anything other than to make one comment on a point raised by Senator Drury who led for the Opposition in this debate. Senator Drury raised the matter of a single marketing authority. The single statutory authority proposal has been put up many times. I think that honourable senators from South Australia have asked about it in this place. It has never been accepted in the Australian Agricultural Council by any of the producing States nor has there been any evidence that a single marketing authority would achieve any economy. The Opposition has given notice that it intends to move 2 amendments to one of the Bills. I shall deal with them whenI have heard the arguments advanced by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– While the Opposition is not opposing this Bill there are a number of questions that should be asked during the Committee stage. My comments have relationship to the matter I was discussing the other evening, namely, the Parliament giving away its authority to the Executive; to the bureaucracy. This has been done to such an extent that members of the Parliament have become nothing more than salesmen for the Public Service. This seems to be our proper role, as is indicated by the rewards that we receive compared to the rewards received by public servants. Sub-clause (3.) of clause 8 of the Bill reads:

The Minister may, in his direction, determine the amount per ton that is the average return for a season in respect of a kind of dried fruit by -

selecting such packing houses as, in his opinion, have packed between them a sufficient proportion of the packed dried fruit. . . .

This sort of provision occurs throughout the Bill. The Parliament is not determining the criteria. We are handing over the administration to the Minister and he will determine what will be paid, what group will receive the payment and everything else. The concluding paragraph of subclause (5.) reads: the net proceeds received from that original sale shall, for the purpose of determining the average return for that season in respect of the kind of dried fruit from which the packed dried fruit was derived, be deemed to be such amount as the Minister determines. . . .

It is not to be the actual amount itself but such amount as the Minister determines. Again, in clause 9 which relates to the approval, by the Minister, of export prices, paragraph (a) provides that the Board: shall comply with any direction of the Minister. . . .

Parliament does not give the direction but hands over to someone the job for which it should have the responsibility. Similarly paragraph (b) contains the words: shall, except as otherwise approved by the Minister. . . .

Throughout this legislation we find that the Minister is the controller and operator. What is happening is obvious when one reads sub-clause (1.) of clause 17 which states:

An advance on account of a stabilisation payment may be made toa person on such terms and conditions as are approved by the Minister.

Surely when a payment is to be made the Parliament should accept the responsibility of saying to whom it should be made. As I have mentioned, I have raised this matter on other occasions.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The points I raised prior to the suspension of the sitting indicate quite clearly how this Parliament is giving away its power to an executive authority. I will not take the matter any further than that, except to say that the terms ‘with the approval of the Minister’, at the direction of the Minister’ and ‘in the opinion of the Secretary of the Department’ deprive an individual of his human rights. Anyone who suffers an injustice as a result of an administrative decision should have the right to approach a court to have that injustice rectified. This provision curtails that right. Application to a court is useless because that person has to prove not that he was within the criteria laid down but that the Secretary of the Department was not of a certain opinion.

That is necessary on every occasion to obtain redress in a court of law. But it is impossible to prove.

Another point that greatly disturbs me is that this Bill, which to my mind offends against all human rights and political democracy, will receive passage through this chamber: but if this legislation were in the form of a regulation it would never be approved by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. That Committee is advised by a person of quite some repute in the legal fraternity, who practises outside the Public Service. That person makes a critical scrutiny of things of this nature and brings them to the attention of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which, in its wisdom, decides whether regulations and ordinances should be allowed or disallowed.

If it decides that a regulation should be disallowed, at least 4 members of the Government parties can be expected to vole for disallowance. In saying that I am not referring just to the 4 members of the Government parties who are at present on the Committee. That was the attitude of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) and the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) when they were members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. When he was a back bencher the present Minister for Works would frequently object to provisions of this nature being included in Bills before the Parliament. We now have a system under which the protections and privileges which are preserved under ordinances are destroyed under Acts of Parliament. We have the situation of one contradicting the other. The draftsmen know of the possibility of their use of such terms - in regulations and ordinances being disallowed. It is for that reason that such terms are found less frequently today in regulations and ordinances. But their use in Acts of Parliament is increasing. The Public Service is laughing at the stupidity of the Parliament when it is assembled as the Senate and House of Representatives and has not the assistance of an outside judicial authority, as its committees have.

I wish to make only 2 more points. Clause 25 (1.) states:

A person shall not … in connection wilh this Act, present to a person (including the Company) doing duty or performing functions in rela tion to this Act or the regulations an account, book or document, or make or furnish to such a person a statement or return, that is false or misleading in a material particular.

The penalty for such an offence is a fine of S 1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. If one makes or furnishes a statement or return that is false there is no protection, even if one does not know that it is false. One could inadvertently make a false declaration, or something in a declaration could be incorrect, and one would be guilty and liable to a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. If the provision were qualified by such words as ‘knowingly’ or ‘with intent’ this situation would be acceptable but in this case, someone quite innocently could be in breach of the Act and this indicates the Government’s lack of consideration for the people who come under the Act. Clause 26 (3.) of the Bill states:

If, on an application under the last preceding sub-section, the Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath …

It then proceeds to name the conditions under which he may issue an authorisation to an authorised person. The end of that clause states: the Justice of the Peace may grant a warrant, in accordance with the prescribed form, authorizing the authorized person, with such assistance as he thinks necessary, to enter the premises, during such hours of the day or night as the warrant specifies or, if the warrant so specifies, at any time, if necessary by force, for the purpose of exercising the functions of an’ authorized person under this section.

An authority is given not to a policeman but to just an authorised person under this law to enter the premises of a grape grower in the dried fruits industry, if necessary by force, for the purpose of examining his books. Surely the grower would be committing an offence if he refuses to disclose this information. Again the Parliament is giving the power of force to an individual which is contained in very few Acts of the Parliament. This is creating another police authority of the kind which exists under the Customs Act and under other Acts. An authorised person can, with the assistance of other people, bring a gang to enter premises by force. This is the power that we are asked to sanction. I hope I can continue asking these questions from time to time as the occasion arises so that perhaps some day the Parliament will take a responsible attitude to these points.

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

– The points that the honourable senator raised, particularly the last points, do not apply in this Bill because there is no case of any inspector having entered a grower’s property. The fruit is brought to the packing sheds and it is the packers that the Government is dealing with all the time. If the honourable senator reads clause 8 (2.) he will see set out how the packing sheds arrive at the average return for fruit. The clause to which he objects is 8 (3.) under which the Minister, in order to establish an average price or return to the growers, takes a sample of a number of factories. In the last scheme the Minister took a sample from factories that covered about 80 per cent of the growers who were supplying fruit. I understand from my advisers that particular attention was paid to the Sunraysia and Renmark areas where most of the dried vine fruits are grown. When the Minister receives the samples from the packing sheds which have been selected, he declares an average return to the growers. That is all that the clause involves.

The Australian Dried Fruits Control Board is given a price below which it is not allowed to export fruit as, because there is a stabilisation scheme in operation, people might think that the Government would make up the difference if the growers did not achieve a certain return on their fruit and that therefore, the Control Board could fix an export minimum at an absurdly low price, hoping that the Government would, through its stabilisation scheme, make up the difference. Under clause 9 (a), the Minister is empowered to step in and instruct the Control Board not to fix a price at such a low level when the fruit is selling at a much better level overseas. That is all that clause 9 (a) involves. 1 have noted the rest of the information and I will draw it to the Minister’s attention.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish very briefly to refer to clauses 23 and 26. Clause 26 provides for access to premises. It is with considerable pleasure that I note that the Bill as drafted provides for the obtaining of a warrant prior to entry by an authorised person, pursuant to that power. Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have directed their attention to similar provisions in the past and as a result amendments have been effected. In respect of this Bill I simply say that the provision is there in clause 26. I now direct attention to clause 23, which provides:

The Minister or an authorised person may, by notice in writing, require a person to furnish to him, within the time specified in the notice, such return or information in relation to matters relevant to the operation of this Act as is specified in the notice, including a return or information verified hy statutory declaration.

There is nothing to prevent an arbitrary, unreal and unfair action being taken under that provision. I am not suggesting that as anything other than a possibility, but while it remains a possibility I believe that it should be covered by an amendment. Notice in writing should be defined as to the form it is to take and how it is to be served. The time specified in the notice should be at least a reasonable time. If those requirements were met it would seem to me that the persons subjected to this provision would be given adequate protection from either arbitrary action by mistake or arbitrary action by intent.

It is a form of protection which would be reasonable in all the circumstances. While it may not be possible for amendments in the form I have suggested to be made today - 1 would not want the benefits of the scheme to be delayed until next year when the House of Representatives resumes - I would hope that an undertaking could be given for the matter to be brought back into the Senate by one means or another for further debate at a later stage, or that an undertaking could be given to review this provision, thus avoiding a delay in the passage of this legislation but ensuring that an opportunity will be given one way or another for this matter to be adjusted. I do not think I am alone in feeling that adequate protection such as 1 have detailed should be provided for in this and similar legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I appreciate what Senator Rae has said and with him I welcome the necessity under clause 26 to obtain a warrant for right of entry. But that was not my complaint. I would like to point out that an authorised person who had obtained a right of entry after securing a warrant could enter by force. The Minister would justify this action because the premises involved are packing sheds and are private property. I have visions of the appearance of a police force or a bashing gang. I am reminded of the episode recently at the University of Melbourne in respect of which the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) held that a man who would not permit entry to the University would be committing a breach.

This Bill provides for permission to enter by force. An owner of packing sheds may be reluctant to allow entry despite production of a warrant. He would therefore be in breach of the law. 1 believe that such decisions should be made by a court. Obviously an owner who is opposed to the entry of police would offer resistance. As a result the battle of the dried fruits packing sheds would ensue, possibly with the nailing up of doors, and so on. lt may not happen, but it is possible. As responsible legislators we are making such positions possible. We are preparing all the grounds for violence in this industry. 1 agree with what the Minister said regarding the other questions I raised. But in the first place, the Minister for Primary Industry selects a number of packing sheds for the purpose of determining a certain price on which to base the levy. He has a discretion as to which packing sheds he selects. If he selected certain packing sheds the position could be entirely different from what it would bc if he selected other packing sheds, and the position could be more favourable to some growers. Immediately the Minister is given a discretion in a matter, on most occasions he acts only on the advice of his department. I think that this could open the way to corruption if a corrupt individual got into a particular department, and this has been known to happen before within the Government service. There is always the opportunity for it to happen.

The Minister for Air said that notice will be taken of the other points which I raised. While consideration is being given to the question which Senator Rae raised today to see whether the legislation cannot be altered in the way suggested by Senator Rae, I ask that the points which I have raised should also be considered to see whether some other alterations should not bc made in the legislation. The rights and privileges of the individual could be preserved while not destroying the purpose of the legislation.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I rise very briefly to support the comments made by Senator Rae in respect of clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill. I believe that he has covered the points fully in suggesting the amendments which could be made. I merely add my earnest hope and wish that these amendments can be effected as soon as possible.

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

– Senator Rae spoke to me earlier and pointed out his concern about this matter. I agree with him that it would be a matter for concern if we were dealing with a large number of producers of dried vine fruits. While I have no strong objection, in principle, to the provisions to which Senator Rae referred being spelt out in the legislation, I see no need to do so in this Bill. I know the concern which Senator Rae has expressed, when discussing other stabilisation schemes, about this matter of the Minister for Primary Industry seeking further information in a proper manner and the person who has to furnish the information being given a reasonable time to do so. In this Bill all transactions relating to the furnishing of information and the making of consequent payments into and out of the stabilisation funds are conducted through the packing sheds.

The Government had experience of this industry between the years 1964 to 1968, and it knows these packing sheds and their reputation. During the whole of that period there was not one instance in which Government officers were not able to obtain the information they required. Clause 27 of the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Bill sets out what the packing sheds have to do in the way of providing information and so on. I can understand the concern of Senator Rae and his colleagues about this matter, and perhaps if we were dealing with other legislation I would agree that the provisions to which Senator Rae referred should be spelt out. But as Senator Rae has suggested, if we were to amend this Bill today implementation of the scheme would be held up until next year. Only a few packing sheds are involved. 1 do not think that an amendment to this Bill is required at this stage. I am not going to chase ail the hares that Senator Cavanagh has put out. We have had experience in the administration of this legislation. We know that the packing sheds will provide the information required.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you want these restrictions in the Bill?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– They have to be there.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because you have no confidence and these restrictions will be imposed this time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am not saying any more. Senator Cavanagh is entitled to his views. He can express them. They will be brought before the Minister and if he has any comments to add to what I have already said 1 have no doubt that he will write to the honourable senator.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– 1 am a little disappointed that it is not possible, by one means or another, to get something in the nature of an undertaking that a further opportunity will be given by one means or another to consider the amendments I have suggested and which have been supported by Senator Durack and, as ( understand it, Senator Cavanagh. The situation may very well be precisely as the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) says. But 1 do not think that he has said any more than that perhaps the legislation does not do as much harm as it might do in other circumstances. To me it is bad to have bad legislation. lt does not properly provide for the rights of the individual, lt does not allow him reasonable time nor does he know in what form a notice in writing is to be served. I think the legislation is bad and should not continue in that form. As I said before, I would be extremely reluctant to force the situation of moving an amendment to hold up this legislation but I am not at all happy that we find repeatedly coming before this chamber legislation in relation to which notice has been given of proposed amendments, quite a long time before and which cannot be dealt with properly because the House of Representatives has adjourned and the scheme, whatever it may be, will be held up. Per haps this is a matter which should be considered again at some other stage. I ask again whether the Minister, by one means or another, will consider having this matter reconsidered in the next sitting of the Parliament.

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

– I wish to make 2 points. Firstly, this is not bad legislation. These provisions are contained in every Bill of this kind. I see no objection in Senator Rae trying to spell out these things in another Bill which he may introduce. However, on this occasion I do not think it warrants holding up the whole stabilisation scheme for 3 months when the growers want this money.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He is not asking you to hold it up. He is asking whether you will look at it further.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

- Senator Rae is asking me to delay the proposal by asking me to amend the Bill. He has asked me to give him an assurance in relation to this matter but he knows that I cannot give him an assurance because 1 am not the Minister for Primary Industry. However, I will take up the matter with the Minister and draw his attention to the comments that Senator Rae and other honourable senators have made.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I give notice that if this matter is not dealt with 1 shall introduce a Bill next year to amend this particular legislation and any similar legislation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2714

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 December (vide page 2421), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2715

DRIED VINE FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 December (vide page 2421), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– Mr Chairman. I will now move the 2 amendments asI foreshadowed in my second reading speech. The first amendment deals with clause 10 which provides: (1.) The following amounts may be recovered by the Commonwealth as debts due to the Commonwealth:

  1. levy and provisional levy that is due and payable;
  2. an amount payable by way of penalty under the last preceding section. (2.) In proceedings for the recovery of an amount referred to in the last preceding subsection, an averment or statement in the complaint, claim or declaration of the plaintiff is evidence of the matter so averred or stated.

I move:

Leave out sub-clause (2.)

The Opposition feels that this clause is one that should not be in the Bill. It deals with money to. be recovered by the Commonwealth in respect of debts which are due to the Commonwealth. We oppose this subclause. We believe that it should be taken out of the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to add a few words. I think that the greatest opposition to this subclause would relate to the use of an averment for the purpose of proof. This type of provision is being fought against continually. It is most unfair that a man can be held to owe so much because someone by averment says that he does owe that amount. It is then up to that man to prove the contrary. This is a reversal of the onus of proof principle. I think that a prosecutor at all times must carry this responsibility. Why, in a simple Act like this relating to the recovery of certain amounts, should an averment be preferred to proof.

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

– This sub-clause is an important part of the Bill. Clause 10 deals with the collection of levies. This is what happens: The grower brings his fruit in. It is in an ordinary open box. On the side of the box is marked the weight of the box. The box and the fruit are put on the scales. The recorder notes the tare of the box. He deducts that from the total weight shown on the scales. This shows the amount of fruit that that grower has delivered at that time. In order to fix the levy on a ton of fruit the industry must know the total amount of fruit received by the cannery. The only place from which it can get the information is from the packing house which receives the fruit. Under clause 27 of the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Bill a packer is required to keep records. If the Government believes that someone is covering up for some fruit which has been delivered and of which there is no record, it seeks this information, but again it only seeks it from the packing houses.

Senator Cavanagh:

– This does not relate to seeking information. It relates to a prosecution for recovery of what is owed.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am talking about fixing the levy and to do this it is necessary to know the tonnage received for the season. The only way to get that information is to get it from the packing houses. The Government believes that without this information the scheme would not be successful. Senator Little summed it up by saying that some growers would be paying the levy and some growers could escape the levy. However, in this particular case this really is not so because the packing house will in time be making returns to the growers and from the gross return to each grower it will deduct the levy, after it has been fixed, and the various cost involved in packing the grower’s fruit. Every grower, whether he likes it or not, has to pay the levy because it is deducted from his return by the packing house before it sends out his cheque. So the collection of the levy does not really affect the grower. It does affect the packing houses because they have to supply the information. The Government believes that this clause is necessary if the scheme is to be conducted successfully.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 do not think the Minister understood the objection. I concur in what he said to the stage of liability to pay the levy. The one who gets in debt to the Commonwealth is the packing shed. Whether the levy is paid by the growers or not, the packers owe the levy to the Commonwealth. The question is: How much do they owe the Commonwealth? In accordance with the provisions of other clauses it is an exact amount. Suppose that for the tonnage received the packer owes the Commonwealth $X. He can be charged with owing the Commonwealth something in addition, because of the averment. If someone says that he does owe an amount the packer has to prove that he does not owe that amount. It is only a question of recovery and the amount to be recovered is not the amount which he owes under the provisions of the legislation but the amount that someone says that he owes unless, of course, he can prove that he does not owe it.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 13 of the Dried Vine Fruits Levy Collection Bill which contains provisions similar to those about which I spoke earlier this afternoon requiring, by notice in writing, the furnishing of a return within the time specified in the notice. The comments I made earlier apply also to this provision. I take it no further than that at this stage.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– To save time I seek leave to move a second amendment. The Committee will divide on it and, with the concurrence of the Committee, perhaps we could have one division on both clauses.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Senator DRURY:

– At the moment clause 14 reads: (1.) A person shall not-

  1. fail or neglect duly to furnish a return or information that he is required under this Act or the regulations to furnish; or
  2. furnish, in pursuance of this Act or the regulations, a return or information that is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: Two hundred dollars. (2.) A prosecution for an offence against this section may be commenced at any time within three years after the commission of the offence.

On behalf of the Opposition I move:

The Opposition has always opposed this type of proposition. It believes that a prosecution for an offence under the Act should be commenced within 12 months instead of within 3 years. The Committee might recall that in previous legislation the term was 5 years. On one occasion an amendment was moved to a Bill and the Government agreed to insert ‘3 years’ instead of ‘5 years’ but the Australian Labor Party believes that 3 years is far too long and that the term should be reduced to 12 months. 1 commend the amendment to the Committee.

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

– I cannot accept the amendment. I think it can be said that the Australian Labor Party has always felt strongly about this matter. I am sure that it understands what is involved in the matter. As Senator Drury said, some years ago all legislation of this kind contained a provision that prosecutions could be commenced up to 5 years after the commission of the offence. I think the Democratic Labor Party moved an amendment that the period should be reduced. There was also a request from the Australian Labor Party that the period be reduced to 12 months. The Democratic Labor Party wanted a period shorter than the period in the Act. I think the honourable senator will recall that I suspended the consideration of the Bill in the Committee stage and went to the Government on this matter. After consulting my advisers it became quite obvious that the Government could shorten the period from 5 years to 3 years but that it could not shorten it further because of certain administrative problems to which I now refer.

Many Bills of a similar nature contain provisions for payouts by the Commonwealth Government. As part of the Bills there is a provision that the Department of Primary Industry must continually check on the way in which these payments are made to packing houses, factories or similar bodies. The staff of that section of the Department is small and it has to cover various industries in all States. Because the staff might be working on a particular industry, quite often it does not immediately detect a case which requires the administration to write to a particular factory, packing house or grower and say that there is something wrong or that the returns have not been made. Quite often the administration writes and receives a series of letters to or from the factory or individual on the matter.

The Opposition seeks to shorten the period to 12 months. Eight months could have elapsed before the inspectors in the Department detected a particular situation. Therefore they would not have time to write and receive a series of letters to and from the other party. Because the Labor Party seeks to shorten the period in which a prosecution can be laid from 3 years to 12 months the Department of Primary Industry would have to prosecute immediately. In the present situation the Department often finds that by writing a series of letters backwards and forwards it can get over the problem that it wants to solve and no prosecution is necessary. So it says that it wants a much longer period that 12 months. If the Opposition believes that instead of trying to solve the problem the Government should immediately prosecute, then it will support this clause. I do not believe that we should shorten the period. I think it a much better way to give the individual more time. Let us solve it out of court without any prosecution being involved. It is for that reason that I want to see the period of 3 years stay in the Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I recall, as the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) recounts it, the circumstances in which this matter was mentioned and reviewed once before. On that occasion the Australian Democratic Labor Party did indicate that it thought a shorter period would be more appropriate. The Bill now contemplates a shorter period, but a balance must be found, and the Minister has intimated that there are certain administrative requirements and that if an unduly short period was introduced in lieu of the 3-year period we could easily get a position where we would have to exercise the disciplines of the statute all the time, whereas with the longer period it is possible to get an accommodation to handle the position by administrative action to the satisfaction of all concerned. I take it that that is the position. I think to import into this Act a rigidity that would perhaps defeat the very ends which it was intended to serve mightbe undesirable. As the Minister has seen fit to reduce the period to 3 years, and as we think the case he puts up for setting his face against any reduced period, such as that suggested by Senator Drury in the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition is acceptable, we think that the Bill should be supported in its present form and the amendment should be resisted, and we will vote accordingly.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse)

AYES: 21

NOES: 27

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 Drake-

Brockman) read a third time.

page 2718

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 December (vide page 2437), on motion by Senator Greenwood1:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition is not opposing the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill, but we take this opportunity to utter a couple of criticisms of it. Over a lengthy period the Opposition has contended that the maximum is not being done by the Government to alleviate the problems associated with Aborigines and islanders. At the same time I pay a tribute to every employee of the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs. All its employees have given dedicated service in this field. They have done a tremendous job under great difficulties. Honourable senators will note from the latest annual report of the Office that to date approximately 1,000 houses have been provided. This has only scratched the surface of the Aboriginal housing problem. I hope that in the coming months the Government will look seriously at the possibility of making more money available for housing and perhaps in respect of those who now rent government homes. The Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister might be able to examine the possibility of giving sufficient, by way of a grant or repayable bridging loan, to enable Aborigines to purchase their homes. If this were done on an interest basis similar to that under the war service homes scheme or the State housing commission schemes it would enable those who are in full employment, in particular, or those receiving the maximum pension, to pay the purchase price of a home over a lengthy period.

The other criticism I have to offer is that in my own State of Queensland the Aboriginal and Island Affairs Department is not facing up to reality. It is true that, by agreement between the Premier and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), there has been some alleviation of the stringent requirements of the Queensland Act, but it reminds me very much of the agreement between Mr Ian Smith and Mr Heath, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in their so-called alleviation of the problems of people in Rhodesia. So I feel that perhaps with a greater examination and certainly with greater availability of money we can go a long way further in solving this very great problem that we are only now starting to realise in depth.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I support the Bill because when I look at what has been done in the past 3 years particularly by the Federal Government I find that there has been a gradual increase in the amount of money allocated to the States to cover such important areas as housing, health, education, employment, social work and various other projects throughout Australia. I have had personal experience of many of these problems that are being faced by members of my race. I have reared a family. I know what it is like to struggle as many of my race are struggling at the moment. I cannot go along entirely with the criticism that has been levelled at the Queensland Government. The Commonwealth Government has made a grant of $3,038,000 for Aboriginal advancement in Queensland. When I compare this with the figure of about $6,450,000 in the Queensland Government’s budget, I think it is unfair to level such criticism at the Queensland Government.

There are many fields of Aboriginal welfare for which I believe our Government must take a greater responsibility. This nation has not only an obligation but also a responsibility to the indigenous people of this country, and I would like to see much more done for their welfare. I believe that there is a great need for greater involvement by Aboriginal people in Aboriginal affairs. There are many other problems associated with housing, health and education. I know from personal experience that, because of a lack of education and training, Aborigines are facing many problems. What is urgently needed is the employment of competent Aboriginal people who can communicate with their own people and advise and assist them in all these fields. I have been told that because of a lack of education and academic ability this cannot be done. However, I do not believe that in their field education is of the greatest importance. Provided that Aborigines are competent, know the problems of their own people and will work, they can be of great assistance. It does not matter how much money we pour into this area or how we legislate, unless the Aborigines are able to help themselves all our efforts will be in vain.

As I said earlier, I believe that what is needed is a greater amount of Aboriginal involvement in their own affairs. I hope that the Government will look at this very closely in the near future because much depends on it. Unfortunately other things creep into the problem, and unless we do something about them now and look at them in a more realistic and sensible way we will have many more problems in the future. I support the Bill and I thank the Government for what it is doing in the area of Aboriginal welfare.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the support which has been given to this Bill and for the brevity of the remarks with which that support has been indicated. I think I should indicate that what has been said by Senator Bonner undoubtedly carries weight with the Government. We are very fortunate to have him with us to express a point of view, and to know that that point of view can be listened to and taken into account in the developing programme which the Commonwealth Government has assumed. I propose to mention 2 matters. This year the Commonwealth and the State governments are spending in Australia more than $44m for the advancement of our Aboriginal people. In 1967-68 when the referendum was passed and the Australian people indicated that this was an area in which Commonwealth involvement was to take place, just under $20m was spent by the Commonwealth in its Territories and by the States. It is estimated that this year the States will spend approximately $13m and that the Commonwealth will spend in its Territories approximately $16m, in addition to which $15m has been given to the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. So this year more than $44m is being spent in this area.

As Senator Bonner said, it is not so much the money that is being spent but the way in which it is being applied and the assistance which is being given that is of importance. He has made some suggestions of which I am sure the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) will take account. The other aspect is that the programme which the Commonwealth has developed has been developed in co-operation with the States. It would not be the most useful or sensible way to expend the money which is involved if it were to be spent by the Commonwealth Government alone. That is why the policy which the Government has been pursuing is one of working in cooperation with the States, because there is a tremendous knowledge and experience which can be usefully applied in the local areas. I thank the Senate for the support it has given to this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2719

SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT (FRUIT CANNERIES) BELL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 December (vide page 2500), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman :

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to provide financial assistance to the State of South Australia to enable that State to make loans to two fruit preserving companies, namely, Jon Preserving Cooperative Ltd and Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Ltd. This is a fairly simple Bill. There is only one contentious clause and I shall refer to it briefly later. Clause 4 in sub-clause (2.) provides that $390,000 will be made available to Jon Preserving Co-operative Ltd, and the other cannery operated by Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Ltd will receive an amount of $900,000. As a similar amount is to be provided by the State of South Australia it will mean that Jon Preserving Co-operative Ltd will receive an amount of $780,000 whereas the Riverland cannery will receive an amount of $1,800,000. This no doubt will inject the necessary finance into these canneries that have for the last 2 years been confronted with a great amount of financial responsibility.

The Riverland cannery commenced operating in 1959 and since then it has been a means by which the 800 growers in the Berri area have disposed of their fruit, the main ones being of course pears, apricots and peaches. If this cannery could not continue to operate it would mean that there would be no outlet whatsoever for the fruits that are being grown for canning purposes in the River Murray irrigation areas. The cannery provides a considerable amount of employment in these areas, thus supporting our policy of decentralisation. Employment is created in areas where it is often difficult, particularly for girls, to find employment. In the past we have relied mostly on the United Kingdom as a market for our exports of canned fruits but that avenue of export probably will be in doubt in the near future. We have relied on the United Kingdom to take 65 per cent of our exports of canned fruit, but in future it will be necessary to find new markets.

The financial position of the canneries has deteriorated over the last 2 years mainly ‘due to machinery that has become outdated. It has been necessary to introduce modern machinery. For example, the Riverland cannery at Berri in 1969 had reserves of $405,000. Its profit and loss account showed an unappropriated balance of $431,000 on the debit side, not on the credit side. Issued capital was $751,000, but the total of the company’s shareholders funds was only $725,000. The only contentious clause in the Bill is clause 5. It is in respect of this clause that I shall later move the amendment that has been circulated to honourable senators. Clause 5 (1.) of the Bill states:

Payment of an amount payable to the State under this Act is subject to such conditions, if any, as the Minister, by instrument in writing, determines.

I do not want to go into what was said by Senator Cavanagh but once again the Minister is being given the right to determine conditions on which amounts shall be paid to the States. Clause 5 (2.) of the Bill states:

The conditions that may be determined by the Minister under the last preceding sub-section may include a condition as to repayment of the whole or part of the amount.

Therefore the Minister will be given the right to determine how the amount shall be paid to the State and when it shall be repaid. He also can decide what interest rate shall be applied. We do not think these matters should be left in the hands of the Minister. There should be some provision in the Bill setting out the details of the agreement, the terms of the payment and how the repayment is to be made.

In conclusion, I should like to refer to similar legislation passed by the Senate last year involving an amount of $4.2m which was made available to the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd. That Bill contained provisions setting out the amount, the repayments and the rate of interest. I do not agree with an interest rate of 7 per cent being imposed on an industry that is struggling for survival. I believe that this Bill should contain some reference to the interest rate which should be included in an agreement. I formally move:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that it should be supplied with a schedule of the agreement between the State of South Australia and the Commonwealth with conditions relating to the approval by the Parliament and provisions relating to the amounts payable to the Slate, the rate of interest, and repayment conditions by the State’.

Senator Wilkinson:

– I second the amendment.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The Democratic Labor Party will support this Bill and the subsequent Bill relating to New South Wales. I understand that they are being dealt with separately. We made our attitude clear on this matter earlier this year. At that time it was necessary for the fruit canning industry in Victoria to be rescued from a very desperate situation and a similar loan was granted to that State. We pointed out that the Commonwealth stood to lose nothing. It purported to be a benefactor but in fact was not. If there was any loss it would be borne by the State and not by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth was in such a happy situation with the current rates of interest that it seemed to be a rather good business deal from its point of view. Having expressed that criticism at that time we do not wish to repeat it now because we recognise that the fundamental purpose of this Bill is to rescue the fruit canning industry in South Australia from its present plight.

This industry will have to face even greater problems in the future. Already I have had representations from the industry in Victoria that clearly indicate that the pressure being applied, particularly by the banks, to prevent a full crop being grown has reached the stage where the growers are expected to reduce their production by 50 per cent in one season. The information that has been given to me indicates quite clearly that a reduction in production will be disastrous for the growers. If the growers could even out a decrease in production over a period of 3 years by reducing by, say, 20 per cent each year they would be in a better position to assist themselves by absorbing the shock that the industry will have to face. The growers do not deny that it is necessary to reduce productivity. They accept this. However, what is causing concern to the growers at this point of time is the suddenness of the move by the banking institutions, particularly the Reserve Bank of Australia, to endeavour to get the industry to reduce its output by 50 per cent in a period of one season.

These institutions should realise that there should be a programme to assist those who are not fully engaged in the raising of crops such as pears and peaches for canning and those on farms operating on a small scale as a subsidiary to grazing or perhaps wool production. The Government should assist in developing a plan to get out of the industry, for a start, those people who are not wholly dependent on it. It is recognised that others will have to be taken out of the industry, the least efficient being the first to go. There will be a need for rehabilitation training to enable these people to exist in another industry. What these people are very sure of is that an export market will not develop which will be adequate to cope with the capacity of the industry to produce.

If the Government takes cognisance of the statements I have made and looks to the future of the industry, particularly in Victoria where this industry is a far bigger proposition than that in South Australia, it may be that the Government by taking position action more quickly will be able to save itself from having to face up to a much more serious problem in late autumn or in the winter of next year when the full effects of the restrictions that have been placed on growers in Victoria this year will be felt. This Bill is an extension to South

Australia of the action taken in Victoria. We will support the measure without amendment.

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

– in reply - I thank honourable senators for their contribution to this debate. I can well understand Senator Donald Cameron’s concern in this matter because the canneries in which he is very interested are in a very uncertain and shaky condition at the present time. I note that the Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Ltd has some 850 suppliers supplying fruits to that cannery, and there are 500 suppliers of fruits to John Preserving Co-operative Ltd. It was decided to make this grant available to the canneries after the Commonwealth had set up an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives from the Prime Minister’s Department, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Primary Industry. This committee went to these canneries and made a study of their financial positions and prospects. It then had talks with State Ministers and representatives from departments of agriculture and made a recommendation to the Government that assistance should be provided to them. The committee also recommended that a canned deciduous fruits advisory committee be set up to make a study of the canned fruits industry, to recommend what assistance be given to the industry or to the factories and to make any other recommendations it thought might assist the industry with the problems confronting it. This committee is asked to report its recommendations to the Australian Agricultural Council in February. So we are waiting for those recommendations at the present time.

The amount of money made available under this Bill to each of these factories is, of course, to be supplemented by a similar amount being made available by the State governments. Senator Donald Cameron drew attention to clause 5 and his amendment draws attention to the fact that in this Bill there is no agreement such as was set out in the Bill by which the Commonwealth made $4.2m available to the Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd last year. There is a difference between these 2 circumstances which I shall explain to the honourable senator. The Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd was sufficiently strong to meet a financial repayment programme. It had taken delivery of fruit from growers and had a large carry-over of canned fruit on hand but had no money with Which to pay growers after taking delivery of the fruit. The company was able to put forward a financial programme that would allow it to make repayments of the loan over a certain period to the Government.

This situation is totally different. We have factories which are financially on their uppers. If the Government told these companies to pay back loans over the next 3 years at so much a year and an amount by way of interest equivalent to, say, 6½ per cent, it might find that the factories were not in a sufficiently strong financial position to do this. So the Commonwealth has said to South Australia: ‘Here is money available without interest at the present time and no repayment schedule. We will watch the position and see how it develops in the next year or two. Then the Minister for Primary Industry will meet the State Ministers to decide what is the situation financially in relation to these companies, how they will make their repayments - whether it will be by loan or in certain instalments. The charging of interest will then be arranged’. It is because of that situation that the Government cannot spell out in this Bill an agreement similar to the agreement spelt out in the Victorian Grant (Shepparton Preserving Co. Ltd) Bill.I ask the Senate to bear with me in the situation. As Senator Donald Cameron says, if the companies go to the wall whole towns and the growers in the surrounding area who depend on the factories will be losing a livelihood. The Government says: ‘Here is the money. We will watch for one or two years or even a further period to see how you go. If you become financially stronger the Minister for Primary Industry and the State Minister will get together, will review this situation and will work out interest rates and how repayments are to be made’. Having said that, I think that we should proceed to a vote.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 26

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 2722

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (LEETON CO-OPERATIVE CANNERY LIMITED) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 December (vide page 2501), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to include a Schedule of the Agreement between the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth with conditions relating to the approval by the Parliament and provisions relating to the amounts payable to the State, the rate of interest, and repayment conditions by the State’.

This amendment is in terms similar to the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Donald Cameron, to the South Australia Grant (Fruit Canneries) Bill which dealt with Jon Preserving Co-operative Ltd and Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Ltd. This Bill, however, deals with Leeton Co-operative Cannery Ltd which is the largest cannery in New South Wales and the second largest in the Southern Hemisphere.

When one reads the Bill, at first blush it would appear that the Commonwealth - Government is making an amount of not more than $874,000 available to the State of New South Wales which, in turn, will make that amount and an equal amount to be provided by the State Government available to the co-operative cannery at Leeton to enable the company to reduce its financial indebtedness. Clause 5 of the Bill states (1.) Payment of the amount payable to the State under this Act is subject to such conditions, if any, as the Minister, by instrument in writing, determined. (2.) The conditions that may be determined by the Minister under the last preceding sub-section may include a condition as to repayment of the whole or part of the amount.

I understand that the advance by the New South Wales Governmen)t to the Leeton cannery will be only in the nature of a book entry. I understand that the New South Wales Government has determined that it will simply make a book entry and, in fact, wipe out some of the long standing debts of this cannery, which came into existence as a State cannery 45 or 50 years ago. The Commonwealth has agreed to match the State’s advance. The Commonwealth’s advance likewise will wipe out some debts owing to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. What, in fact, is involved in this legislation is 2 book entries - one by the New South Wales Government and one by the Commonwealth Government. The Labor movement has adopted the same attitude to this Bill as it adopted to the South Australia grant (Fruit Canneries) Bill, namely that the terms and conditions of the loan should be made public. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment.

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

– in reply - The same arrangements have been made in relation to this Bill as have been made in relation to the South Australia Grant (Fruit Canneries) Bill, which was just debated. For the reasons I stated in the debate on the previous Bill, the Government cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Douglas McClelland.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2723

TARIFF BOARD BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 December (vide page 2502), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– This Bill was foreshadowed in a statement made in the Senate on 29th April 1971 by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony). It seeks to do one or two things. It seeks to give power for one member of the Tariff Board to inquire into and report on references. It provides an opportunity for a deputy chairman of the Board to be called, I think, the Acting Chairman. I do not know the full significance of that provision, but it must be important as it is included in the Bill. In his second reading speech the Minister for Civil Aviation said:

The Government’s purpose in making the proposed changes is to achieve maximum expedition in the Tariff Board’s handling of non-tariff revision matters referred to it, while, at the same time, enhancing its general work capacity. Full discussions in relation to the proposed changes were held with the Chairman of the Tariff Board.

I suppose one should treat that statement as having a lot of significance, in view of some of the fights which have occurred between the Chairman of the Tariff Board and the Government. So the Opposition accepts that statement. I understand that the sort of non-tariff matters that will be handled are such matters as customs by-laws, both for admission under by-law and certain cases of cancellation of by-laws, tariff classification, dumping, the addition of goods to the New ZealandAustralia free trade area - I hope that the

Tariff Board informs the Parliament when it does this sort of thing - and questions relating to the granting of entry of products from developed countries. Honourable senators may have noticed that I underlined the words ‘expedition of handling’, because even the Minister admitted that when he refers matters to the Board it sometimes takes up to 2 years before finality is reached. If that is the case it is time that we had some expedition in these matters.

This Bill seems to have been introduced by the Government arising out of the tremendous interest and controversy which exists between the Board and the Government and the great publicity that has surrounded these matters. There is always a tremendous interest in Tariff Board proposals, and particularly now, having regard to the economic times through which we are passing and, taking this measure on its face value, it appears to us that the Government is making some attempt to take off the senior part of the Board - if I may term it in that way - and to give the junior jobs to individuals in order to achieve results a little more quickly. Because of those considerations, if we have read them aright, the Opposition has no objection to the Bills.

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

– In the spirit of the work that we are now doing and in consideration of the fact that another measure is to come before the Senate on which, I think, honourable members may want to spend some time, it seems unfair to me to take up the time of the Senate to go into great detail on this matter, particularly as Senator Willesee has indicated that the Opposition supports and approves the Bill which is now before the Senate. Briefly, the main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Act to provide for an additional member of the Tariff Board and to provide for single member boards to conduct inquiries and to submit reports on certain specified matters. The cases to be dealt with by single member boards are non-tariff revision matters which do not involve any considerable amount of economic and special criteria. This would add to the speed of work of the Board. It would hasten the hearing of various mat ters and I think this is without any doubt in the public interest. I thank the Opposition for its support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2724

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 December (vide page 2565), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– This Bill deals with possibly one of the most important matters that faces Australia today - the question of people - and it is regrettable that it has been brought on as the last Bill of the session and being placed in that order for the purpose of getting it through the debate quickly so that everyone can get home. This is neglecting the most important issue that faces the people of Australia today. It is the more tragic when one realises that the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse has submitted its report to the Parliament and that this report has been on the notice paper for the whole session and has not been considered by the Parliament. As a result of this, the Opposition is of the belief that this Bill is designed to conceal the lack of activity by the Government on the question of drug abuse in Australia. As a consequence, it is my intention on behalf of the Opposition to move the following amendment to the motion ‘that the Bill be now read a second time’:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert - the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to deal comprehensively with

drug trafficking, drug pushing and the provision of penalties severe enough to deter these offences, and

drug abuse and the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts based on the humanitarian approach recommended by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse’.

The Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse met and took evidence for 12 months, including a period when the Senate was not sitting. At the times when the Senate was sitting the Committee met each Friday, and it heard possibly some of the most expert evidence available in Australia on the question of drug taking. Fortunately an international congress on alcoholism and drug abuse was held in Sydney at a time when the Committee was able to take evidence from professors from overseas who were attending that congress. Amongst them were medical experts from the World Health Organisation.

It is possible that no Senate select committee has had more expert evidence than was heard by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, yet its report is not even discussed and considered by the Parliament. The first thing to remember is that we are not considering amendments to legislation dealing with the drug problem. We are considering amendments to the Customs Act which has as its purpose the prevention of the entry into Australia of prohibited imports and the detection of attempts Ito avoid the payment of duty. In this legislation imports of drugs occupy the same position as prohibited imports, and have no more importance than, say, transistors. We cannot import into the Act provisions for the treatment of drug dependency or drug addiction.

The Commonwealth has the power under its health legislation to deal with drugs in its Territories. Breaches of the Customs laws governing prohibited imports could involve offences under the State Health Acts when narcotics or one of the drugs stated are involved. In Australia we attempt to deal with this serious issue by a multiplicity of Acts of Parliament containing differing provisions. As a result, everyone is jumping on the band wagon and it is commonly believed that a huge section of Australian youth is corrupt and is a menace to the community because of drug taking. That is not the opinion of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. Drug abuse by youth would be insignificant compared with harmful drug taking by older sections of the community.

Drug taking by youth is symptomatic of a sick society. The extent to which our youth indulge in drugs is the measure of the sickness of our society. We have reached the stage where all our goals in life are materialistic. No consideration is given to human values or government to improve the quality of life. A youth may feel incompetent and a failure if he does not live up to the ambitions of his parents or the expectations of society. A youth might be expected to go through the university and to achieve a middle class income, and if he does not he feels that he has disappointed those who trusted him. The result may well be that he seeks relaxation and a way out through the use of drugs.

The evidence given to the Senate Select Committee indicated that the average youth between the age of 15 and 25 years comes into contact with drugs of some description - excluding alcohol and tobacco. On the whole, those who are detected as taking drugs between the age of 15 and 25 years mysteriously leave the drug scene at the age of 25 years. Either they control their drug taking or the factors which forced them to take drugs no longer exist; they adopt a different way of life and no longer require drugs. But between 2 per cent and 5 per cent of people in the community do not give up drug taking at the age of 25 years. They continue taking drugs for a greater period in their lives and they endure the human miseries associated with drug taking.

The expert evidence given to the Senate Select Committee indicated that the history of every drug dependent person or every incurable drug addict can be traced back to a family disturbance or a family trauma in his early childhood. Drug dependence can be detected while a person is at school. The signs are obvious in a school child from the age of 7 years. I refer to signs such as whether a person co-operates with society or rejects society. A child psychologist can correct this trend in children, but we have very few child psychologists in Australia. I think that there are only 2 in all the education departments in Australia.

We are doing nothing at all to try to prevent drug taking by Australians. All we are doing is inflicting penalties upon drug takers. We seek to make it easier to get a conviction and we impose heavier penalties. But this is not the solution to any of the problems facing us. The Bill defines trafficable amounts of drugs as consisting of certain quantities of drugs. The doctors in the Australian Labor Party say that some of the trafficable amounts of drugs defined in the Bill can be found in the medical cupboard in most homes at the present time. But under this Bill, if a person possesses that amount of drugs it is assumed that he is trafficking in drugs, and he has to prove that he is not. Again the Bill is reversing the onus of proof, and at the Committee stage we will move amendments in relation to this question. No-one has any sympathy for the drug trafficker who is trafficking in drugs for commercial gain. But among the people passing drugs from one individual to another there is the person who is selling drugs for the sole purpose of meeting his own drug dependency requirements. He cannot avoid this because dependency is expensive. This person is as much in need of care and assistance as is the dependent individual who does not sell drugs or pass them on to another person.

I want to refer to the drugs which, as a result of the evidence given to the Senate Select Committee, I would consider to be serious drugs in Australia. The first is the drug of smoking - nicotine. Tobacco smoking contributes to the onset of many diseases. Each year in Australia there are more than 10,000 deaths which are due in part to tobacco smoking. In other words, there is one such death every 53 minutes. While we are prepared to prosecute the person who is dependent on drugs and cannot give up the habit, we are not prepared to place any restriction upon the rights of the traffickers in the tobacco industry who peddle their dope to the public of Australia on the radio and on television. According to the Postmaster-General, we cannot impose any restrictions because this advertising is a large source of revenue for the television industry of Australia. These television companies would not be able to continue if they did not show these advertisements. The Government shows no consideration for the health of the community. It says it is concerned with this problem but it is not concerned enough to deal with it under an Act in which it can make provision for penalties and treatment. The present position is that some matters are dealt with under the Customs Act and other matters are dealt with under some other Act.

The drug problem is greater when a new drug is introduced into a culture. Most cultures adopt drugs which are socially acceptable and build up a resistance against their abuse. In Australia alcohol is a socially acceptable drug. Of course, there is some resistance - some build-up - against the abuse of alcohol. In Australia today it is estimated that there are between 250,000 and 300,000 hopeless alcoholics who are unable to work, unable to have intelligent conversation and simply dependent upon the welfare of society as a whole. Included in this number are some formerly brilliant people. To my .mind, alcohol possibly would be the second most dangerous drug in Australia. One can develop cirrhosis of the liver and brain damage from taking that drug. One usually begins to drink alcohol at the same time as one engages in adolescent drug taking. However, there is a period of some 15 to 20 years before one reaches the stage of needing medical attention from drinking alcohol. While we expect to find alcoholics in the 35 to 40 age group, they commence to take drugs at the same time as others who use heroin or marihuana. But the effects of one are more sudden than the effects of the other. Here again we are doing insufficient for the treatment of these people and we are doing nothing to stop the spread of drug taking in the community. We show a lack of concern with the activities of the commercial interests involved but we concentrate our attention on a pack of kids. There is no commercial profit to business interests in peddling dope to these people.

Most of the barbiturates used in Australia have been medically prescribed. There is an abundance of barbiturates in every home and every hospital. In Victoria alone over 200 deaths a year are caused by overdoses of barbiturates, and this occurs mostly in the middle age group who desire something to make them sleep or to keep them awake. I believe that bromides and bromurides can be obtained only with a prescription in some States. However, at the interstate conference of health organisations attended by the various government health directors, only the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland adopted the unanimous recommendation that these drugs should be obtainable only by prescription. South Australia has introduced legislation which will allow these substances to be made available by prescription only after 1st January. It was necessary to give this breathing space to enable the chemist shops and the drug houses to clear the accumulated stocks they have.

Senator Marriott:

– Is the attitude of the Labor Government that the harm that these drugs may cause in the meantime does not matter as long as the stocks are cleared?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is not a question of the attitude of the Labor Government, lt is the attitude I am condemning. If the honourable senator wishes to bring Party political issues into the debate, he will show that he is not interested in the drug problem as such. The Government in South Australia is a Labor Government. I am condemning the consideration of commercial interests coming before the health and welfare of the community. Whether it is South Australia or any other State, this is the whole attitude today of our developed system of thinking and of living. We are not thinking of happiness and of welfare; we are thinking of profits.

I do not wish to go into the whole question. But I think we must take account of the huge numbers of persons who suffer illness and death through analgesics. It is interesting to note that the number of illnesses and deaths caused through analgesics in Australia would be as bad as the same consequences from any other drug. These analgesics include headache powders, cold cures, and the pain easers that are taken under the various trade names. Nowhere can we find figures as to the rate of consumption of these analgesics. The figures are not kept. The Senate Select Committee reported on the lack of statistics. Evidence given shows that the value of the various analgesics purchased by pharmacists in 1964 was $7,679,000. In 1969, the value had risen to $8,802,000. We have no records of the amount of analgesics manufactured in Australia, but in 1958-59 a quantity of 8,898 lb of analgesics was imported. The amount of analgesics imported in 1967 had risen to 229,243 lb. Possibly Australia manufactures more analgesics than it imports.

These analgesics cause gastric ulcers, renal dialysis and ruination of the liver and the kidneys. In a Press statement released by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) on 21st November 1971, the Minister stated: . . between 1963 and April of this y.ear a total of 657 kidney transplants bad been performed in Australia. In 1970 there were 182 kid- ney transplant operations. At present over 200 patients were undergoing renal dialysis and most of these patients were awaiting transplantation. It was estimated that in future years a total of some 360 transplants would need to be performed each year and this would accentuate the shortage of donor organs.

This statement shows that 360 kidney transplants will be needed each year because of damage, possibly all done by analgesics which are advertised on every television screen in Australia and which are available at the corner store. They can be purchased in public bars. We see campaigns suggesting that you need analgesics to provide restfulness from the heat of the sun and to alleviate the effect of the sun’s glare. We need analgesics to quieten us down; we need them to brighten us up. For every ailment one may get we look not for the cause but for the analgesic. It is costing Australia thousands of dollars to give kidney treatment, to provide kidney machines and to perform kidney transplants. People are lying waiting for someone to be killed so that they can have kidney transplants. Yet we are not prepared to do a thing about this drug question except to have a voluntary control on advertising of drugs which are very dangerous to the Australian community.

In relation to television advertising, where there are voluntary controls, there is an agreement that such words as ‘cure’ and infallible’ shall not be used. So no longer may a particular brand of analgesic be said to cure a headache; today it soothes away the pain. This is what is happening in relation to drug advertising. Vested interests are too strong for anything to be done. Human values do not matter in our society.

I hope I have said enough to create an interest and to ensure that we will have this drug report debated when the Senate meets next session. We should seek to deal with the drug problem not through a Customs Act but rather through a Health Act. The Commonwealth has power over imported material under the Customs Act. If material is imported it is already under Commonwealth control. The Commonwealth has constitutional authority under its foreign affairs powers to control the movement of materials which are the basis of international agreements.

In respect of most of the harmful drugs we have international agreements under the

United Nations and Australia has been represented at conferences on drugs. It is possible that today the Commonwealth has complete power over drug legislation. After the first international conference on drug abuse it was 6 years before we could get the States to fall into line so that we had uniform legislation to meet the requirements of the international agreement. Not until 10 years had elapsed did we find, as a result of a court decision, that marihuana was not prohibited in South Australia. In view of the hour I will leave the matter there, but there are points that I wish to raise during the consideration of the amendments in the Committee stage. Three amendments will be moved in Committee and the Opposition will take the matter up again at that stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is the amendment seconded?

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I second the amendment and I wish to speak briefly to it. I speak at this point because I do not wish to enter the debate in the Committee stage in view of the lateness of the hour. I protest strongly against the action of the Government in bringing forward this legislation before the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse has been dealt with by the Senate. When such an important report as this or such an important report as the air pollution report is brought down in the Senate, provision should be made for it to be debated as soon as possible. It is alarming that this excellent report which took so much preparation finished up at the bottom of the notice paper. Unless pressure is brought to bear there will be no debate on the recommendations in the report.

If the report had been considered the Senate would have been in a better position to debate the Bill and would have been aware of the dangers of drug abuse. I feel that perhaps the Department of Customs and Excise, in its zeal, supported by the sometimes misguided enthusiasm of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), introduced the Bill, especially a certain section of it, before the Senate had time to consider the report and the views of the members of the Committee. I do not wish to enter into a debate about the dangers of the various drugs which are involved in the area of drug abuse in this country. I think this point was well expressed by Senator Cavanagh in the brief time that he had available to him, but other members of the Committee could add to his contribution. A perusal of the report would be necessary if the dangers of drug abuse were to be debated fully and if we were to be enlightened on the drugs which are abused, the dangers of particular drugs and the scale of the dangers of the drugs.

The part of the Bill which disturbs me greatly is the part which confers the extra power which the Department is seeking in order to control the misuse of drugs. The seeking of this power was first indicated to the Committee in a submission by the Department of Customs and Excise, which stated that the Department considered that an answer to this problem could be legally to deem all drugs of dependence to be imported drugs unless the defendant proved to the contrary. The reaction of the Committee members at that time was not favourable to the proposition put by the Department. Members of the Committee were strongly opposed to an expedient power being given to the Department to enable it to invade the province of the State enforcement authorities. It seemed to us to he a power for the convenience of the Department, without consideration of the rights of the individual. We were also concerned about the confusion brought to the drug scene, as we term it, by marihuana being equated with the hard narcotic drugs. The statement made in evidence by one of the officers was that although he could express no official opinion on marihuana it was on the hard drug list and, being on that list, as a law enforcement officer he was bound to carry out the law.

What consequences flow from this? The Bill gives to the Department of Customs and Excise the power to take penal action against those found in possession of a hard drug, including marihuana. The consequences which flow from that are in direct contradiction of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I strongly support the Opposition’s proposal that the Bill be withdrawn, that the report of the Committee be debated and that the Bill be introduced in a re-drafted form. The dangers

Inherent in the Bill could bring us to the point that has been reached in the United States of America where the attempt to control the use of marihuana creates greater social problems than the use of the drug. The exceptional penal powers that the Department of Customs and Excise is seeking will inflict hardships upon people, young people in particular, and in turn upon the whole of society. Can honourable senators imagine the power which a customs man will have on special warrant to enter a home - it could be a joint raid with the police - because of information received and, in many cases not revealed? This has happened on many occasions. He can enter premises and invade the privacy of individuals. If it is a joint raid, the individuals within that home are exposed to penalties under State law. The introduction of this Bill is a convenient expedient which can infringe considerably upon the liberties of the individual in this country. This matter will be taken up by one of my colleagues in the Committee stage so let me just express my strong opposition to and fears about this legislation being introduced at this late stage without proper consideration being given to it.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - We are all aware that the effect of this amendment would be to withdraw the Bill in total. We are also aware that there will be amendments moved by the Opposition to various clauses. That means that honourable senators who wish to speak upon this matter are not denied the opportunity of so doing by my rising now in order to answer briefly one or two points that have been made.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It stopped them speaking in the second reading debate.

Senator COTTON:

– That is correct, but it does allow them to speak in Committee, and as the honourable senator is well aware debate in Committee takes in a fairly wide area of interest. I think that everybody has a genuine regard for what is sought to be done by a Bill of this kind. I do not think there is any necessity for me to try to convince honourable senators of the dangers that face the Australian community because of drug abuse. A great deal has been said in another place and in this chamber on pre vious occasions - it has been said again here this afternoon - about the cause of and the remedy for the drug problem. One would not find oneself disagreeing with what has been said over quite a period on these matters. But in the final analysis one would hope that the remedy will be found in the environment and in the home. In the short term there is a need to undertake research to educate the community and to rehabilitate those unfortunates who are drug dependent. What is of immediate concern here this afternoon is the need to counter the efforts of those who seek to create the problem - the drug traffickers themselves. This Bill is designed primarily to prevent drug trafficking, lt deals with the problem specifically. As I have said, there may be specific amendments which can be dealt with later. One would hope that this Bill could proceed as fast as possible without amendment. Honourable senators are aware that the other House has risen and, therefore, any delay in this matter is a delay in getting down to grips with the problem with which this Bill proposes to deal.

Senator Georges:

– Oh, come now.

Senator COTTON:

– I think the honourable senator was heard in reasonably respectful silence. It is not unusual for one to be interrupted, but I am just making some quiet observations and I think it would be gracious of the honourable senator to let me continue. There is a problem in getting this Bill into effect and I think we ought to be able to look at the problem dispassionately. Senator Cavanagh dealt with alcohol and cigarettes, and he put up the proposition that it is ludicrous to attack drug abuse and ignore alcohol and cigarettes. I will not start an argument this afternoon about the relative merits or demerits of. these various things but I do say that this Bill proposes to deal with drugs as such. They pose a major national hazard. Why should we not begin to attack that hazard? That is what the Bill proposes to do. Senator Cavanagh also dealt with overprescribing and the making available of certain drugs without prescription. He also referred to advertising. These are certainly problems worthy of consideration, but they are health problems. They do not involve the illicit trafficking in drugs with which this Bill proposes to deal. Senator Georges is concerned that this matter is being brought into the Senate prior to the debate on the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. The Bill really deals with one aspect of that Senate Committee’s report - the penalty situation. Penalty levels are agreed between Commonwealth and State Ministers. Later the provisions could change. But there is a need to act, and that is what this Bill is about. This is a proposal to act.

Senator Georges referred to the powers of Customs officers. This matter is the subject of specific amendment. Therefore, I imagine that it is more appropriate that it be discussed at the Committee stage. The honourable senator also referred to marihuana. Some people say that marihuana is dangerous; some say that it is not dangerous. Whose view do we accept? The Government accepts the view of the World Health Organisation and the United Nations that this drug should be controlled. The Government will maintain this view unless research - positive research, not just opinion - demonstrates that this drug is not dangerous. AsI observed at the beginning of my speech, a series of amendments will be moved at the Committee stage.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Anderson, I understand that you have a matter to raise with me before the Senate goes into Committee.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I ask leave to make a statement for about 2 minutes before we go into Committee on this Bill. J think that everybody is entitled to know what I have to say.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– We are debating the last Bill and we are all booked to go back to our various homes on aircraft at 5.20 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. If we miss thoseflights we cannot get on other aircraft because they are booked out. It will be even difficult to do so tomorrow. If we want to complete this Bill and finish the session we will have to stop at 4.35 p.m. I would need 5 minutes to carry out certain procedures in the Senate before we lifted at 4.40 p.m. If we cannot do that, we will report progress at 4.35 p.m. and I will move a motion that the Senate resume on Monday at 2 p.m.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses1 to 7 - by leave - taken together.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I desire to move an amendment to clause 2 which reads, in part:

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of “Narcotic drug” and inserting in its stead the following definitions: - “ ‘Narcotic goods’ means goods that consist of a narcotic substance.

Narcotic substance’ means a substance or thing the name of which is specified in column1 of Schedule VI. to this Act or any other substance or thing for the time being declared by the regulations to be a narcotic substance.”;

I move:

At the end of the definition of ‘Narcotic substances’ add: ‘and, for the purposes of this Act, includes a substance or thing the name of which is specified in column 1 of Schedule VII to this Act.’

I might say in passing that what the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has just told us he tells us at the end of every session when important Bills are coming down. His concern for the drug problem and the health of the community is such that the catching of a plane is more important than the welfare of those who are dependent upon drugs today. I shall attempt to be as brief as possible, but on no occasion would I be so brief that for the sake of catching a plane I would neglect my responsibility to move this amendment.

It has been a matter of concern for a long time to those who use certain substances which are not narcotics that these substances have been grouped with narcotics. The word ‘narcotics’ seems to convey the impression of a most harmful drug. Those who smoke marihuana, for instance, and find that it has no immediate harmful effects, then think that all the propaganda about narcotics is valueless and that false tales have been told. In that case they find it easy to go onto heroin. There should be some distinction between narcotic drugs and non-narcotic drugs. A person would not expect one drug to be similar to another if it were being sold under a different brand name. Nowhere do we seek to make a distinction between the penalty for using marihuana and the penalty for using some other drug; nor do we imply any approval of marihuana.

The Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse found that noone really knows what the dangers of smoking marihuana are. For this reason it would be an act of irresponsibility for anyone to advocate the smoking of marihuana. There is nothing in the legislation to show the person who experiments with marihuana that, although it apparently did no harm, the use of other drugs could have harmful effects. It is for this reason that we seek to extend the definition of ‘narcotic substance’ to include a substance or thing the name of which is specified in column 1 of Schedule VII to the Act. We do not say whether a particular substance is a narcotic or anything else.

Amendment negatived.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– My second amendment refers to clause 7, which reads in part:

Section 233b of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.), after the word “applies”, the words “or exports, or attempts to export, from Australia any prohibited exports to which this section applies”;

by inserting after paragraph (c) of subsection (1.) the following paragraph: - “(ca) without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him) has in his possession any prohibited imports to which this section applies which arc reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act; or”.

I move:

Leave out paragraph (b).

Clause 7 is important in that it deals with onus of proof. The paragraph which we seek to delete reads:

  1. by inserting after paragraph (c) of subsection (1.) the following paragraph: - (ca) without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him) has in his possession any prohibited imports to which this section applies which are reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia in contravention of this Act, or’:

This provision which we seek to leave out would give the Commonwealth a power which constitutionally it is not capable of having. It would have the power by declaration to say that practically anything was an import. The responsibility would then lie on the person who was charged to prove that the substance was not an imported drug, and he would have to satisfy a court in order to escape this provision.

This is not only a matter of whether a person has an excuse for having a substance in his possession; it reverses the onus of proof. Moreover, as Senator Georges has said, the provision would give to officials of the Department of Customs and Excise a right of entry and arrest and enable them to seize goods merely because of a declaration that they were imported goods. It would be left to the person having them in his possession to prove that they were not imported goods. Every law enforcement officer who came before the Senate Select Committee said that such a power would strengthen their hands and enable them to take action. But if action cannot be taken under this measure by dealing with a substance as a prohibited import, it can be taken under one of the health Acts or the health regulations, in which case a person could be charged with being in possession of a substance which is a narcotic or prohibited drug. So although a power for the officers to act may not come from the Customs Act, there is still power under other legislation to act on every occasion. But now Customs officials want a right in an area where the Commonwealth has no constitutional right at present.

The provision in the Bill is a breach of civil liberties; it is a breach of the rights of individuals. The responsibility to prove a matter must lie with the prosecutor. It would be much easier to secure a murder conviction if the person charged were required to prove that he was innocent. Vet that is virtually what this provision seeks to do. We do not make laws for the purpose of getting convictions but to dispense justice.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Apart from the objection outlined by Senator Cavanagh about the reversal of the onus of proof by means of this alteration of the law, there is also a difficulty which probably was not foreseen by the draftsman of this clause. It is that this clause is thrown into considerable doubt from a constitutional point of view. If the Government is relying on the customs power the offence created is that of importing these objectionable substances. If they are not imported the customs power is of no avail. The Bill refers to prohibited imports which are reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia. Either they are imported or they are not imported. If they are imported power exists under the customs power; if they are not imported this power does not exist and it is necessary to look to some other power.

Somebody taking this point might be able to establish that if charged under this section the section was ultra vires and the prosecution would fail. Of course our main objection is that the general principle should be maintained that the more serious the offence the greater is the onus of proof on the prosecution. In this case that principle has been reversed and it will not be necessary under this provision for the prosecution to prove that the objectionable substance has been imported but merely to create a satisfaction in the minds of the tribunal that there is a reasonable suspicion. We say that is not good enough when the penalties are as heavy as they will be, going up to as much as 10 years gaol. For that reason we move that this clause be omitted.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses agreed to.

Senator Murphy:

– Could it be recorded that all the Opposition senators voted for these propositions and that they were not supported from any other quarter?

Senator Cotton:

– MayI say that that is a sensible way to go on if people wish to avail themselves of a chance to get aircraft.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I move:

Amendment negatived.

Senator Murphy:

– Can it again be recorded that all Opposition senators and only Opposition senators voted for the amendment moved by Senator Cavanagh?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse)There being no objection, that Will be done.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2733

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1971-72

page 2733

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth

Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That questions on notice be incorporated in Hansard.

page 2733

QUESTION

JARDINE WATER SUPPLY

(Question No. 1337)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What was the total cost of the Jardine Water Scheme on Cape York Peninsula.
  2. Were the waters of the Jardine River harnessed primarily for irrigation projects.
  3. Has the only use made of the scheme to date been the provision of water to a few houses at Bamaga.
  4. Arc the occupants of the houses to which the water has been connected non-white or are they white officials, and how many houses have been connected to the water supply.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question. The following information has been supplied by the Queensland Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs:

  1. It is expected that with reticulation mains, etc., the total cost will reach $500,000.
  2. They were harnessed for irrigation purposes, to alleviate household needs of all residents on the Northern Peninsula ‘Reserve Area, and to provide stock watering points.
  3. No, as well as augmenting domestic water supplies for the Bamaga residential complex which includes both the administration and the residents’ area it provides irrigation waters and stock watering points.
  4. The Queensland Government does not identify Public Servants and Crown employees by race and there is no record to indicate whether officials are white or non-white, but purely from some personal knowledge it is known that some Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines are within the Public Service/Crown employees Staff establishment at Bamaga.

Information sought relative to houses connected to the domestic water supply is:

page 2733

QUESTION

MINING

(Question No. 1415)

Senator BONNER:

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

  1. Why have invitations been extended to mining interests, generally, for the mining of bauxite in the Arnhem Land Reserve at Manchester Island, in view of the Prime Minister’s announcement on 6th May 1971 that Aborigines would be given reasonable preference in regard to mineral prospecting.
  2. Would it have been more in keeping with the Government’s policy to offer the Aborigines of Elcho Island and Yirrkala, some of whom were born on Manchester Island and consider it their clan territory, the first opportunity to form a company to develop the bauxite deposits.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) In response to many enquiries by mining interests proposals were invited for the further exploration and developments of the bauxite deposits on Marchinbar Island (not Manchester Island). Eligibility to apply is not restricted’ to mining interests and applications could be in partnership with Aboriginal groups.

A document issued with the press announcement of 12th September 1971 on the subject indicated that a particular consideration in assessing the suitability of applicants would be an applicant’s preparedness to respect the rights of Aborigines on the island and a willingness to provide Aborigines with tangible economic benefits from mining development. The document indicated also that the Government reserved the right not to grant prospecting rights after considering the proposals submitted.

page 2733

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 1428)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the town of Roma in Queensland becoming a ghost town because of the wool crisis, and are forty Postmaster-General’s Department employees about to be transferred as a result; if so, will this action virtually bankrupt almost every small businessman in Roma.
  2. Will the Postmaster-General take immediate steps to cancel the transfers and thus eliminate hardships for the employees, and ensure that the town of Roma does not completely decline.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. It is not certain that any staff will be transferred from Roma. The relative merits of the initially nominated and possible alternative centres for Area Headquarters in each Management Area are to be studied personally by the new Area Managers immediately after they have taken up duty, probably by about mid- 1972. It is expected that a final selection of the centres to become Area Headquarters will be made either late in 1972 or early in 1973.

On 26th October, 1971, an important change to the original Area Management scheme was announced. One of the results of this change is that approximately two-thirds of district staff that was proposed to be transferred or moved by promotion or otherwise will remain at their present locations. This will very substantially reduce the possibility that a centre not chosen as the Area Management Headquarters would be adversely affected to any great extent. If Roma is not chosen as Area Headquarters it is likely that only about eight or nine positions would be transferred from there to the selected Headquarters. It is emphasised that no significant changes will be introduced before 1973 and that they will be gradual and spread over a number of years.

  1. See answer to (1).

page 2734

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1445)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Acting

Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Were any prospective French immigrants denied entry to Australia during the past 5 years because of previous association with the French secret army organisation (OAS).

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

There is no record of any French immigrant having been denied entry to Australia during the past 5 years because of previous association with the French organisation OAS.

page 2734

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1446)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

How many prospective Greek immigrants have had their applications for entry, to Australia rejected during the past 5 years due to the refusal of the Greek Government to permit their departure?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The Department has rejected no applications by prospective Greek immigrants for entry to Australia during the past 5 years due to the refusal of the Greek Government to permit departure.

Nor has the Department any record of any specific case during the past 5 years where a prospective Greek immigrant who had been provisionally approved for migration to Australia has subsequently been unable to proceed with his migration plans due to the refusal of the Greek Government to permit departure.

However, in Greece as in other countries, there is a proportion of applicants who do not pursue their applications beyond the provisional approval stage. Their reasons generally are not indicated but those who communicate further with the Migration Office usually state only that they, have decided not to proceed with their emigration plans.

page 2734

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 1459)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware of Press reports that the Australian Wool Commission’s stock-piling of wool through its reserve price policy has led to speculation that a policy change is likely in the near future.
  2. Is it true that, if the Commission continues to buy wool at its present rate, the stock-pile could reach l.5 million bales, worth almost $150m, by the end of the current selling season.
  3. As the Commission has already spent $13.4m on wool purchases, has the Government any ceiling above which the Commission cannot go or is the taxpayer to face the prospect of an endless pay-out to support the wool industry.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I am not aware of the particular Press reports to which the honourable senator refers. Speculation in the Press about the Australian Wool Commission’s policies has been frequent and largely inaccurate virtually, since the Commission was established in November 1970. The Commission’s current firm reserve price policy was announced by the Acting Chairman of the Commission before the beginning of the present woolselling season and has the support of the Government. Indeed the Treasurer stated very recently in his Second Reading Speech on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1971-72 that the Government had decided after a review of the wool market situation that the best course of action in present circumstances was for the Commission to maintain its current reserve prices.

  1. Because of the variety of unpredictable factors which influence the wool market it is not possible to forecast with accuracy what the level of stocks held by the Commission might be at the end of the current selling season.
  2. The Government has placed no fixed ceiling on the amount of wool that may be purchased by the Commission. There are, however, continuing and frequent consultations between the Commission and the Government on the policies followed by the Commission.

page 2735

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 1492)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the Telecommunications Division of the Australian Post Office circulated a notice advising that the residence telephone number of Mr L. F. McGinty, M.L.A., New South Wales, was omitted from the latest Sydney Telephone Directory; if so:

  1. how many notices were sent out, and how many of these notices were sent to persons outside the State Electoral Division of Willoughby;
  2. what was the estimated cost of this operation;
  3. for how many other persons has this type of service been performed with respect to the last Sydney telephone directory; and
  4. what was the number of reported omissions of subscriber entries from the last Sydney telephone directory.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Yes. The action taken was in line with the practice followed by the Post Office of endeavouring to minimise the inconvenience caused by errors in the directory. The extent to which subscribers can be assisted in this regard depends on the nature of the error and its effect on the subscriber and telephone callers generally.

Twenty-three thousand six hundred cards were delivered to households in Mr McGinty’s electorate by postmen during their normal letter delivery duties. The Post Office did not deliver cards outside the electorate but about50 cards were given to Mr McGinty for his personal use.

$264.

Varying numbers of cards were supplied to 25 other subscribers for delivery to their clients.

One hundred and forty-five entries were partly or wholly omitted.

page 2735

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT: TRANSFERS

(Question No. 1503)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

What is the approximate annual value of wages and salaries that will be lost to the town of Roma by the transfer of Postmaster-General’s staff to Toowoomba.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

As explained in reply to a previous question by the honourable senator it is not certain that any staff will be transferred from Roma. The relative merits of the initially nominated and possible alternative centres for area headquarters in each management area are to be studied personally by the new area managers immediately after they have taken up duty, probably by about mid-1972. It is expected that a final selection of the centres to become area headquarters will be made either later in 1972 or early in 1973. If Roma is not chosen the total annual value of wages and salaries of the eight or nine positions likely to be transferred would reach between $40,000 and $50,000 when all of the transfers had been effected. It is emphasised that no significant changes will be introduced before 1973 and that they will be gradual and spread over a number of years.

page 2735

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT: TRANSFERS

(Question No. 1504)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Which Departments in the Post Office at Roma will be depleted by transfers under the reorganisation of the Postmaster-General’s Department.
  2. What final savings will be effected by the Postmaster-General’s Department from the transfer of its staff from Roma to Toowoomba.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. As explained in reply to a previous question by the honourable senator, it is not certain that any staff will be transferred from Roma. The relative merits of the initially nominated and possible alternative centres for area headquarters in each management area are to be personally studied by the new area managers immediately after they have taken up duty, probably by about mid- 1972. It is expected that final selection of the centres to become area headquarters will be made either late in 1972 or early in 1973. If Roma is not chosen, ft will be slightly affected by the transfer of some positions from the divisional engineer’s office and from the district telephone office.
  2. While it is not yet practicable to estimate the savings at individual centres, the overall effects of introducing area management are likely to lead, after several years of operation, to financial benefits estimated at about $10m per annum.

page 2736

QUESTION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: ROMA

(Question No. 1506)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

As it is apparent that the Telecommunications Section of the Postmaster-General’s Department at Roma has been operating efficiently, what actual improvements are likely to be effected by the transfer of Postmaster-General’s Department staff from the central district of Roma to the extreme Eastern Depot of the Postal district of Toowoomba.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

As explained in the replies to previous questions on the same general subject by the honourable senator, it is not certain that any staff will be transferred from Roma because a final selection of the centre to become the headquarters of the management area concerned is not expected to be made until either late in 1972 or early in 1973. The relative merits of the initially nominated and possible alternative centres for area headquarters in each management area are to be studied personally by the new area managers immediately after they have taken up duty, probably by about mid 1972.

If Roma is not chosen as area headquarters, it is likely that only about eight or nine positions will be transferred to the selected headquarters. The transfer of these positions, the duties of which are of an administrative nature, will not adversely affect the efficiency of the Department’s operations or the quality of the service available in the Roma district in any way. All district technicians, lines staff, telephone service operating staff and customer advisory personnel will be retained at existing locations.

Area management is designed to improve the quality of the telephone service to customers by providing unified control of engineering, telecommunications and associated administrative functions at area level and a more effective and business-like basis for our telecommunications operations.

In brief, area management has a number of advantages over the existing form of organisation. These include:

It shortens lines of control and decentralises authority from capital cities to provincial and country centres.

It will permit a faster and more effiective implementation of Post Office policies adapted to local conditions.

It will lead, after several years, to estimated financial benefits totalling about $10m per annum.

It replaces a large monolithinc structure with a relatively small number of manageable business units.

It provides for a clear placement of responsibility and accountability.

It will allow more economic operations through closer management and the amalgamation of functions now spread over engineering, telecommunications and other functional areas.

It will enable greater utilisation of State Headquarters staff in establishing policies, standards and guidelines.

It will facilitate the development of better customer relations.

It will provide better prospects for staff and greater job satisfaction.

It will facilitate discussion on industrial matters between area staff and management while retaining ready access to management at State and Commonwealth Headquarters.

page 2736

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

(Question No. 1507)

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Attorney-

General the following question, upon notice:

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware that the New South Wales Government, in its 1970-1971 Budget Accounts, has used Commonwealth financial assistance to meet an approximate $36m deficit.
  2. Is this action reported to be in conflict with the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1970 which provides that Commonwealth funds should be applied for the purpose of financial assistance in connection with expenditure of a capital nature.
  3. Is the action of the New South Wales Treasurer in direct contradiction to the tradition and spirit of Commonwealth assistance to the States, and does it establish a dangerous precedent for the future of Commonwealth funds.
  4. Will the Attorney-General examine the procedures adopted by the New South Wales Premier to see whether the New South Wales Government is in breach of Commonwealth law, and advise what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to ensure compliance with the law by the New South Wales Government.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows - part (3) of the answer has been supplied by the Treasurer:

  1. In 1970-71 $63,610,000 was paid to New South Wales under the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1970. Of this amount, the State Government paid $47,707,000 into its General Loan Account and $15,903,000 into its Consolidated Revenue Fund. The effect of the latter allocation was to reduce what would have been a deficit of $22,201,071 in that Fund for 1970-71 to a deficit of $6,298,071, and to reduce what would have been a combined deficit in 1970-71 of $23,287,874 in the four accounts which are regarded as making up the State’s revenue budget to a deficit of $7,384,874.

The figure of $36m referred to in the question appears to be a hypothetical calculation of what the deficit in the State’s Consolidated Revenue Fund would have been in 1970-71 on the assumptions that the amount of $15,903,000 hadnot been paid into that Fund, that the Commonwealth had not paid the State the amount of special additional revenue assistance of $14,140,292 payable to it under the section 6 (3) of the States Grants Act 1970-1971, and that other receipts into that Fund, and expenditures from it, had been unchanged.

  1. There have been claims to that effect made in the New South Wales Parliament and in articles in the press.
  2. The grants in question are being paid as part of the revised revenue assistance arrangements between the Commonwealth and ‘he States settled at the June 1970 Premiers’ Conference to apply over the five years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The purpose of the grants is to replace what otherwise would be Slate borrowings and thus to relieve the Slates’ revenue budgets of the interest and sinking fund payments that would have been due on those borrowings. The States have always been free to use the proceeds of their loan raisings for whatever purposes they wish. The great bulk of their loan raisings have in practice been used to finance capital works from the States’ loan funds but the States have, from time to time, allocated part of their borrowings to reduce or to eliminate deficits incurred in their revenue accounts. There are specific provisions in the Financial Agreement relating to the use of loan funds for this purpose.

The Commonwealth, in deciding to make these grants in lieu of State loan raisings, took the view that the Slates should remain free to spend the funds as they decided themselves. This was made clear by the then Prime Minister in his opening speech at the June 1970 Premiers’ Conference when he stated:

As the primary purpose of the grant will be to relieve the burden of debt charges on nonrevenue producing capital expenditure, it will be designed to help finance expenditure on capital works and services from which debt charges are not recouped, such as schools, police buildings and the like. However, while we would appreciate from you an informal assurance that the funds will be used in this way - that is, for non-recoupable purposes - there will be no specific or legal conditions attached to the expenditure of the grant.’

In a document circulated by the then Prime Minister at the conclusion of the Conference summarising the arrangements that had been settled upon, it was again stated that the grants ‘will be non-specific but will be regarded as a contribution towards non-revenue producing capital works expenditure by the States’.

Consistent with these statements of the Government’s intention in this matter, the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1970 was drafted in such a way that, while the general purposeof the grants was stated in the Act (namely ‘to grant financial assistance to the States in connection with expenditure of a capital nature’), it did not have the effect of restricting the States in the way they used the grants. (See answer below to part (4) of the question.)

Apart from the deficit funding procedure already referred to, there are some expenditures from the State’s Consolidated Revenue Fund which could be regarded as being of a capital nature, although the great bulk of expenditures from that Fund are of a recurrent nature.

Thus, the action of the New South Wales Government in using part of the grants paid to it under the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1970 in aid of its Consolidated Revenue Fund was not ‘in direct contradiction to the tradition and spirit of Commonwealth assistance to the States’. Nor does the Government consider that it in any way establishes ‘a dangerous precedent for the future of Commonwealth funds’.

  1. I am satisfied that there is no breach of any Commonwealth law in the action taken by the New South Wales Government.

page 2737

QUESTION

TELEPHONES

(Question No. 1531)

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Will the Postmaster-General lower telephone tariffs in the Hobart telephone district, in view of the small number of telephone services within 150 miles of Hobart and the fact that a large percentage of calls are made through subscriber trunk dialling?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General also consider a re-adjustment of trunk line charges between Tasmania and the mainland, so that Tasmania is not further disadvantaged by its separation from the mainland?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. There are 3 rental charge categories in operation in Australia and these are defined by Regulation as covering:

Class I - Continuous service exchanges in State capital city, Canberra and Newcastle local call areas;

Class II - Continuous service exchanges other than Class I or Class III in local call areas with more than 2,000 lines; Class III- Continuous service exchanges in local call areas with up to 2,000 lines and all non-continuous service exchanges.

Because of its capital city status, Hobart is appropriately included in the Class I rental category and, under present legislation, could not be placed in any other category.

  1. Trunk call charges are related to distance. There are seven charging steps which apply uniformly throughout the Commonwealth, irrespective of whether calls are operator connected or subscriber dialled. Any departure from this principle of uniform application in favour of a reduced rate for calls between Tasmania and the mainland would introduce serious anomalies. It is not practicable, therefore, to accede to the request of the honourable senator.

page 2738

QUESTION

HEALTH: PENSIONS AND EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 1540)

SenatorWILLESEE asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Have applicants for invalid pensions been wrongly refused pensions on health grounds.

Have some applicants for jobs in the Commonwealth Public Service been rejected because of faulty examinations by the Department of Health.

Has a senior officer in the New South Wales Branch of the Department of Health circulated a memorandum outlining revised procedures to prevent the recurrence of these errors.

What action has the Department of Health taken to assist persons who have been wrongly denied pensions or employment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Assessments of ineligibility for invalid pension by medical officers of the New South Wales Divisional Office of the Department of Health have been reversed on 2 occasions in recent months.

My Department has no knowledge of any case in which an applicant has been refused employment in the Commonwealth Public Service on the basis of an incorrect medical assessment.

An internal instruction directed towards ensuring correct and uniform medical assessments was recently issued by the Commonwealth Director of Health, New South Wales.

My Department is always willing to review a medical assessment for pension or employment purposes. However, it has no knowledge of any case in which such areview is presently warranted.

J. MORAN MANAGEMENTS PTY LTD

(Question No. 1547)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What has been the total amount paid to D. J. Moran Managements Pty Ltd, in each of the past 3 years, for each of the classes of Commonwealth benefits payable in respect of patients in nursing homes operated by the Company.
  2. On behalf of what number in each class of patients in the Company’s nursing homes were Commonwealth benefits paid in each of the past 3 years.
  3. What was the gross and net profit of the Company in each of the past 3 years.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. and (2) The extent to which D. J. Moran Managements Pty Ltd operate or have interests in nursing homes approved under the National Health Act for the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefit is not know within my Department. However, it should be noted that the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefit is made direct to, and in the name of, the approved nursing home on condition that an amount equal to the benefit is deducted from the patient’s account.
  2. This information is not available within my Department. However, I understand that, under the New South Wales Companies Act and upon payment of a prescribed fee, the information could be obtained by inspecting relevant documents filed or lodged with the New South Wales Registrar of Companies.

page 2738

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE

(Question No. 1578)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the AttorneyGeneral the following question, upon notice:

  1. Why has the Attorney-General refused to appoint an extra magistrate to the top-end of the Northern Territory.
  2. How many magistrates are there in the Northern Territory, and what is the. back-log of cases.
  3. How many magistrates are there in the Australian Capital Territory, and what is the back-log of cases. (4)What inconveniences are encountered by Northern Territory magistrates in the course of their duties in comparision with magistrates in the Australian Capital Territory.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There are 3 stipendiary Magistrates in the Northern Territory. It is difficult to state what is a ‘back-log of cases’ in a court of summary jurisdiction exercising both civil and criminal jurisdiction, but an indication is that cases involving pleas of ‘not guilty’ to traffic charges taken today (9th December) in Darwin are being adjourned to 15th February for hearing. Defended cases at Gove are being adjourned for a similar period. The question has been raised whether an additional Magistrate should be appointed having regard to the requirements of outlying places, such as Gove and Groote Island, and is under examination in my Department.
  2. There are 3 Stipendiary Magistrates in the Australian Capital Territory. Cases involving pleas of ‘not guilty’ in traffic cases taken today are being adjourned to 23rd March 1872 for hearing. The question whether there is a need for an additional magistrate is under examination in my Department
  3. Generally speaking, those that arise from the geographic and climatic differences between the 2 Territories.

page 2739

QUESTION

HOUSING

(Question No. 1594)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. How does the Government expect young couples to afford to build a home while land costs and mortgage interest rates are increasing.
  2. Did a recent study by Dr Max Neutze of the Australian National University show that in Sydney the housing component of the consumer price index rose by 79 per cent between 1952-53 and 1966-67, while the ‘all groups’ component of the index rose by only 39 per cent in the same period.
  3. Did Dr Neutze also find that the cost of home purchase in Australia in the post-war period has risen faster than average earnings, with earnings rising by 106 per cent while the average cost of homes has risen by 200 per cent during the period mentioned.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. There is evidence, from Home Savings Grant statistics, that increasing numbers of young couples are able to obtain homes of their own. The number of Home Savings Grants paid in 1970-71, 34,524, was 20 per cent higher than the number paid in 1969-70; and the number paid in the September quarter of 1971, 11,456, was 41 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of 1970.
  2. The figures quoted by Dr Neutze are weighted averages for the six State capital cities.
  3. Dr Neutze’s paper quoted figures for average weekly earnings per employed male unit which increased between 1952-53 and 1966-67 by about 106 per cent. The index of housing costs prepared by Dr Neutze, in the form of a simple average of the costs at which houses have been sold in four study areas in Sydney, does not purport to measure the average cost at which houses were acquired by all home seekers during the period concerned.

page 2739

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1601)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many Irish migrants entered Australia in the quarter ended 30th September 1971, in the categories listed in the answer to Senate Question on Notice No. 874 of 18th February 1971.
  2. How many applications from prospective Irish migrants were rejected in each of the quarters ended 31st December 1970, 3 1st March 1971, 30th June 1971, and 30th September 1971, and what were the reasons for such rejections.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Statistics are not yet available from the Commonwealth Statistician for the quarter ended 30th September 1971, to show the country of last residence of persons arriving for permanent and long-term residence in Australia. The information will be provided when it becomes available.
  2. Statistics on rejected assisted passage applications for people of Irish nationality are not recorded separately.

However, the following statistics show the number of rejections of persons resident in the Republic of Ireland (including residents of Ireland who are not of Irish nationality) who lodged applications for assisted passages to Australia.

page 2739

QUESTION

ROYAL RESIDENCE

(Question No. 1606)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Government given any indication that it intends to offer to Her Majesty, the Queen, a permanent royal residence near Canberra.
  2. Did a spokesman for the Prime Minister refuse to deny the possibility of this offer being made.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. I am informed that the answer is - No; the possibility of such an offer being made was denied.

page 2739

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1621)

Senator GEORGES:

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

Will the Territory of Papua New Guinea security and intelligence service maintain surveillance of elected members of the Territory House of Assembly and of members of the Mataungan Association.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

There is a standing Commonwealth practice that the Minister responsible for the security service does not in general give information, either in confirmation or denial of statements made concerning the activities of that service. I consider that it is appropriate that this same general practice apply in respect of the Papua New Guinea security and intelligence organisation and, in line with this, that information should not be given as to who will or will not be under surveillance.

page 2740

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1622)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. What public political education has the Minister directed to be implemented in the Territory of Papua New Guinea in order to enable the people of the Territory to choose, intelligently, their own political structure.
  2. Does such education include the sympathetic presentation of the principles of socialism; if not, why.
  3. Does the Mataungan Association reject the capitalist, free enterprise system as unsuitable for the emerging nation of Papua New Guinea; if so. is this the reason for the Administration’s punitive actions against the Association.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The political education programme which is being undertaken in Papua New Guinea togetherwith the current affairs content of school syllabuses and the less formal political education given through institutions such as the House of Assembly and Local Government Councils and through the work of such bodies as Select Committees on. Constitutional Development, provide to the people of Papua New Guinea information concerning the nature of government and the systems prevailing throughout the world.It is aimed at helping them to come to their own conclusions as to the form of government they wish to choose for Papua New Guinea.
  2. The Mataungan Association has not to my knowledge published an explicit statement of its political philosophy in relation to the various systems to which this Question refers.

The Papua New Guinea Administration has never taken any action against the Mataungan Association or its members on the grounds of the Association’s political views. The Administration has the primary responsibility of ensuring the peace, order and good government of the country. It therefore has the duly to apprehend and bring before the courts any persons who breakthe laws of Papua New Guinea.

page 2740

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1628)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

  1. Is the microwave equipment mentioned in the answer to Senate Question No. 1215 required for the final first-class, multi-purpose channel which the Postmaster-General’s Department intends installing with repeaters at Narromine, Trangie, Warren, Nyngan and Cobar?
  2. In the case of Nyngan, would it be possible to receive the signal ‘off air’, as the local commercial station is now doing, and retransmit locally, and is the equipment required for this relatively simple and available?
  3. When the Dubbo station first came on air, was this done by the use of some portable equipment receiving the signal ‘off air’ near Dubbo and re-transmitting microwave to the main transmitter in the Warmmbungle Ranges; if so, will the PostmasterGeneral’s Department consider the temporary installation of this system for both Nyngan and Cobar pending the availability of the microwave link equipment from overseas?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The microwave equipment mentioned in the answer to SenateQuestion No. 1215 is required to provide a combined trunk telephone and television relay from Dubbo to Nyngan and Cobar. The microwave system will employ new repeater stations at Kookaburra (near Narromine), Trangie, Warren, Mullengudgery, Nyngan, Nardoo, Mount Boppy and Cobar and is designed to provide a high standard of transmission, suitable for long distance trunk telephony.
  2. No. Tests conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board have proved that it is not possible to receive a sufficiently high quality signal ‘off air’ at Nyngan from the national television transmitter in the Warrumbugle Ranges, due to the poorer radio-wave propagation on the national channel relative to the commercial channel. Accordingly, it is necessary to use the microwave relay referred to in part (1) of this question.
  3. Yes. The Dubbo station was brought into service with the programme derived from an ‘off air’ pick up, together with a temporary microwave relay formed from portable equipment which was available at that time. The portable equipment has been used for other purposes and could not be replaced quickly. Further, the permanent equipment has now been shipped. Nevertheless, since the television equipment has been installed at Nyngan, an investigation will be made to establish whether a temporary though substandard service can be provided to this community, by ‘off air’ pick-up of the weak signal at the transmitter site, pending the completion of the permanent microwave relay. The outcome of the investigation will be advised in a further reply.

page 2741

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1668)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. What facilities are available in Australia for the training of young men who are keen to work in the maritime industry as deck officers, cadet marine engineers, ship’s cooks, stewards and seamen.
  2. Has the Marine Cooks. Bakers and Butchers’ Association of Australasia made representations to the Minister that the Department of Shipping and Transport should consider purchasing the M.V. ‘Koojarra’ for the purpose of making it a training ship for all personnel connected with the Australian merchant fleet; if so, what decision has been arrived at on this matter.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. At present facilities available for training for work at sea arc as follows:

Deck Officers

Courses up to the grade of Master Foreigngoing are available at -

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Sydney Technical College

Newcastle Technical College.

Special residential courses are operated by Sydney Technical College for ANL cadets. These courses are available to other cadets on non-rcsidential basis.

Cadet Marine Engineers

A 4 year part-time course for a Certificate of Marine Engineering Technology is available at Newcastle and Sydney Technical Colleges for engineering apprentices.

A 4 year integrated course for cadet engineers is operated by one shipping company in conjunction with the Footscray Institute of Technology.

Ship’s Cooks

No specific courses are available for ship’s cooks. However, full time trade courses in cookery are operated by William Angliss Food Trades School in Melbourne and the Sydney Technical College.

Stewards and Seamen

No specific courses are available for stewards or senior ratings. However, a 6 weeks pre-sea training course for deck boys and engine-room juniors is provided by the industry in collaboration with Newcastle Technical College.

  1. Yes. The question of a marine training centre needs to be considered within the context a broader discussion on the fundamentals of what training is needed for work at sea in the future.

This basic examination, whichi s proceeding at the present time, is necessary before views can be properly considered on some of the practical aspects, such as whether a training centre, if there is to be one, should be set up on land or on board a ship specially equipped for the purpose.

page 2741

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1671)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

Who are the directors and principle shareholders of Group Television Services Pty Ltd which will operate on behalf of the commercial television stations at Mount Isa, Kalgoorlie and Darwin in such areas as programme purchases, programme preparations and sales representation?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The directors and principal shareholders of Group Television Services Pty Ltd are:

Directors -

S. Lilburn (Chairman and Managing)

A. Becker

W. Reaney

A. Dickson

H. Smith

R. Clarke

Principal Shareholders (more than 5 per cent)

page 2741

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

(Question No. 1 67 3)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Did the Postmaster-General state on 8th April 1970 that the availability to the public of records of matters broadcast and televised would be re-examined having regard to requests that are made to him and to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board by persons or their legal representatives?
  2. Why is the re-examination taking so long, and when will a statement be made to Parliament on the matter?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer tothe honourable senator’s questions:

  1. In the Senate, on 8th April 1970, in answer to questions raised by Senators McClelland and Mulvihill about this subject, I provided the following information:

Section 117a of the Broadcasting and Television Act provides that station operators must retain for a period of six weeks a record of matter broadcast or televised on a political subject or on current affairs which is in the form of news, an address, a statement, a commentary or a discussion. The section further provides that if a person who considers that such a record may be admissible in evidence in legal proceedings instituted or contemplated, he may serve a notice on the station that it may, be required for that purpose in which case the station must retain the record until the proceedings are determined or for three months if by that time proceedings are not instituted. If the appropriate notice has been given, it is then open to the person concerned to institute legal proceedings for the disclosure of the record. There are no other provisions in regard to the availability of records of matter broadcast to persons who may feel aggrieved thereby. The matter of the provisions of the Act on this subject has been the subject of the most careful consideration by the Government on a number of occasions and section 117a, which was inserted inthe Act in 1968, is the most recent outcome. The question of whether there should be some further provision has frequently been raised with me. As a result I recently put a reexamination of all aspects of the matter in hand.

  1. As indicated by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its Annual Report for the year ended 30th June 1971, the re-examination of the question of the availability of a record of a programme transmitted by a broadcasting or television station which is considered by a person or his legal representative to contain comments which are defamatory, is still proceeding. I am not in a position at this stage to indicate when a statement will be made to the Parliament on the matter.

page 2742

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

(Question No. 1675)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

  1. Who were the two directors of commercial broadcasting stations whose attention was drawn by, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to their holdings of directorships which placed them in contravention of the provisions of section 90f (1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1971?
  2. Which broadcasting stations were involved?
  3. Has action now been taken to correct this contravention?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Mr K. W. Tisdell and Mr D. E. H. Turnbull.
  2. Stations 2CA Canberra, 2GB Sydney, 2WL Wollongong, 2LF Young, 2NM Muswellbrook. 2NX Bolwarra, 3AW Melbourne, 3XY Melbourne, 4BH Brisbane and 5DN Adelaide in respect of Mr Tisdell, and 3AK Melbourne and 3XY Melbourne in respect of Mr Turnbull.
  3. Yes.

page 2742

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 1691)

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

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

How many copies of Sir Edwin McCarthy’s book ‘Joint Organisation 1945-1952’ does the Australian Wool Board possess.

Senator DRAKEBROCKMANThe Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Wool Board has 1,300 copies of Sir Edwin McCarthy’s book ‘Wool Disposals 1945-1952; The Joint Organisation’, being the bal- . ance remaining from the 2,000 copies originally printed.

page 2742

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

(Question No. 1696)

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Why has the telephone directory in Western Australia been divided into separate metropolitan and country issues.
  2. Are country, directories supplied to metropolitan telephone subscribers only upon application stating reasons which are acceptable to the Post Office.
  3. Will the Postmaster-General review the position in order to ensure that business firms receive all directories in each new issue.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The decision to restructure the Western Australia telephone directory was made as a result of a comprehensive review of telephone directory set-up and presentation which indicated that the areas covered by some directories were much larger than required to meet the needs of the great majority of users of the books and that regional telephone areas could be covered reasonably by directories of a more local character.
  2. Telephone directories covering other areas in Western Australia are made available to any subscriber who makes calls frequently into areas not covered by his local directory.
  3. No. If the Post Office were to issue to all business firms, as normal practice, a free copy of each telephone directory issued in Western Australia, it would defeat the purpose for which the new presentation methods have been adopted. However, such books will be made available to any, subscriber having a need for them.

page 2743

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ARBITRATION REPORTS

(Question No. 1702)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

Whose fault is it that the publication of the Commonwealth Arbitration Reports has been seriously in arrears for many years, and what corrective action is being taken by the Attorney-General?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my statement on this matter in Senate Estimates Committee B (Hansard, 2nd November 1971, page 273).

page 2743

QUESTION

COMPANIES: PYRAMID SELLING

(Question No. 1703)

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General seen a report that 43 present and former employees of a company which uses pyramid-selling have lost an amount of almost $100,000?
  2. Was the Attorney-General correctly quoted in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of 18th November 1971 as saying that he did not know whether the Commonwealth could do anything about pyramid selling?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. However, as the newspaper report indicated, I went on to say that the practice of pyramid selling was under consideration in my Department. Pyramid selling was discussed at the October meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General in Hobart and I then undertook to include a consideration of it in the review of the Trade Practices Act that the Government is at present undertaking.

page 2743

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FRUIT

(Question No. 1723)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. Did the State Fruit Board of Tasmania and fruitgrowers express their thanks to the Waterside Workers’ Federation for the expeditious way in which members of the Federation loaded the 1971 Tasmanian fruit crop.
  2. Were outstanding daily loading rates achieved by the waterside workers.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Yes. I am glad to say that the thanks of the State Fruit Board and of the Tasmanian fruitgrowers were expressed to the Waterside Workers’ Federation, whose members played a significant part in the export of an immense quantity of fruit from Tasmanian ports. The Federation, I believe, is aware of the importance of the export fruit in the Tasmanian economy, and of the dependence of growers on getting the fruit to market in a very limited period.
  2. Daily loading rates in southern Tasmanian ports were 15,156 bushels compared with 16,687 bushels in 1970. In northern Tasmanian ports the daily rates were 12,182 bushels compared with 11,748 bushels in 1970. The overall Australian average rate was 13,064 bushels. This was sufficient to attract a rebate on the freight rate of almost 7c per bushel for apples. The high rates achieved in southern Tasmania obviously lifted the Australian average, although the rates achieved there were some 1,500 bushels per day less than in 1970.

page 2743

QUESTION

FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE COUNCIL

(Question No. 1726)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:

  1. What is the membership and function of the Federal Health Insurance Council.
  2. Has a contributor to the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia or the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd access to the Minutes of an organisation such as the Council.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The Commonwealth Health Insurance Council consists of -

    1. The Director-General of Health as Chairman.
    2. A medical practitioner nominated by the Federal Council of the Australian Medical Association.
    3. Six representatives of the State Associations of Registered Health Benefits Organisations.
    4. Five other persons appointed by the Minister for Health.

The members of the Council are appointed by, the Minister for Health and hold office at his pleasure.

The functions of the Council, which is constituted under the National Health Act, are to advise the Minister for Health on matters relating to the Medical and Hospital Benefits schemes and to recommend means by which improvements in methods and standards may be effected.

  1. The minutes of the Council are confidential to the members.

page 2743

QUESTION

CHURCHILL SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 1728)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Were any of the Churchill Scholarships awarded in the past three years connected with conservation; if so, how many were there; if not, will this omission be rectified.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The administration of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust is not a Commonwealth responsibility. I am not aware of the basis on which the scholarships are awarded.

page 2744

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: CLUBS

(Question No. 1730)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What clubs in the Australian Capital Territory have been either allocated land or assisted with land tenure by the Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

A.C.T. Council of Race Clubs

A.C.T. Lawn Tennis Association

A.C.T. Sporting Shooters Association

Acton Football and Sports Club

Ainslie Football Club

Ainslie Tennis Club

Australian-Croation Club

Barton Tennis Club

Braddon Tennis Club

Campbell Tennis Club

Canberra Alpine Club

Canberra Anglers’ Club

Canberra Bowling Club

Canberra Club Limited

Canberra Croquet Club

Canberra Highland Society and Burns Club

Canberra Lakes Pony Club

Canberra Lithuanian-Australian Club

Canberra Motor Club

Canberra North Bowling Club

Canberra Pistol Club

Canberra Police-Citizens Boys’ Club

Canberra Polo Club

Canberra Riding Club

Canberra Rifle Club

Canberra South Bowling Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club Limited

Canberra Sporting Car Club

Canberra Tradesman’s Union Club

Canberra Valley Golf Club

Canberra West Bowling Club

Canberra Wine and Food Club

Canberra Women’s Bowling Club

Canberra Workman’s Club

Canberra Yacht Club

Croatia-Deakin Soccer Club

Dickson Tennis Club

Eastlake Football Club

Federal Golf Club

Finnish Australian Club Incorporated

Flinders Tennis Club

Forrest Tennis Club

Fyshwick Tennis Club

Harmonie German Club

Hungarian-Australian Club

Italo-Australian Club

Kingston-Narrabundah R.S.L. Club

Majura Tennis Club

Manuka Club Incorporated

Motor Cycle Club of Canberra Incorporated

Narellan Racquets Club

Narrabundah Tennis Club

North Canberra R.S.L. Memorial Club

North Woden Tennis Club

O’Connor Tennis Club

Polish Ex-serviceman’s Association

Red Hill Tennis Club

Reid Tennis Club

Royal Canberra Golf Club

Royals Polocrosse Club

R.S.L. of Australia - West Canberra Sub-branch

Rugby League Club of the A.C.T.

Slovenian-Australian Association

Spanish-Australian Club Incorporated

The Commonwealth Club

The Motor Cycle Sportsmen’s Club of the A.C.T.

The National Pistol and Miniature Rifle Club

The Rugby Union Club Incorporated

Turner Tennis Club

Western Districts Rugby Union Club

White Eagle Club

Woden Trandesmen’s Union Club

Woden Valley Club

Yarralumla Tennis Club

Y.M.C.A. Sailing Club

Yowani Golf Club

page 2744

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVY: EXMOUTH BASE

(Question No. 1734)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. For what reasons was Captain Cariker, the United Stales Commander of the Harold E. Holt base at Exmouth, recalled to the United Slates.
  2. Does the Government acquiesce in the request by Captain Cariker for President Nixon to institute an inquiry into the affairs at this base.
  3. Is the Government satisfied to leave any inquiries into events within Australian territory to the President of the United States, or does the Australian Government intend to inquire into this matter and the associated allegations.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

According to recent press reports, the US Navy has stated that Captain Cariker had been relieved of his command because his relations with Australians had become strained.

The Government regards such a request as entirely a matter for the US Government.

The operation of the station and the administration of US Navy personnel are matters for the US Navy. The Australian Government would require to be associated with any enquiry only, if breaches of Australian law were involved.

page 2745

QUESTION

MAIL DELIVERIES: NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 1735)

Senator McLAREN:

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

Will the Postmaster-General make special provision to ensure that all Northern Territory Christmas mail will be delivered on time, in view of the fact that Connair Pty Ltd is unable to cope with the increasing volume of parcel mail in its scheduled Arnhem Land flights.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

There have been no significant delays in the delivery of parcels in the Northern Territory in recent months and arrangements have been made for additional dispatches of surface mail to be conveyed by air to Darwin from southern and eastern States commencing 7th December. This special arrangement should ensure a smoother flow of surface mails to the Northern Territory and facilitate the distribution of Christmas mails.

page 2745

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHING VESSEL

(Question No. 1738)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Was the Taiwan fishing vessel ‘Kuang Nan’ recently apprehended in Australian proclaimed waters and the Master fined.
  2. Was the vessel’s cargo of 2.5 tons of clam meat confiscated; if so, how will the meat be disposed of, and approximately how many clams were destroyed in order to obtain this quantity of meat.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Court of Petty Sessions, Cairns, ordered forfeiture to the Crown of all sedentary organisms found in the fishing vessel ‘Kuang Nan’. Approximately 12½ tons of meat equivalent to about 13,000 giant clams was involved and this has been unloaded from the vessel for conversion into protein meal. According to the evidence given in court only about 100 clams were taken on the Australian continental shelf it being claimed that the remainder were taken off the New Hebrides.

However in accordance with the penalty provisions of the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act the court ordered the forfeiture of all sedentary organisms found on the ship.

page 2745

QUESTION

POPULATION STUDY

(Question No. 1741)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Has the Minister received any progress reports on the Australian National University population study and the cost-benefit study being undertaken by Professor Wilson., and will he make public the contents of these reports.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Because of the far-reaching nature of the two studies mentioned by the honourable senator and their complexity, it is not expected that the costbenefit analysis will be completed before early 1973, nor the population study before 1974.

Formal interim reports are not being furnished in respect of either study. However, close liaison with the universities involved is maintained andI am kept informed of the progress of the studies through the Department of Immigration and the Immigration Planning Council.

It is not intended that there will be any publication of the results of either study before the final report is received.

page 2745

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVY: HAROLD HOLT BASE

(Question No. 1750)

Senator POKE:

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

  1. Will the Government inform the Government of the United States of America that following the controversial dismissal of the former commander of the Harold E. Holt base in Western Australia, it wants Australia to have a much greater say in the control of the base.
  2. Is the Australian Government disturbed by reports that the former commander of the base has been ordered to have a psychiatric examination, in view of the involvement of the base in communications with nuclear submarines.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. No. Existing arrangements are completely adequate in this regard.
  2. No.

page 2745

QUESTION

CHINA

(Question No. 1751)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Have talks been held in certain European capitals between representatives of Australia and the People’s Republic of China on the matter of Australian recognition of China.
  2. Did Australia retrain from voting on the issue of admittance of the People’s Republic of China and the exclusion of the Republic of China at the meeting last week of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
  3. Are reports claiming the above actions, which circulated in Canberra on 1st December 1971, an example of educated leaks which, in the past, have heralded changes in Government policy.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. lt is true that talks have been held in certain European capitals on the matter of normalisation of relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China.
  2. Al a meeting of The Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal on 19th November, the following resolution was adopted:

The Council, taking into account the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25lh October 1971, “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations”, whereby the representatives of the People’s Republic of China were recognised as the only lawful representatives of China in the United Nations, recalling Resolution 396 (v) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its 5th Regular session on 14th December 1950, recommending that …’.- altitude adopted by the General Assembly” on the question of the representation of a member state “should be taken into account in other organs of the United Nations and in the specialised agencies”

  1. decides, for the matters within its competence to recognise the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the International Civil Aviation Organization, and
  2. requests the Secretary-General to immediately communicate this decision to all contracting states.’

Australia’s vote on the resolution was one ot abstention.

  1. As the information in (1) has been public knowledge for some time and the answer to question (2) is a matter of public record there appears to be no foundation for such a suggestion.

page 2746

QUESTION

BREAD PRICES

(Question No. 1758)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry:

  1. Will the Minister write to the Premier of South Australia to ascertain what can be done to prevent an increase in the price of bread in view of the fact that the possible increase of 4 cents per bushel in the Australian price of wheat would add only one ninth of a cent to the cost of a loaf of bread.
  2. Will the Government also make representations to ;he South Australian Prices Commissiner opposing any increase above one ninth of a cent in the price of a loaf of bread, as this would be consistent with Government action in the Arbitration Court when it opposes applications by trade unions for increased wages.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primay Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable sena or’s question:

The determination of prices at which bread or other commodities may be sold in a State is a matter for the State concerned. lt is widely known that 46.3 bushels of wheat provide one short ton (2000 lbs) of 72 per cen extraction flour; and that that quantity of flour can be used to produce more than 1300 standard 2 lb loaves of bread. I am sure that these are familiar figures to State authorities charged with the responsibility for price fixing and that they are taken into account when considering the fixed price for bread along with all other relevant factors such as any changes in wages and in prices for other raw materials.

page 2746

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1763)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Are teachers made available to migrants travelling to Australia by sea? If so, how are they recruited and what remuneration do they receive.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The Department of Immigration provides a migrant education service to most migrants travelling to Australia by sea. At least one Shipboard Education Officer is assigned to vessels carrying a significant number of non-English speaking migrants to Australia. These officers arrange for a programme of English language instruction and citizenship education for migrants during the voyage.

Shipboard Education Officers are officers of the Department of Immigration and are recruited both from within and outside the Commonwealth Service.

Part-time assistant teachers are recruited from amongst the English speaking passengers on the ships and preference is given to persons with teacher training and experience. These teachers are introduced to the situational method of teaching English as a second language and are supervised by the Shipboard officers during the voyage.

Shipboard Education Officers are Class 4 officers of the Third Division of the Commonwealth Service and receive a salary within the range S5.413-S6.0I6.

Assistant teachers are employed on a part-time basis and are paid at the rale of S2.50 per hour.

page 2747

MONDAY CONFERENCE

(Question No. 1767)

SenatorWILLESEE asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Did the Prime Minister state on the television programme ‘Monday Conference’, that he had let some of the States or virtually all of the State Premiers know first of measures announced last week to counter unemployment in rural areas; if so, which of the State Premiers were not given this advance notice.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Letters dated 1st December were sent to all Premiers, and special dispatch arrangements were made, so that they would be informed of the terms of the Commonwealth offer prior to my statement in the House on 2nd December.

page 2747

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

(Question No. 1772)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Is the wife of a returned soldier who receives Repatriation benefits for acute dermatitis entitled to any compensation if she contracts dermatitis from handling her husband’s clothing.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

Repatriation legislation makes no provision for compensation in such a case.

page 2747

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1776)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Did the independent inquiry into the Repatriation system open in Sydney on 6th December 1971, and has it since adjourned to a date to be fixed after 11th February 1972.
  2. Will only those submissions made on or before 11th February 1972 be considered at the inquiry, and will the public be excluded from hearings.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. The Hon. Mr Justice P. B. Toose, C.B.E., commenced his enquiry on18th October 1971. Initially, he set out to familiarise himself with the Repatriation system by making close examination of the relevant legislation and other documentary material and by visits to the Repatriation administration and to some institutions. Public hearings were opened in Sydney on 6th December 1971 and were adjourned to a date to be fixed after 11th February 1972. As can be seen from the reference above to the preliminary work carried out prior to 6th December 1971, Mr Justice Toose has been, and will be, carrying out relevant investigations as well as hearing evidence in public.
  2. The fact that the Enquiry is being held has been widely advertised throughout Australia. Alt persons and organisations who wish to have their views considered have been asked to send in their written submissions and asked to indicate whether they wished to be heard orally. While the Chairman of the Enquiry has set 11th February 1972 as the date by which he wished submissions to be lodged, he did indicate at the public hearing on 6th December 1971 that he will give thought to the manner in which submissions received after that date will be considered. Hearings will, in the discretion of the Chairman of the Enquiry, be either open to the public or in private.

page 2747

TAXATION

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONOn 23rd November 1971, Senator Webster asked me whether the Treasurer would consider the granting of an income tax deduction for depreciation on particular classes of animals. The Treasurer has provided the following information:

For income tax purposes, an owner of livestock is normally required to value the whole of his livestock on a single basis which may be either cost price or, if he has exercised the necessary option, market selling value.

Under a specific provision of the law, however, the Commissioner of Taxation is empowered to vary the basis of valuation in respect of particular animals where a variation is justified by special circumstances. For example, in the case of a taxpayer engaged in breeding livestock, the Commissioner is prepared to consider favourably a request that a named or identified stud sirs acquired for breeding purposes should be brought to account at market selling value, without disturbing the basis of valuation on which the remainder of the breeder’s livestock is to be accounted for.

Where such leave is granted, objection is not taken to market selling value being estimated by some annual writing-down of the cost price, provided there is no concrete evidence that the value of the animal has in fact been maintained or increased. In the case of a stud sire purchased for normal service throughout its effective life, a reduction year by year in its market selling value by an amount equal to 20 per cent of cost would not be considered unreasonable in the absence of unusual circumstances.

Consideration has been given in the past to the question of amending the law to allow a primary producer to claim depreciation on stock of a particular class but suggestions along these lines have not been adopted. Although the allowance of depreciation could provide an immediate tax saving in the first year or two after breeding operations commenced, this advantage would be offset in later years by the imposition of tax on the difference between the amounts realised on the sale of stock and their reduced written-down value. For this reason, the allowance of depreciation on livestock for income tax purposes would not of itself assist materially in improving quality.

page 2748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

On 6th October, Senator Bishop asked me a question about the information being made available to Australia by the United States. The Prime Minister has provided me with the following reply:

In my statement in the House on 23rd November reporting on my recent visit to the United States and Britain (Hansard, pages 3495- 3500) I indicated that satisfactory range and depth of information and consultation with the United States Administration which now exists.I refer also to the reply to Question No. 1412 in the Senate on 26th October 1971 (Hansard, page 1453).

page 2748

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 30th November 1971 Senator Townley asked me the following question, without notice:

I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, by saying that no doubt he is aware that the entries for the telephone directory for the north-west area of Tasmania closed on 1st May this year, yet 7 months later this directory is not available. Can the Minister inform the Senate when this directory for the north-west area of Tasmania will be available to subscribers?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Entries for the T3 telephone directory, which covers the north-west area of Tasmania, closed on 30th July, 1971. A little extra time was taken this year in producing Tasmanian directories because the former State-wide book is being issued in 3 volumes and, in each volume, subscribers’ entries appear in a single alphabetical list.

The printing contractor expects to deliver the directories to the Post Office later this month, and deliveries to subscribers will commence when industry resumes work in the New Year.

page 2748

MERINO RAM EXPORT EMBARGO

Ministerial Statement

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

– Mr President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement by the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) relating to the merino ram export embargo.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The Government has decided to accept the recommendation of the Australian Wool Industry Conference that the partial relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams be extended for a further 3 years. The limited relaxation will be subject to the same conditions which applied in the past 2 years. On this occasion, however, the Wool Industry Conference has recommended that the partial relaxation be for a period of 3 years instead of being reviewed annually as in the past.

The conditions which apply to the 3- year partial relaxation which will commence on 1st February 1972 are: (i) Not more than 300 merino rams may be sold for export in any one year; (ii) The prohibition on the export of merino ewes, semen and fertilised ova will be continued; (iii) Export approvals will be issued only for merino rams that have been sold at public auction sales nominated by the State member associations of the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders; (iv) The partial relaxation will be reviewed before the end of the 3 -year period.

The current period of relaxation of the embargo does not expire until 31st January 1972. It has been necessary, however, to make an early decision regarding the continuation of the relaxation so that potential overseas buyers would have adequate time to make arrangements to operate at the next Sydney ram sales which will be held early in February 1972. The merino export embargo has been a controversial subject since it was imposed in 1929. Over the years conflicting views have been held on this subject in the woolgrowing industry.

In November 1968 the Australian Wool Industry Conference, after obtaining expert advice on all aspects of the embargo and thoroughly considering the matter, recommended a limited relaxation of the embargo initially for one year. This recommendation was adopted by the Government but was not implemented until 1st February 1970. The reason for the delay in implementing the recommendation was to give the opponents of the relaxation full opportunity to make representations to the Conference. In the event, however, the Conference reaffirmed its original recommendation. Again, on the recommendation of the Conference the limited relaxation of the embargo was extended for another year as from 1st February 1971. The present decision will extend the limited relaxation until 31st January 1975.

Of the 300 rams authorised for sale for export in the first year of the relaxation, 222 were sold to various overseas countries. In the second year the number sold to overseas buyers was only 50. For growers there has been some uncertainty and considerable argument on the effects of the partial relaxation of the merino export embargo. There are some important issues which should be kept in mind in any examination of these arguments. Significantly there is the serious financial plight in which many merino studs now find themselves. Ram sales have slipped alarmingly in the last 2 years and these sales constitute a major part of the income of these studs.

It is important for the maintenance of the Australian wool industry that in particular the parent studs should not suffer such a contraction of income that they should move out of ram breeding altogether. Already most have been forced to diversify where this is possible. Indeed, it is claimed that through the application of the embargo on exports these studs have made a significant contribution to other sections of the wool industry in accepting that there should not be overseas competition for their rams.

In the present economic circumstances of the wool industry and of the ram breeders, it is important that no undue barrier be placed on providing some increased competition at auctions when because of slackness in demand so many of the rams have had to be sold for slaughter instead of for breeding purposes. It is often forgotten that Australian Merino breeders have been denied for many years the right to export their produce like most other Australians. This has deprived them of a useful source of additional income. Such income has never been needed more by our merino studs than it is today when the critical situation of the woolgrowing industry has drastically reduced the demand for their rams. The loss of this income plus the depressed wool prices have placed our studs in a very precarious position.

It is not my intention to canvass the arguments for and against the lifting of the merino export embargo. The arguments have been examined critically by the Australian Wool Industry Conference and it is on its advice that the Government is acting. Since the decision in February 1970, delivery of the rams has been severely disrupted by the ‘black ban’ imposed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the handling of merino rams sold for export with a view to preventing their export from Australia. This ‘black ban’ is still maintained by the ACTU and has had a demonstrable effect on the confidence with which overseas buyers have operated at auction sales. Indeed, the action of the ACTU has caused great difficulties, expense and inconvenience to both the buyers and sellers of the rams. They have been forced to resort to making private arrangements in order to export the rams and these have been very costly. No doubt the action taken by the ACTU has discourage overseas buyers from purchasing rams.

Such advantage as stud merino breeders could derive under the present partial relaxation of the embargo is thus largely frustrated by the action of the ACTU. The intervention of the unions is all the more deplorable as the export of merino rams is in no sense an industrial issue. This is clearly a case of the ACTU interfering for political reasons in a field which is outside its area of responsibility. In doing so it has frustrated legitimate commercial transactions and interfered with Australia’s meeting its obligations to overseas trading partners. I sincerely hope that the ACTU will now reconsider its position.

page 2749

PROGRESS ON STAGE SEVEN OF TELEVISION DEVELOPMENT

Ministerial Statement

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

– Mr President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) relating to the work on stage 7 of television development.

The PRESIDENT:

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

In May 1969, the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) announced the Government’s plans for the seventh stage of television development, involving the establishment of 38 low-power stations at relatively remote centres throughout the Commonwealth, at a cost of almost $5m. It was generally accepted that the stations would be provided by mid-1973 although it was realised at the time that, in view of the great amount of work involved, this goal might be difficult of achievement. As honourable senators may recall, the stations were to be established on the basis that programmes would be provided by stations utilising, wherever practicable, Post Office broad-band communications systems, either existing or proposed, and that where such links were not available, special minimumtype microwave links would be specially provided to carry programmes to the areas concerned.

It will be appreciated that the task of establishing the 38 stations concerned in widely separated areas throughout the Commonwealth is one of considerable magnitude, involving not only the planning and establishment of the television stations themselves, but the construction of the various programme relay links required over long distances. In fact, this project virtually doubles the number of stations in the national network bringing the total to 82. The project has involved the carrying out of extensive engineering surveys by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in conjunction with the Postmaster-General’s Department in each of the 38 areas concerned, in order to obtain the basic information for determining technical operating conditions. In addition, it has been necessary for the Department to conduct detailed field surveys along the lengthy routes over which the microwave links are to be established.

It has, however, already been possible to bring 5 of the 38 stations into operation, namely those at Cloncurry, Julia Creek, Richmond and Hughenden in Queensland, and Norseman in Western Australia. The Mary Kathleen station will commence service shortly. The earlier establishment of these stations was made possible by the fact that these centres were situated along existing Post Office communications links with television programme relay capabilities. The present position with regard to the remaining 33 stations is that most of the technical specifications for the stations have now been determined by the Board and action is being taken by the Post Office towards obtaining the equipment for the establishment of the stations and associated microwave links. It must be pointed out, however, that some of the specialised equipment required for the project must be obtained from overseas.

Due to the complexity and great extent of the work involved, together with shortages of key staff, it became apparent earlier this year that the project could not possibly be completed by mid-1973 and that unless special procedures were adopted, a delay of some 2 years on the originally expected completion date for the project might be involved. Accordingly, the PostmasterGeneral directed his Department which, as I have indicated, is responsible for the actual establishment of the stations following receipt of the technical specifications from the Board, to examine the possibilities of reducing any delays to the minimum practicable. The Post Office has now completed its studies and the Postmaster-General has received from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board a revised timetable showing the dates by which the various stations are expected to be completed. The timetable reads as follows:

In summary, and providing no unforeseen difficulties arise, particularly in relation to overseas equipment, it is expected that all of the Queensland stations will be completed by the end of 1973 and that the Western Australian stations will be established progressively up to July 1974. ft should be noted that a special trunk line and television relay system must be provided for the Esperance station, hence the expected completion date for this station is July 1974. The 2 South Australian stations, namely at Woomera and Ceduna, will be completed by October 1973. The Alice Springs, Northern Territory, station will operate with the use of taped programmes because of the lack of a Post Office broadband communications link to the area, and will be completed by December 1972. The King Island. Tasmania, station will commence operations in February next year.

Honourable Senators may be assured that the Government, the Board and the PostmasterGeneral’s Department all fully appreciate the desire of residents of relatively remote areas to have television available to them as early as practicable. The timetable which has now been determined is the most expeditious that can be arranged on the basis of present expectations. I would point out that it has only been possible to achieve these targets by the adoption of certain special procedures which, although involving some additional expenditure, will enable earlier establishment of the stations. The PostmasterGeneral has, in addition, asked his Department to remain alert to take advantage of any possibilities which may arise that could lead to earlier completion dates, especially for these Western Australian stations presently scheduled for completion in 1 974.

page 2751

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting (his day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2751

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2751

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

(4.36) - I move:

I am sure all honourable senators will understand my brevity at this time. I want briefly to express at the end of this series of sittings my thanks to you, Mr President, as our Presiding Officer, and the officers who work with you, the Charman of Committees and the Temporary Chairmen of Committees. I also wish to express, on behalf of all Government senators, our thanks to the Clerk and his staff for the work they have done in assisting us in carrying out the work of the Senate. I want to convey on behalf of the Government our thanks and appreciation to the whole staff of the Parliament who are forebearing and tolerant in the demands that we put upon them. Finally, if I have missed anybody in the circumstances in which I am placed, I wish our thanks to be conveyed to all. On behalf of the Government Parties I want to convey to you, Mr President, your staff, and the Hansard staff particularly, as well as all the messengers and other staff of the Parliament our best wishes and thanks for a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I convey that message also to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) and their supporters on my own behalf and on behalf of all my Government colleagues.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) for what he has said. We of the Opposition reciprocate those good wishes to all present, to you, Mr President, to all the other honourable senators and to the staff who, in their various capacities have assisted us. In addition, we wish to thank for what they have done for us during the year the staff, not only of the Parliament, but of the various departments and of the Ministers present here. We have enjoyed the year and we look forward to resuming the contest and to altering the seating arrangements in this chamber at a very early date.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– Mr President, Senator Gair is not able to be present but he asked me to speak on his behalf. He regrets that he cannot be here to distribute Christmas greetings as he did last year but I feel sure that on his behalf I can say that he wishes each of his fellow senators everything they wish him. I desire to thank all those whom the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has mentioned. We are grateful to our fellow senators, we are grateful to the staff, and we are grateful to everybody who has assisted in the running of the Senate. I congratulate you, Mr President, on the successful completion of your first term as President.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.40 p.m. to a day and hour to be fixed by Mr President.

page 2753

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT: STAFF TRANSFERS

(Question No. 1505)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Postmaster-General aware that the transfer of Postmaster-General’s Department staff from Roma to Toowoomba negates the alleged Government policy of decentralisation, and that the transfer will have a very serious effect on commercial interests in Roma, particularly small businesses?
  2. Will the Government reconsider the proposed transfer in the interests of maintaining some stability in the local economy, and in the interests of the employees concerned?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. As explained in reply to a previous question by the honourable senator it is not certain that any staff will be transferred from Roma. The relative merits of the initially nominated and possible alternative centres for Area Headquarters in each Management Area are to be studied personally by the new Area Managers immediately after they have taken up duty, probably by about mid-1972. It is expected that a final selection of the centres to become Area Headquarters will be made either late in 1972 or early in 1973. The important change announced on 26th October 1971, to the original scheme will very substantially reduce the possibility that a centre not chosen as the Area Management Headquarters would be adversely affected to any great extent.
  2. See answer to (1).

page 2753

QUESTION

EDUCATION ALLOWANCES

(Question No. 1567)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Does the Commonwealth give special assistance to children living in isolated areas of the Northern Territory in order that they might gain a full education; if so, what form does such assistance take and what is the annual cost?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Boarding and Travelling Allowance -

In the Northern Territory, a boarding allowance of $250 per annum is payable by the Commonwealth Government to the parents of all primary and secondary school children who have to live away from home to attend school. Parents must be permanent residents of the Northern Territory and must reside over ten miles from a school bus stop or suitable school.

An additional $120 per annum is payable subject to a means lest.

Pupils qualifying for a boarding allowance may have their return fares home paid once per term if attending school within the Territory, or once per year if attending school outside the Territory. The interstate travelling allowance of a student concession economy class fare is provided on the evidence that boarding accommodation was not available within the Northern Territory at the time of enrolment.

Correspondence Supervision Allowance -

The Commonwealth Government also pays an annual subsidy of $100 in respect of children in the Northern Territory who are undertaking correspondence lessons with any recognised State Correspondence School, and whose parents employ a person to enable the supervision of lessons. The parents must declarethat at least $100 per annum per child is expended for either a governess or domestic assistance to free the mother to supervise lessons.

Conveyance Allowance -

A conveyance allowance is available to primary and secondary students in the Northern Territory who live 3 miles from a suitable school or bus stop and are transported daily in a private vehicle to attend school. A set rate dependent on the horsepower of the vehicle and the mileage between school and home is paid irrespective of the number of students conveyed. Payment is made on a term basis after the end of each term.

Handicapped Children -

In cases where a suitable institution is not available in the home (own a boarding and travelling allowance can apply for the nearest suitable centre in theNorthern Territory. If an institution is not available in the Northern Territory, which is the case for blind, deaf or mute children, approval may be granted for a boarding allowance of $250 to $370 per annum and reimbursement of a student concession economy class fare once per annum.

If a child has to attend school interstate for special medical reasons the Director of Education can approve the above allowance on the provision of a suitable doctor’s certificate.

Annual expenditures on these schemes appears below: (here is no separate vote for handicapped children as expenditure is included in items1 and 2:

There are a number of other special schemes of educational assistance for Northern Territory children (e.g. Northern Territory Secondary Scholarship Scheme and the Northern Territory Tertiary Scholarship Scheme) but the funds under these schemes are not earmarked for children who live outside the Northern Territory metropolitan areas.

page 2754

QUESTION

AIR FORCE: VIP FLIGHT

(Question No. 1587)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Air, upon notice:

  1. Were aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force VIP Flight used by (a) Mr Wentworth (b) Mr Peacock (c) Mr Chipp (d) Mr J. M. Fraser (e) Mr McMahon during the past few months for participation in the McPherson electorate preselection campaign?
  2. Did any Minister have the use of a VIP aircraft more than once, and what was the cost of each flight?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. No RAAF VIP aircraft were used by the Ministers concerned for participation in the McPherson electorate pre-selection campaign during the 3 months period prior to 3rd November 1971.
  2. Not applicable.

page 2754

QUESTION

EDUCATION AUTHORITY: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 1636)

Senator NEGUS:

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

  1. Have the last 3 Ministers for Education and Science stated that a local education authority for the Australian Capital Territory is inevitable and does the Minister intend to establish such an authority?
  2. Will the Minister consider an immediate public and independent inquiry to ascertain if such an authority is in accord with the wishes of the residents of the Australian Capital Territory?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Ministers have stated that they accept that at some future time it will be appropriate for education in the Australian Capital Territory to be administered separately from New South Wales. The factors which would need to be taken into consideration when education in the Australian Capital Territory is administered separately from New South Wales are under active consideration.
  2. Ministers have received a number of requests to establish inquiries into various facets of education in the Australian Capital Territory. After careful consideration last year the Government decided against holding an inquiry into education in the Australian Capital Territory at that time. The question of an inquiry is being kept under review as are the views expressed by community groups in the Australian Capital Territory with an interest in education.

page 2754

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

(Question No. 1643)

Senator POKE:

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

Has the Australian Wool Commission negotiated a further loan of $30m from private trading banks repayable by April 1972, at 6.5 per cent per annum.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

In addition to a loan made available to the Australian Wool Commission for working capital by the trading banks in 1970-71, the Government negotiated with the trading banks a further loan of $30m for this financial year for the same purpose on the basis that it will be repaid not later than 30th April 1972. The interest rate is 6.5 per cent per annum.

page 2754

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD PERTH PREMISES

(Question No. 1688)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

What progress is being made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in the acquisition of new premises in Perth.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board is at present negotiating a lease for premises in Lombard House, 251 Adelaide Terrace, Perth.

page 2754

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: LAND SALES

(Question No. 1710)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Did Hooker Homes Pty Ltd purchase building lots at Holder in the Australian Capital Territory on 23rd Novevember 1971 for $66,000 when the reserve price for the lots was $34,640.
  2. Will the Minister provide the name and address of every person, company or other organisation, together with details of reserve price and actual price paid, woo purchased more than one building allotment at land sales held in the Australian Capital Territory on 23rd and 24th November 1971
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Network Finance Ltd purchased the right to leases of a group of 15 residential blocks at Holder for $66,000. The reserve price of these blocks totalled $34,640.
  2. The details sought are:-

page 2757

QUESTION

COSMETICS RETAILING ORGANISATION

(Question No. 1712)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Attor ney-General, upon notice:

  1. What has been done towards prosecuting the organisation retailing cosmetics in the Australian Capital Territory, which sought to convey the impression that the Australian Capital Territory Guide Dogs for the Blind Association would benefit from its sales?
  2. What is the trade name of the cosmetic involved?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) On the information available to my Department there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the institution of criminal proceedings. In these circumstances it would not be proper to give the details sought in the question.

page 2757

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

(Question No. 1721)

Senator WILKINSON:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Does the statement by the Attorney-General on 24th November 1971 that the offence contained in the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act is the offence of intercepting a communication in its passage over the telephone system, mean that telephone tapping which can be done without interception of the message is legal, and could be done without Ministerial permission?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

On 24th November 1971 I informed the Senate that ‘the offence contained in the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act is the offence of intercepting a communication in its passage over the telephone system. Unless that is shown there is no offence’.

Telephone tapping’ does not occur unless the message is intercepted in its passage over the telephone system. If a message is so intercepted there is an offence, unless, the requirements of the Act have been complied with.

page 2757

QUESTION

TRUNK LINE TELEPHONE CHARGE

(Question No. 1724)

Senator PRIMMER:

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

Will the Postmaster-General consider the implementation of aflat rate trunk line telephone charge as a means of alleviating the problems caused to rural areas and decentralised industry in Victoria by high trunk line charges?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

My Department is currently studying the many implications of the proposal that a flat rate charge be introduced for all trunk line calls but asI indicated in Parliament recently, many people would be disadvantaged by such a scheme. When the study is completed, I will see what additional information can be supplied.

page 2757

QUESTION

HOME HELP FACILITIES

(Question No. 1757)

Senator McMANUS:

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

Will the Government give considerationto the financing of more home help facilities to assist mothers who, for health or other good reasons, need assistance to keep children in the home?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Most State Governments assist in the pr ovision of homehelp facilities. Under the State Grants (Home Care) Act, which was introduced in 1969, the Commonwealth is now able to subsidise State expenditure incurred in connection with the provision of housekeeping or other domestic help services, conducted either by the State, a local governing body, a community welfare organisation or a joint body, wholly or mainly for aged persons. To the extent that this relieves State Budgets the States could be in a position to extend their assistance to other home help services. The question extending the States Grants (Home Care) Act to assist with the provision of home help services for other than aged persons is a matter of policy.

page 2758

QUESTION

TERRITORIAL SEA AND CONTINENTAL SHELF LEGISLATION

(Question No. 1766)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government plan to introduce legislation to control the resources of the sea beyond the 3 mile limit?
  2. Will the Minister heed the call of Sir Garfield Barwick that legislation be introduced to prevent the over-exploitation of marine resources by both foreign and Australian interests?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I draw the honourable senator’s attention to two Acts administered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, that provide for the control *>f the resources of the sea beyond the 3 miles limit.

I refer, first, to the Fisheries Act 1952-1970. In accordance with international law, this Act applies to foreigners as well as to Australianbased fishermen out to 12 miles. Beyond that distance the Act applies to Australian-based fishermen in a zone extending, generally speaking, to a distance of some 200 miles from the coast. The question whether a coastal country should be accorded authority over foreign fishing beyond 12 miles is currently under consideration in the United Nations Committee which is preparing for an International Conference on the Law of the Sea to be held on present plans, in 1973,. Australia is a member of the United Nations Committee and is taking an active part in the Committee’s work.

The other Act, to which I draw the honourable senator’s attention, is the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 under which the Commonwealth controls the exploitation of sedentary species over the entire continental shelf off Australia beyond the 3 miles limit. This Act applies, without distinction, to foreign fishermen and to fishermen operating from Australia.

page 2758

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES: POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In this House on 16th September Senator Carrick addressed to me the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science aware that in a properly conducted poll of students at the University of Sydney, in which all students were eligible to participate, an overwhelming majority of students - about 80 per cent - voted against the use of Students Representative Council funds for political purposes of any kind? Is the Minister further aware that the recent annual report of the SRC of that university reveals that at least $10,000 ot such funds were used to post bail for students arrested in public demonstrations? Are the moneys made available for Commonwealth scholarships by the Australian Government used in part to pay SRC funds? If so, will the Government take steps to ensure that, parallel with the clear wishes of the student majority, public funds are not used for political purposes?

The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I understand the concern of the honourable senator that student funds are possibly being used for purposes other than the normal functions of the Students Representative Councils and I am sure that his concern is shared by, the majority of members in both Houses and of the public in general. The benefits payable on behalf of each scholarship holder under the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme include all compulsory fees. Both tuition fees and other statutory fees levied by the universities. These include Student Council fees.

Student Council fees are collected by the universities from all students who hold Commonwealth scholarships or other awards and from students who are paying their own fees. They are made available through the normal administrative processes of the universities to the student associations. If conditions are to be imposed on the use of these funds then it is a matter for the universities to determine what the conditions should be. 1 have noted the report that, a large majority of students at the University of Sydney is opposed to the use of Student Council funds for purposes such as that outlined by the honourable senator. It needs to be kept in mind that the Student Representative Councils are composed of representatives elected by the students themselves. If the majority of students is not satisfied with the actions and decisions of their representatives then the students themselves have the right to remedy the situation through the normal democratic processes available to them.

page 2758

QUESTION

TOWNSVILLE AIRPORT

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 30th November 1971 Senator Keefe asked me the following question:

My question is directed to the Minister for Works. Is it a fact that resurfacing at the Townsville aerodrome has been or is being carried out by a private contractor? Why was not this work carried out by the Commonwealth Department of Works in view of the fact that it has been found necessary to dismiss staff at the Townsville depot?

I now provide the honourable senator with the following answer:

It is a fact that, in accordance with the policy of the Government, public tenders were invited and a contract let in the amount of $271,865 for bituminous concrete surfacing of airfield pavements at the RAAF Townsville Airport. It would not be practicable to employ the six employees whose employment was referred to in engineering work of this nature.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711210_senate_27_s50/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant