Senate
9 May 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1415

PETITIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to inform hon ourable senators that the Clerks have noted the names of many honourable senators who wish to present petitions. So as to avoid those honourable senators having to jump up and down in their places in order to attract my attention, I will call them in the order in which they have been notified to me.I think that that will add to the efficiency of the Senate. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I will follow that practice.

Social Services

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the fol lowing petition from 16 citizens of the Commonwealth:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That on December, 10, 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Parliament to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to Increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received and read.

Similar petitions were presented by Senator Little from 64 citizens, Senator Cavanagh from 16 citizens, Senator Devitt from 16 citizens, Senator Cant from 16 citizens, Senator Poyser from 16 citizens, Senator Laucke from 16 citizens and Senator Keeffe from 542 citizens.

Petitions severally received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 53 citizens of the Commonwealth:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department, Central Administration Board’s policy of re-centralising and concentrating certain staffs, under what is termed The Area Management Project, to the great detriment of most of the staffs affected and to the detriment of the economies of the towns and related rural areas, and to the detriment of the overall morale, efficiency and independence of the Australian Post Office is against the public interest and should be made the subject of special investigation by the Senate’s Social Environment Committee and by the Senate’s Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to refer the above matter to the two committees of the Senate referred to, and in the meantime will order that:

There will be no transfers of persons, areas of authority or operations under the Area Management Project; and

No further appointments to positions under

Area Managers or above them in the State Administrations or Central Administration of the Australian Post Office until the two Committees of the Senate have investigated the matters and reported to the Senate and the Government.

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

Petition received and read.

A similar petition was presented by Senator Keeffe from 32 citizens.

Petition received.

page 1416

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Now that the United States of America is engaged in open war with the North Vietnamese, will the Government assure the Senate that there is not, and will not be, participation by Australian servicemen in Vietnam in such a way as to involve Australia in a state of war?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Quite obviously such a question at this point of time would need to go on the notice paper. I do not like requesting that a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition should be placed on the notice paper but it must be obvious that I must take that course on this occasion.

page 1416

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport seen a report that the Brisbane shipbuilding firm of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd, will have to close down its shipyard if no more orders to build ships are received? As this will mean a big economic loss to many people immediately concerned, can the Minister inform the Senate whether there is any prospect of orders being received in the near future to build new ships?

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

– The information that I have on this subject is that Evans Deakin is at present building 2 tankers in its yards, the ‘ESSO Gippsland’ due for completion in 1972 and the ‘Robert Miller’ due for completion in March 1973. Tenders were called recently, and have now closed, for an oil rig for the Ocean Drilling Exploration Company (Aust.) Ltd and for 2 dump barges for the Queensland Cement and Lime Co. Ltd. Those tenders are being examined currently. I cannot take the matter any further but I shall seek further information for the honourable senator.

page 1416

QUESTION

THE LITTLE RED SCHOOLBOOK

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise aware of the decision of a court in Victoria that the publication known as The Little Red School Book’ is an obscene publication? In view of this decision does the Commonwealth propose to refer this publication to some responsible public authority to check its suitability for distribution among school children of the Australian Capital Territory and other Territories under Commonwealth jurisdiction? Can the Minister inform me when I can expect an answer to my question inquiring whether the Government intends to subsidise the printing of this obscene book?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have not read the Press report referred to but I shall be glad to do so. The question asked by the honourable senator was referred to the responsible Minister but an answer has not yet been received. I shall seek that answer. I think that in the general statement that the Minister for Customs and Excise made about this matter he referred to the position of the Australian Capital Territory and other Territories under Commonwealth control. I would not like to go beyond that. 1 will analyse what the honourable senator seeks and try to get as much information for him as possible.

page 1416

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL EMBASSY

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Does he not consider that it is wrong for people to set up camp on the lawn square in front of Parliament House? If so, when will the Minister and the Government act to remove the camps which have been in front of this Parliament House for many weeks?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator asks me for an expression of opinion relating to the activities, work and policy of another Minister in another place. I think he will understand that I cannot give that opinion, nor would I do so. What I will do is seek from the responsible Ministeran answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 1417

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General by stating that in the 1970 Budget debate the Postmaster-General said that the Commonwealth would become progressively responsible for the maintenance of new and existing telephone services within a 15-mile radius of all rural telephone exchanges. In Beverley, Western Australia, there are 7 subscribers on a 9- mile run which, incidentally, was erected by them at their own expense. Two of these subscribers are bush fire control officers who have been told by the Postmaster-General’s Department in that district -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must ask his question. I can allow some latitude, but giving information is not permissible.

Senator NEGUS:

– This is my question: Will the Minister look into this matter with a view to having the Department put these lines in good condition at its expense, so that the subscribers can use their telephones?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am sure that the Senate will be gratified to know that the Postmaster-General has recovered from his operation and is back in the House of Representatives. 1 am once again representing him in this place. 1 am quite sure that he will examine the matters to which the honourable senator has referred. The honourable senator has indicated that a policy was enunciated by the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General’s Department will take care to ensure that that policy is put into effect. 1 assure the honourable senator that, if he takes up this matter directly with the Postmaster-General, there will be expeditious treatment of these problems.

page 1417

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Further to a question which I placed on the notice paper at his invitation on 26th April 1972, I now ask him whether he has seen an article in the ‘Sunday Australian’ of 30th April headed ‘Gunn Drops $7.6m offer to United States’. In view of the public disquiet on the probable sale of properties known as Mataranka, Roper Valley and Coolibah in the Northern Ter ritory and Mount Oscar and Arahana in Queensland to overseas ownership, will he use his best efforts to obtain an answer to my previous question at the earliest possible time?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Within the limitations of my physical capacity and the time available, I try to obtain answers for honourable senators as promptly as is possible having regard to the fact that they are directed on occasions to departments other than my own. So the answer to the honourable senator’s question is yes, I will do my best to obtain an answer to his previous question.

page 1417

QUESTION

OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether the staffing situation in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is now satisfactory. Have any measures been taken in recent times to ensure that the specialist training and recruitment of future officers for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel can be implemented and actively pursued so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the delays which formerly occurred in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think it is fair to say that the situation in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is never likely to be satisfactory until there is a willingness on the part of those who have the appropriate qualifications to offer themselves for appointment in the drafting service. I know that it is an issue which has concerned the Senate over a long period of time. It has concerned the honourable senator, but I think he appreciates that, in terms of legal work available, drafting work is probably the least attractive in the light of many other opportunities which are available. However, I shall examine again the position in the light of the honourable senator’s question. If I feel that there is something which I can add to give him information in the light of the question he has asked, he can be assured that I will provide it.

page 1417

QUESTION

ANIMAL QUARANTINE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister for Health enlighten Australian dog owners on the policy to be followed by his

Department in the case of ‘Woofa’, a dog that was virtually hijacked to Berkshire, England, from Sydney yesterday? Can he also express a view about the documentation that is associated with dogs travelling out of Australia by air and why the owner’s name is not required on such documentation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe question asked by the honourable senator strikes a chord in the hearts of us all. It is true that by misadventure a dog - an Australian terrier belonging to a Mr Jones of Killara - was sent to the United Kingdom by air. There was a chapter of errors in the circumstances associated with that. The dog travelled on a Qantas flight to London and is now in an official quarantine kennel in the United Kingdom. A full inquiry has been made into the circumstances of the case and I am satisfied that during its transport to the quarantine kennel in the United Kingdom the dog incurred no risk of coming into contact, directly or indirectly, with any of the diseases for which its re-entry into Australia would be prohibited. Therefore I am prepared to give consideration to the return of the dog to Australia by sea whenever a ship is available. The dog will undergo quarantine in Australia the routine period of which is 60 days. The period spent on board ships also counts as a quarantine period, as I understand it.

The return of the dog will be contingent on the availability of adequate health and other certification. I agree with Senator Mulvihill that an examination should be made and will be made into the circumstances surrounding the labelling in this instance which produced unfortunate results.

page 1418

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation seen the published statement that in 1970 approximately 26,000 supersonic flights took place over the United States of America? How does the airfield noise level of the Concorde aircraft compare with that of current commercial aircraft such as the DC8 and Boeing 707? How will the smoke emission of the operational type Concorde in take-off and landing compare with that of current commercial aircraft?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The number of flights of supersonic aircraft over the United States referred to by the honourable senator is substantially correct. I asked for this information and was advised that in the last year about 26,000 supersonic flights were made over the United States. As to noise, the prototype Concorde is the aircraft likely to make a flight to Australia. On approach and take-off its noise level is very close indeed to that of the Boeing 707 and DC8 now in service. The sideline noise on take-off is slightly higher. The commercial version of the Concorde which will enter service in due course will be quieter in all respects than the Boeing 707 and DC8 now in service. As to smoke emission in the prototype model, some smoke will be seen but when the production model enters commercial service there will be no smoke.

page 1418

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S LODGE

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I preface my question, which 1 direct to the

Attorney-General, by referring to a question on notice asked in another place by Mr Enderby, the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory, on 29th February concerning an incident at the Prime Minister’s Lodge on 23rd December 1971. In that incident several shots were alleged to have been fired and an attempt made to use a petrol bomb. Mr Enderby’s question was directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General in the other house and requested the AttorneyGeneral to publish a full report of what happened at the Lodge on that night. Mr Enderby’s simple question was asked almost 10 weeks ago but remains unanswered. Will the Attorney-General favour the Senate with the reason for the unconscionable delay in supplying this information and indicate when a reply may be expected?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I do not agree with Senator James McClelland’s statement as to what the question contained because I do not think that Mr Enderby asked all the things which the honourable senator mentioned in the course of prefacing his question. However, I can say that the answer has been prepared for quite some time. I understand that it will be available to Mr Enderby in the House of Representatives today, the House not having been sitting for the last 12 days. During that time I received requests through the newspapers for the question to be answered, but I felt it was appropriate not to answer the question as it had been placed on notice and the member of Parliament who asked it was entitled to his answer first.

page 1419

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator MURPHY:

– While we are on the subject of unconscionable delay, I direct a question to Senator Rae in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Is it correct that the motion for the appointment of the Select Committee, which I moved, was carried over 2 years ago? Does the honourable senator recall that about 9 months ago I suggested to him that it was time that the report was presented? As I recall it, bc indicated that he was conscious of the feeling of the Senate that it was dme that the report was presented. Will he tell us now, if he is able to do so, when the Senate may expect the report of this important Committee to be presented?

The PRESIDENT:

– In accordance with Standing Orders, a question may be directed to a senator who is in charge of some business of the Senate. As Senator Rae is in charge of some business of the Senate 1 call him.

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I take exception to the words ‘unconscionable delay’ in the introduction to the honourable senator’s question. The answer to the question, stated briefly, is that the report of the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange will be presented as soon as possible. 1 can assure you, Mr President, and the Senate that a great deal of work - voluntary work, paid work by persons other than Committee members, and work by Committee members - has been going on constantly. That work began shortly after the Committee was set up and shortly after the motion to refer very wide terms of reference to the Committee was carried. Although the Committee has completed public hearings and has made a report to the Senate by way of a statement in December last year, it has been continuing to undertake a number of inquiries which were necessary for the purposes of the preparation of the report. It has received a vast quantity of documentary evidence which it has been necessary to assess for the purposes of the report. The matters related to the areas covered in the public inquiry.

Through you, Mr President, I point out to Senator Murphy a fact which perhaps he has overlooked. There has never been a public inquiry into the very broad areas - I emphasise this - which were referred to the Committee by the Senate on the motion of Senator Murphy. Certainly in Australia there has been virtually no inquiry into these areas since 1945. Under its terms of reference the Committee was bound to raise a very wide area of issues in which there have been vast changes. It does take a considerable time to prepare a report on such a broad field. Perhaps Senator Murphy, due to lack of experience or for some other reason, is not aware that to prepare a report on such a broad spectrum as that covered by the terms of reference does involve a great deal of research and compilation work. I take one aspect alone. In Australia there has never been an inquiry into brokers’ accounts. The Committee received 5 years brokers’ accounts. That alone is a major task of analysis. There was no prior information as to brokers* finances, earnings, capital structure and all the other matters involved.

In every other country in which such an inquiry has been undertaken, many single areas of investigation alone have taken longer than this Committee has taken so far. For instance, in the United States of America the Securities and Exchange Commission started an inquiry more than 2 years ago on one aspect alone - that of brokers’ rates. Only now is the policy arising from that inquiry coming forward. I could go on by way of explanation. The question was raised in what I regard as an offensive manner and 1 have replied at greater length than I might have done had it not been framed in this way.

page 1419

QUESTION

JET-AIR DC3 AIRCRAFT

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the persistent rumours of cronyism concerning the

Government’s purchase of 6 DC3 aircraft from the Jet-Air company, would the Minister be prepared to place on the table of the Senate all relevant documents and relevant extracts from memoranda concerning the necessity for purchasing civilian configuration DC3 aircraft and the necessity for purchasing these aircraft from the Jet-Air company? In view of the request from Cambodia for aircraft with military configuration, why did the Government purchase civilian configuration aircraft from the Jet-Air company instead of using its own excess Royal Australian Air Force military configuration aircraft? Finally, have the planes given to Laos and Nepal been delivered yet?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– A responsible answer to the honourable senator’s question obviously would involve consideration. That consideration will be given tothe subject that he raises at the earliest opportunity and I am sure that the Minister will co-operate by giving an answer as early as possible.

page 1420

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator McAULIFFE:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Is the Minister aware that age and invalid pensioners travelling interstate by rail on concession rates must pay full rates for a sleeping berth? Will the Minister approach the State railway departments to enable pensioners to pay the difference between their concession fare and the cost of a sleeper or, alternatively, allow them a concession on the cost of a sleeping berth? Will the Minister also approach the airline companies to obtain concession flights for age and invalid pensioners on a similar basis to existing arrangements in operation with the railways and bus companies?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The matters to which the honourable senator refers are the province of the State governments or the airline companies concerned. I see the point which he is making. I will have it conveyed tothe Minister for Social Services whom I represent for him to take such action as he considers appropriate.

page 1420

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT - ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the

Postmaster-General. Is there any significance in the fact that my question asked on 21st March 1972 is numbered 1974’? May I be assured that the reply will be made before 1974? If so, might I have an early reply, especially in consideration of the universal dissatisfaction with the telephone books used presently in Western Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The fact that the question number is 1974 and that it has no reference whatsoever to a date is, as the honourable senator suggests, purely fortuitous. I shall convey the fact of this fortuitous happening plus the other inquiry which the honourable senator makes to the Postmaster-General.

page 1420

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Since his recent answer about investigations into the question of low cost domestic airline fares in relation to the new low fares for international charter services, has it been decided as reported currently in the Press that no further action will be taken by the domestic airlines on this matter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The query can be answered by saying: Certainly it has not been decided by myself and the Department of Civil Aviation that no further action in this matter will be taken. We will continue our work to try to bring about a situation in which it is economically possible and is wise and sensible to have opportunities for concession arrangements in Australia for domestic travel.

page 1420

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the AttorneyGeneral explain the circumstances whereby it was necessary for 16 Commonwealth policemen to carry out the recent arrest of one University of Sydney student? Is it a fact that the police entered the house of Mr Lyn Regan of Glebe at 8.30 a.m. on 2nd May 1972 by forcing open a back window, one policeman climbing through this window and opening the back door to facilitate the entry of other officers? Did all the members of this unusually large contingent of policemen have warrants to enter these premises and harass not only the accused but also his fellow residents?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Without notice, I am unable to provide answers to all the many questions which are comprehended in the broad question which the honourable senator has asked. It is a fact that the Commonwealth police arrested a person who was wanted because he had been concerned - as the police were aware - in the obstruction of police in an incident at the University of Sydney on 24th April. The person who was sought to be arrested was known to the police. In the light of the knowledge which the police had it was appropriate that steps should be taken to ensure that the person could be arrested. It is a fact that in the course of the arrest taking place one policeman was injured. The person who was arrested is facing 2 charges because of the conduct in which he engaged on the day of the arrest. As to the balance of the honourable senator’s question, I shall endeavour to obtain an answer for him, but I must point out that where a person has been arrested by Commonwealth police in circumstances where numbers of policemen have been involved it is merely evidence of the fact that the police were determined to get the person for whom they were seeking.

page 1421

QUESTION

AUTOCEPHALIC GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is addressed to the Attorney-General arises from correspondence which I have received from Mr N. S. Manos, the president of the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia Incorporated. Is the Attorney-General aware of the grave concern existing among members of the Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church because marriages performed in that church are not recognised by the Greek Government with the result that the children of these marriages are looked upon as being illegitimate? Is he also aware that these people are having considerable passport problems whenever they desire to pay a visit to Greece? Finally, can the Attorney-General advise the Senate how much longer it will be before he will recommend the proclamation of the Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church in Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– In this matter my interest arises simply because of certain functions vested in me under the

Marriage Act or Matrimonial Causes Act. I know that there is a feeling among members of the Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church that they are affected by certain views taken by the Greek Government and the Greek Orthodox Church. Nothing I can do is going to alter that situation. Persons have been recognised under the relevant legislation as persons who may effect marriages among members of the Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church. As to the balance of the honourable senator’s question, I shall give attention to what is involved in the request which he makes.

page 1421

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Minister for Air whether he is able to give any further information concerning the aircraft accident and the loss of an aircraft which arose from operations recently carried out from the Darwin air base?

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

– No, I am not. I shall not be able to supply such information until I receive the results of a court of inquiry which is being held into the matter.

page 1421

QUESTION

FRUIT FLY

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is aware that the South Australian Government employs 40 full time officers at an approximate annual cost of $150,000 to staff road check points, airports and railway stations in an effort to prevent the entry of fruit fly to that State? Is the Minister also aware that in less than 2 years the State has paid out $500,000 by way of compensation and stripping operations because of the outbreak of fruit fly in the metropolitan area of Adelaide? In view of the fact that all these precautions have not solved the problem I now ask the Minister whether the Federal Government will assume full responsibility, on a national basis, for the eradication of fruit fly?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am aware of the intensive operation of the South Australian Department of Agriculture as well as the Departments of Agriculture in many other States - including my own State of Western Australia - into the fruit fly problem. I recognise there are markets that could be opened up in the Near East if Australia could give a fruit fly clearance to these markets. I will put the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister for Primary Industry, but I think it should, more appropriately, be put to the Australian Agricultural Council.

page 1422

QUESTION

OWNERSHIP OF AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES

Formal Motion for the Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following letter from Senator Kane:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, I give notice that I intend to move on Tuesday 9th May 1972 - That the Senate at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 2.55 p.m., unless otherwise ordered, for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

The need to initiate immediately such legislative and administrative measures, either alone or in co-operation with the States, as will impede, delay or prevent the transfer of the beneficial ownership of shares in Australian public companies to non-Australian ownership, until the report of the Senate select committee appointed to enquire into foreign ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries, land and resources, has been presented, or, alternately, until the Government has announced the terms on which and the conditions under which equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by non-Australian interests.

Yours faithfully,

  1. T. KANE

Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I move:

I do so for the purpose of enabling a debate on a matter of urgency, namely:

The need to initiate immediately such legislative and administrative measures, either alone or in co-operation with the States, as will impede, delay or prevent the transfer of the beneficial ownership of shares in Australian public companies to non-Australian ownership, until the report of the Senate select committee appointed to enquire into foreign ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries, land and resources, has been presented, or, alternately, until the Government has announced the terms on which and the conditions under which equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by non-Australian interests.

The purpose of the motion is clear. Firstly, it seeks Government action to secure an interim freeze on all company takeovers involving foreign capital until either the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control presents its report or the Government has announced the terms on which, and the condition under which, equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by non-Australian interests. The public concern about the whole question of takeovers, including foreign ones, has been stirred, firstly, by the recent Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd bid to take over Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and, secondly, by the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation’s bid to take over certain Australian food industries. As the Australian Democratic Labor Party sees it there is a real danger that, unless a freeze is imposed pending Government action, foreign firms and corporations will endeavour to achieve substantial holdings in Australia before action is taken to prevent them doing so. In other words, by the time the stable door is closed the horse could well have bolted.

If I may, I wish to refer to the Canadian experience, lt will be recalled that Canada first became interested in the inroads of foreign investment back in 1957, as a result of a royal commission on Canada’s economic prospects. Over the next 15 years little if anything happened. Finally a report known as the Grey Report was given to the Canadian Government. I wish to quote briefly from that report. Firstly, in its opening lines the report states:

The high and growing degree of foreign, and particularly US, control of Canadian business activities has led to a Canadian industrial structure which largely reflects the growth priorities of foreign corporations.

It goes on to state:

These developments have made it more difficult for the Government to control the domestic national economic environment. They have also influenced the development of the social, cultural and political environment in Canada.

The interests through which international business exercises its power are known as the multi-national enterprises or the MNE. An example of this is the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation’s actions of recent fame. It will be recalled that at a recent Senate inquiry in the United States it was revealed that this giant conglomerate first of all set out to try to prevent the election of the Allende Government in Chile. Let me say here and now that neither I nor any of my colleagues has any brief for the Allende Government - it is a Marxist Government.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is a military junta.

Senator KANE:

– That is right. But let me say also that we have an even lesser brief for foreign companies which attempt to use their economic power to destroy governments. It seems to me that if the ITT were permitted to develop its bridgeheads here in Australia to dangerous proportions, which it could well do, there would be no guarantee that it would not attempt to do in Australia what it attempted to do in Chile. Let me remind honourable senators that, first of all, ITT attempted to prevent the election of the Allende Government - although we do not like that type of government, nevertheless it was democratically elected - and, having failed to prevent that Government’s election ITT set out then to destroy the Chilean economy as a means of destroying that Government. So I say that the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation is a company with which Australia ought to be well concerned.

Let me now .turn briefly to a further section of the Gray report, which reads as follows:

The book value of US foreign direct investment increased from approximately $7.5 billion in 1929 to S70.8 billion in 1969. Sixty-two of the top 100 US corporations have production facilities in at least six foreign countries and 71 of the top 126 industrial corporations for which information is available are reported to have one-third of their employment abroad, lt is estimated that about 80 per cent of all US foreign direct investment is accounted for by some 200 firms (e.g. General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Singer, Esso, ITT etc.). About 100 non-US firms comprise the major MNEs of the rest of the world (e.g. Nestle, Shell, Lever Brothers etc.)

The report further states:

Even on the basis of very conservative estimates it seems clear that MNEs will continue to grow and become increasingly powerful institutions. It is estimated by one observer that the annual value of output in foreign markets by MNEs will rise from the present level of about $300 billion to over $2,000 billion by 1990 and account for half the free world GNP, compared with some 15 per cent in 1969. The worlds economy will be dominated by 300 or 400 super MNEs. It will not be unusual for an MNE to have one million employees.

Finally, I think the following is worth quoting from the report:

There is another point worth noting in this connection. If MNEs were to develop to the point where they become the major organisers of production in the world, they would undoubtedly be a major power. But power responsible to whom? At the moment this power is wielded largely by national governments responsible to their electorates. In a world dominated by large and powerful MNEs to whom would non-elected boards and management of multi-national enterprises be responsible?

It is for these reasons that we urge the adoption of the motion before the Senate. As I said earlier, unless the stable door is closed we feel that the horse may well have bolted by the time the Government does come down with its decision on this matter.

I would like to refer very briefly to the Concrete Industries (Monier) Ltd $ 18.6m takeover offer only last week for Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd. As honourable senators will know, Rocla Ltd manufactures concrete pipes. Concrete Industries (Monier) Ltd is 49.9 per cent owned by Redland Holdings of the United Kingdom. If successful this bid will result in Redland Holdings of the United Kingdom owning 41 per cent of the new company. This is more than sufficient to maintain a controlling interest. At present Rocla is 97.5 per cent Australian owned and has interests in Britain and South Africa. This company is in the forefront of technology in the concrete pipe industry. Rocla processes are used under licence in more than 20 countries, including Canada, France, Holland, Italy, Japan, West Germany, the United States and Hungary. There appear to be 2 reasons for the proposed takeover; firstly, to gain access to Rocla’s pipemaking technology, and secondly, to circumvent possible tougher legislation on restricted trade practices which is now under review by the Government.

It seems to me that in the case of the threatened takeover by ITT of Australian Frozen Food Industries Ltd, the Government could assist Australian Frozen Food Industries by means of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. As I understand the position the AIDC was established to help maintain Australian equity in Australian enterprises. The only departure from existing AIDC policy would be that the Corporation would be assisting an industry already developed instead of one being developed. As I see it, the AIDC has been largely inactive since its inception in October 1970. I understand that it currently holds S3 3m of the taxpayers’ money for purposes of fostering and developing ownership in Australian industry. I think that the AIDC could well be invoked to assist Australian Frozen Food Industries at this time.

I commend my proposal to the Senate. I believe it is appropriate at this time to take legislative action, as suggested in my proposal, either alone or in co-operation with the States so as to impede, delay or prevent the transfer of the beneficial ownership of shares in Australian public companies to non-Australian ownership until the report of the Senate Committee has been presented, or alternatively until such time as the Government lays down conditions under which equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by nonAustralian interests. For those reasons I commend the proposal to the Senate.

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

– Senator Kane made a number of observations in the speech he has just made. He asked for a freeze and he talked about horses bolting. I thought that the proposal made by the honourable senator on behalf of the Democratic Labor Paty involved not a frozen horse but a Trojan horse. What he proposes is a device containing a lot of hidden things which would appear suddenly if the door were opened. The International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, to which Senator Kane referred, has withdrawn the offer it made until the whole question of takeovers is more closely considered, so it seems to me that Senator Kane’s proposal is redundant. He referred to multinational enterprises and he referred at some length to a paper on this subject. I think all countries are conscious of the growth of multinational enterprises, of corporations or companies that are so large that they transcend national’ boundaries. The honourable senator referred specifically to 2 companies, Shell and Lever Bros. I was not clear whether he objected to those companies. If he does object to them I would point out they have been substantial factors for many years in the growth of the economy in this country, as indeed of many other countries. In the main, countries import their technologies and capital when they are young and developing, just as we have done. Multinational corporations are not necessarily totally evil.

Senator Gair:

– They have taken over a few companies in the past.

Senator COTTON:

– That is quite accepted. Indeed, within Australia some companies have taken over other companies and some still seek to do so. Without any doubt, matters of concern are associated with these issues in any country. But, equally, great benefits of economies of scale, advanced technology, the ability to mount great research programmes, improvements of living standards and improvements in the products available flow from the activities of companies such as these which are large enough to engage in the total range of development. Many of these companies are substantial factors in underdeveloped countries. Lever Bros is playing a substantial part in developing the oil palm industry throughout the Asian and island area. It is a significant factor in that part of the world.

I think that it is extremely unlikely that any Parliament in Australia that I can contemplate will ever abdicate its responsibility or its authority for the well-being of its people to any company the management of which is domiciled outside Australia. Regard would be paid to the fact that we need to have access to some overseas capital in this country to mount a general development programme, to give ourselves the living standard that we require and to have access to the new products of the world. This does not mean that we allow ourselves to be dominated. It does not mean that we are unconscious of the problem. But to close the door totally in the face of this opportunity without examining it carefully would not seem to me to be what the Australian Democratic Labor Party really wants or what the Australian people would really wish us to do.

On 10th November 1971, as reported at page 1812 of the Senate Hansard, a motion was moved by Senator Byrne which led to a debate on very much the same general issues and general principles, but over a wide field. I took part in that debate. I have no wish to repeat my remarks. But the general observations made at that time by the body of the Senate are worth reading again. It was a serious debate. I have read the report of the debate more than once since then. It bears upon the whole problem of the overseas capital position. I refer only briefly to one point. The Australian people do mount a tremendous programme of saving and investment to develop their own country. It is one of the highest rates in the free world - of the order of 82 to 85 per cent. The balance of the money for mounting our development programme comes from overseas capital and in many cases it comes from retained profits, earnings and appreciations left in this country. So, as a group of people we are not lagging in mounting our own programme. But, if we were to shut ourselves back to our own ability to finance our own development without regard to anybody overseas, we would then be delimiting our development, shutting down our rate of growth and, consequently, shutting down our living standards as we continued on.

On 10th December 1971, as reported at page 2677 of the Hansard record, the Senate agreed upon the terms of reference for a select committee to investigate foreign ownership and control of Australian enterprises. That committee is sitting at present under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Withers, who is working with a number of estimable colleagues. It is actively at work. I think that I might refer to its terms of reference with profit because they indicate the wide scope of the work that the Senate has already agreed upon and which the committee is engaged upon. The Senate resolved:

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon foreign ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries, land and resources and in particular to report upon -

the increasing alientation of the beneficial ownership of Australia resources to non-Australian interests;

whether or not foreign ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries, land and resources is prejudicial to Australia’s interests in all circumstances;

whether in respect of any commerce, industry, land or resources foreign ownership or control is excessive;

the best method of mobilising Australian capital resources and attracting their commitment to national development;

the best method of reconciling (he inflow of overseas capital for Australian development with the retention of Australian ownership and control.

the operation of exchange control restrictions which may prevent Australian investors from buying shares in companies registered overseas which have a major beneficial interest in an Australian company;

the advantages and disadvantages of existing and potential foreign investment, with particular regard to export performance, commercial and industrial initiatives, and introduction of valuable skills and technology;

whether the purpose for which foreign capital is sought or is made available should be a factor in determining its acceptability;

I think all honourable senators will agree that they are extremely wide terms of reference. The Senate agreed on them after very substantial, consequential and useful debate and has placed the reference in the hands of a Committee of which Senator Withers is Chairman. The Committee is now engaged on that inquiry. The Senate now has before it another proposal which is really in the same area, covering exactly the same field in much more restricted fashion. That motion has been moved by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It is really the same horse, racing under the same colours, but carrying a slightly different jockey. This time the jockey is Senator Kane. The DLP is asking the Federal Parliament - it is clear after a careful reading of the motion - to do a Bolte, and I do not think that that is what we really want to do.

In the Senate I represent the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). I am therefore obligated to pass to my colleagues in the Senate the response to this urgency motion that the Treasury feels is appropriate to the circumstances. The Treasurer and the Treasury find it difficult to understand why the Democratic Labor Party has brought forward this urgency motion at this time on this particular subject. It is well known to all honourable senators that for some time the Treasury has had in hand an intensive study of the effects of foreign ownership on the Australian economy. This study will treat in detail the measurement of overseas ownership and the statistical information available on it; the relationship of foreign ownership to the balance of payments and through it to the economy; the degree of foreign ownership and control of Australian industries and resources; and the relationship between overseas investment and domestic monetary management.

Only 6 weeks ago the Australian Labor Party moved in another place an urgency motion dealing with the increasing control of Australian industries and resources by foreign companies. The terms of the urgency motion now before the Senate are longer but are very much the same. However, there is a rather major difference which should be referred to specifically. The DLP motion advocates an immediate freeze of all transfer of equity to other than already Australian owned interests. This is an extremely far-reaching proposal, as I atn sure my colleagues will agree. It covers not only all foreign takeovers but also appears to cover every single purchase of every single share by a non-resident or an Australian resident company which is not Austraiian owned.

The Government therefore does not see any wisdom at all in having such a debate in advance of the release of the Treasury’s paper on foreign investment, which has been referred to by me in detail. That paper is expected to be tabled in the Parliament before the end of this session.

Senator Kane:

– We want to close the door before the horse bolts.

Senator COTTON:

– Yes, we talked about that frozen horse. Surely it would be only sensible to wait for the Treasury paper with detailed statistical information backing it up and its framework for analysis before we attempt to take on board such draconian measures as those proposed by the DLP motion. Having regard to our previous concern in debate, we now all have a picture of how complex is the issue of foreign ownership and control. The terms of reference of the Committee engaged on this inquiry indicate the tremendous depth and width that are called for in the examination. We would regard it at present as being quite foolish to attempt to debate such issues in the framework of the terms of reference set out in the motion.

The proposal is that there should be an immediate freeze through legislative and administrative measures of the transfer of the beneficial ownership of shares of Australian public companies to non- Australian ownership until such time as the report of the Senate Select Committee, to which I have referred, on foreign ownership and control has been presented; or alternatively, until the Government has announced the terms on which and the conditions under which equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by non-Australian interests. The Senate Committee, which has been referred to more than once by me, is an all-party Committee. The implication in the motion is that the Committee will present a report which will contain various recommendations on the matter, recommendations which the Government will accept quickly and on which the Government will act. This may not necessarily be the case. The recommendations may well require further work. They may be able to be acted on quickly; they may take time. It would be a very dangerous procedure for the Government to freeze the transfer of all shares to foreigners until such time as all these events flowing out of the Committee’s work and its report were to be available to the Government. At the moment I do not think anybody would want to canvass what particular reference, issue or recommendation the Committee may come up with. We would not want to be anticipating its work. Apparently it will concentrate upon long term effects of foreign investment on the ownership and control of Australian assets. So the Committee’s work may not give the full information that is required to enable the Government to act upon its references and recommendations. That is one difficulty.

The motion seems to assume that all foreign acquisition of Australian shares is in some way undesirable. I think all would agree that, on reflection, this is just not so. Any long term across the board disruption to the purchase of shares by overseas interests would result in severe disruption to normal business activities. It would be an intolerable situation if the Government tied its hands and the hands of business in the manner suggested by the motion. Only after the fullest inquiry, debate and research could decisions of such far reaching consequence be taken. The final part of the motion suggested - I think Senator Kane suggested also - that the Government has no existing policy in relation to the purchase of equity in Australian public companies by non-Australian interests. This equally is not so. It has been long standing government policy that the purchase of local equity by foreign interests must normally be financed by an inflow of cash. The financing of new equity or the takeover of existing equity through local borrowing is not permitted. Furthermore, foreign interests wishing to expand their activities in Australia must also abide by the existing borrowing guidelines which limit access of foreign controlled companies to the local capital market. Above all, foreign interests wishing to take over Australian companies must conform to the conditions of the take-over code announced in 1969, which is published and available freely.

No senator on this side of the Senate and no member on this side of the other chamber would deny the importance of overseas capital to Australia and of being able to see what it meant and what its consequences were. This is why the Treasury is up-dating its general policy on the matter. This is why there is a take-over code. This is why it has been adopted in some cases and why, on deflection and after examination, it has not been adopted in other cases. This is why in some cases people wishing to expand in Australia have been asked to bring their money with them, and why in other cases they have been allowed to raise some money on the Australian market. All these things are done carefully and systematically by both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank.

Senator Byrne:

– That guideline goes only to the source from which the finance comes, not to the quantum of control.

Senator COTTON:

– I think that the practical effort would be that some regard would be had to this, but no-one here has the time or the necessary experience to sit in the final seat of judgment in the Senate and say that overseas company A can do it and that overseas company B cannot. AH governments and all political systems are bound to have a general line of policy which is carried out by the people who run the Public Service. I think, in fairness, that everyone would regard the Australian Treasury as being a very competent body. It is so regarded by overseas treasuries with whom it deals.

To some extent the motion has set up a straw man. It deals with something that is not required. There are publicly known conditions under which equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by non-Australian interests. The Government recognises fully the concern that is being expressed in various quarters about the apparently increasing proportion of foreign ownership and control in Australia. The Treasury White Paper is expected to analyse this in detail. Some regard could be had, if I had a lot more time on this, to what it really means in the sense of servicing that capital, to what extent the money flows out of Australia and to what extent it remains here as retained investment. Is it getting more expensive to service, in total, the gross national product and trading income? I do not have those figures available, but in a longer debate I would want to develop that point. I remember doing certain work on this matter a few years ago. The evidence was that in the total sense of growth and ability to service not only Australian capital but any overseas borrowings Australia was better off. In effect, we had made more profit out of using other people’s money than they had made out of using us.

The new Canadian legislation referred to by Senator Kane deals with the screening of proposed foreign take-overs. I can assure my colleagues that the Government is giving very serious consideration to the Canadian legislation. It is being examined. It has particular regard to the great influence the United States of America has on the Canadian economy. The circumstances are very different and to some extent quite singular, but it is being looked at very critically by the Government with a view to seeing whether anything in it is useful in the review that is taking place. As there are great differences, I refer to them. Only recently Canada introduced new measures to screen take-overs, but the Canadians have been studying this matter intensively for a long while. They did not introduce the measures as the result of an ad hoc urgency debate. So we feel that the motion comes at an inappropriate time. We do not think it serves a useful purpose. In the Treasury Paper to be released shortly, the Government will be examining very closely and will be allowing full public scrutiny, including scrutiny by my colleagues in the Senate, of its policy towards foreign investment in Australia so that anybody who has a view can have a good look at the White Paper. Any contribution that is required to be made can be made. Any difference of view can be taken into account. This will be a careful and deliberative job, not one based upon an off the cuff idea which I do not think is helpful in the present scene.

I suggest that there are certain courses of action to be taken by the Parliament in these circumstances. We should wait for the statement which has been prepared carefully and which is due in a couple of weeks; we should let the Senate continue with the work which it has already charged itself to do, namely, to find out through its Committee under its terms of reference what the situation is; we should allow the Committee to make recommendations, and we should consider those recommendations and act on them. From those remarks I think honourable senators would understand that the Government does not feel that there is any wisdom in the motion. The Government is unable to accept it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Labor movement win support the proposition that has been put forward by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. We of the Australian Labor Party are very pleased that in recent months the Democratic Labor Party has begun to appreciate and comprehend the inherent problems that are arising in Australia today from the heavy flow of capital from abroad, particularly that capital which is involved in the business of the taking over of Australian enterprises. It seems to us that it has taken the Democratic Labor Party a considerable time to appreciate the great problem confronting Australia as a result of the heavy take-over capital that has been coming in Australia, and the export franchise limitations imposed by parent foreign bodies on their own companies in Australia which are operating in competition on the international trading markets. After all, it is the Labor Party in the Parliament that for many years has been raising the matter of overseas investment in Australia.

Senator Gair:

– Without knowing much about it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The spokesman for the Democratic Labor Party had half an hour in which to put his case. He took about 12 minutes. I have 15 minutes to put the case of the Labor movement. I will have my say and I will not be put off by the honourable senator. We of the Labor movement have been raising the matter in the Parliament and in public forums for many years. We have said that the policies that have been pursued by the Government of allowing into Australia uncontrolled and untrammelled capital for the purpose of taking over Australian enterprises would damage our internal economy, would militate against our overseas trading situation and could deleteriously affect, if not destroy, Australian characteristics and our very identity. If one wants any proof of this fact, one has to look not only at the Hansard reports of debates in this chamber and in another place but also at some of the political publications on this subject which are available in the Parliamentary Library.

I well remember the former member for Scullin, Mr Peters, putting out publications in 1966, 1967, 1968 and, I think, 1969, which were called ‘A Financial Invasion’. In those publications he said that Australia should do as Japan and other countries do - that is, admit to this country only such capital as promotes national development - that Australia should not allow overseas capital to enter this country in any form to take over our national resources, established industries and, indeed, our own real estate and that in fact this Government gives these foreign investors all kinds of concessions to induce them to take over Australia bit by bit at an increasing rate. If anyone is responsible for this situation, about which the Australian Democratic Labor Party now expresses concern and alarm, it is the present Government because it has deliberately

Senator Webster:

– You are talking rubbish.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What did Senator Webster’s former Leader say? What does his present Leader say? The Leader of the Australian Country Party, Mr Anthony, in addressing the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia as recently as 24th March, said:

Although we welcome overseas investment in Australia which helps in the balanced development of our resources, we do not see great value in overseas investment which does not serve these ends.

If anyone is responsible for the situation occurring, it is the present Government. It has deliberately encouraged the wholesale importation of foreign capital. Let us face it: The Government has been aided and abetted by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. At every election that has taken place since the DLP came into existence in 1955, the DLP has boasted proudly that it has propped up in office this Government which has committed itself to this policy. So, I say on behalfof the Labor movement that it is rather hypocritical for members of the DLP to come into this chamber today with onion tears running from their eyes, calling for the preservation of Australian industries after foreign interests have taken over control of them or, to use the metaphor coined by Senator Kane, after the horse was let out of the paddock and allowed by this Government to gallop.

I well recall in the 1966 election - the Vietnam election, the khaki election - a DLP spokesman saying that Australia could not afford to do anything about overseas capital or to impose restraints upon overseas capital at that time because such action could place in jeopardy the interest that the United States of America might take in the defence of Australia. It is rather ironical that this matter should be brought forward by the DLP in this chamber today shortly after the announcement of the $8. 16m bid by the American International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation for Australian Frozen Food Industries of Melbourne. Admittedly that offer has been withdrawn now, but the fact remains that this matter has been proposed for discussion after the offer was made originally and after the assets of that American corporation in Chile - a country presided over by a Marxist president - were nationalised by the Chilean Government. Whilst I say that by the very political policies that the DLP has pursued in this country in support of the present Government it has been in part responsible for the serious position that now arises in Australia, we of the Australian Labor Party welcome the belated interest in this subject shown by members of the DLP. But I question their sincerity. Already the announcement has been made that at the next Federal election the DLP again will be giving its preferences to the present Government-

Senator Gair:

– You certainly will not get them.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We do not expect them; we do not ask for them. What I am saying is that already the announcement has been made that at the next Federal election the DLP again will be giving its preferences to the present Government which has not as yet introduced any legislative or administrative proposals to stop this carnivorous eating of Australia’s national assets.

What has been the effect of the policies pursued by the Liberal Party, the Country Party and the DLP with respect to overseas investment and particularly takeover capital in Australia? Only this morning in the ‘Australian’ we read that a Mr K. M. Phillips, the general manager of the Merchant Bills Corporation and the head of one of Australia’s largest American banks, said that political pressures had fixed the parity of the Australian dollar at an artificially low rate, that this had contributed to a spate of takeover bids and a flood of funds from overseas quarters and that Australia’s large short term cash surplus would ‘quickly disappear - much of it overseas’. Is it any wonder that the Australian people are not prepared any longer, while the present Government, aided and abetted by the DLP which has moved this motion seeking this investigation, remains in office, to invest their capital in Australian undertakings, knowing that the Australian dollar is undervalued on the international monetary market and that millions of Australian dollars and probably millions of yen are being flaunted in a bid to take over Australian investments?

Members of the Democratic Labor Party now travel the countryside, particularly our rural areas, expressing their concern at the alarming extent of takeovers. Let them look at what has happened to the Australian food processing industry as a direct result of the policies of this Government - policies that have been supported by the DLP. Last year, the magazine Foodweek’, which is a privately circulated newsletter for food industry management, listed the food manufacturers in Australia with a majority of foreign ownership. Frankly, when one reads the list one starts to wonder what is left in this country in the food processing industry that is owned by Australians. In each case that I shall quote the percentage of foreign ownership is according to the latest information available from the Department of Trade and Industry. This publication was put out in May 1971. ‘Foodweek’ lists these companies with their overseas ownership:

  1. Angliss (100 per cent British), A.P.D. (63.3 per cent British), Thomas Borthwick (100 per cent British), British United Dairies (100 per cent British), Bunge (100 per cent British), Campbell’s Soups (100 per cent US), Carnation (100 per cent US), Cerebos (100 per cent British), Cottee’s General Foods (100 per cent US), Foremost Consolidated (58.3 per cent US), D. & J. Fowler (100 per cent British), Robert Harper (100 per cent US), Heinz (100 per cent US), Horlicks (100 per cent British), Jacksons Corio (65 per cent Canadian), Kellogg’s (100 per cent US), Kraft (100 per cent indirect US), Lea and Perrins (100 per cent British), Clifford Love (100 per cent US), Nabisco (.100 per cent US), Nestle’s (100 per cent Swiss), Peak Frean’s (100 per cent British), Riverstone Meat (100 per cent British).

And so the list goes on.

Senator Kane:

– Why does the honourable senator’s party advertise with a 100 per cent foreign owned agency?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDThe advertising agency with which weare involved was our advertising agency long before this Government came into office. That is an internal matter for the Australian Labor Party. But with whom does the Liberal Party advertise? With whom does the Australian Country Party advertise? Let us see who their advertisers are. The Australian Labor Party has been objecting to this developing situation for years. I reiterate that the very policies of those who have put this proposition now which we support because we believe in it have been responsible to a very large degree for the serious state which we have reached today. The fact is that for years this Government has been selling Australia out. At long last some other political party besides the Australian Labor Party has suddenly awoken to the fact that what the Labor movement has been saying on this issue for so long - and on so many other issues - has been proven correct. During the course of my earlier remarks, I replied to an interjection from Senator Webster of the Country Party about a statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). The Deputy Prime Minister addressed the American Chamber of Commerce in Australia on 24th March last. Of course he took over the leadership of the Country Party from

Sir John McEwen who, years ago, went on record as saying that Australia was engaging in a financial policy whereby each day the farmer had to sell a part of his farm in order to maintain its upkeep. But the Deputy Prime Minister in addressing she American Chamber of Commerce about 6 weeks ago said, among other things:

Thus, although we welcome overseas investment in Australia which helps in the balanced development of our resources, we do not see great value in overseas investment which does not serve these ends.

I ask: If the Government does not see great value in this type of takeover investment which does not serve the interests of Australia, then why has it not heeded the long given advice of the Labor movement and taken action years ago? The Labor movement will support the proposition. We believe that for far too long a policyhas been embarked upon by the present Government which has deliberately encouraged the takeover of Australian national industries. We believe that if this Government does not do something about the matter between now and the next election it will go under. Certainly, when a Labor government is elected to office in the next federal election it will take action to stop this flood of capital coming into this country.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GREENWOOD:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– This whole matter of the extent to which Australian resources are owned or controlled or are likely to be owned or controlled or owned by overseas interests is one which has excited the attention of this Senate, particularly over the last 7 or 8 months. I think that the interest which the Senate has indicated is reflected throughout the community. It is no less an interest and a concern which is shared by the Government of this country. But I think there is one difference between the approach which the Government has taken and the approach which today is being sponsored by the Australian Democratic Labor Party and today supported by the Australian Labor Party. The Government’s approach is that this is a matter on which policy can be determined only after there has been a full and exhaustive examination of the complexities and problems of this situation. The Government has the responsibility of initiating and carrying through policies which it determines. With all respect to honourable senators of the Democratic Labor Party and of the Australian Labor Party, I say that they do not have that responsibility. I do not believe that it is in the national interest to come forward with broad propositions which seem to take up a political catch cry, which have an emotive content and which are thereby likely to curry some electoral support if they are prejudicial to the future of this country.

There is no question but that this is a complex matter. I ask: What is it that has occurred in the last 5 or 6 months that has caused the Democratic Labor Party virtually to about face on this issue? What is it that has caused the Australian Labor Party suddenly to emerge overnight as a party which would stop the sale of all shares which an overseas interest may be purchasing? Is there any reason other than that it seems to be electorally advantageous to curry favour by adopting a policy which, intrinsically, has no merit and which cannot be shown to have merit instead of giving to this subject the examination which it requires? I refer to a debate which took place in this chamber on 10th November 1971 on a formal motion for adjournment initiated by the Democratic Labor Party. On that occasion Senator Byrne was the spokesman for the Democratic Labor Party. He put up a considered case, which carried the support of the Senate, for an examination of the complexities of this question of foreign investment in Australia. The honourable senator said:

I do not wish this matter to be debated in any atmosphere of hysteria - in other words bv its being said that this country is being taken over - or with any exaggeration. That can only have the effect of deterring the legitimate flow of capital which, properly controlled and disciplined, is absolutely and vitally necessary for the development of Australian resources. But we do feel that this is a matter which must attract early examination in depth and in breadth. It is a matter at which the Australian people are looking and with which they are vitally concerned. We need quite a calm appreciation of the whole situation. I trust that the senate, giving its mind to this position, will find it appropriate to support the creation of an appropriate select committee of the Senate to examine the whole matter so that we will know just where we are going.

Accordingly the Senate, by subsequent resolution, appointed a Select Committee which is examining the ramifications of this situation in Australia. There was no suggestion in the approach of the Democratic Labor Party last November, or December when the committee was established, that there had to be a halting of all share transactions in which overseas purchasers were concerned. At that time there was no suggestion from the Australian Labor Party that there was any need to halt all share transactions. All that the Australian Labor Party was concerned to do was to repeat ad nauseaum what its spokesmen had been saying for a number of years and that is: ‘How dreadful it is that there is so much foreign interest in this country.’ But it never suggested precisely what it would do to meet this situation. As far as the Government is concerned it believes - and its Prime Ministers, Mr Gorton, the present Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, and the Treasurer, Mr Snedden, have all indicated the concern which the Government has and that is that this matter should not reach a situation where Australian resources are overwhelmingly in the hands of overseas interests. The essential point I make is that the Government is not prepared to step in on the basis of ad hoc measures which do not take account of the very many complexities which are involved. I refer to what was said by the Prime Minister on 5th March this year in an interview in Melbourne. He stated:

We’ve got to make certain that we act in Australia’s interests, and we don’t let others get too big a hold on Australian assets.

He went on to say:

We must have a full analysis of the pros and cons. Once we have that we can, if need be, turn our attention to particular aspects in more detail.

Of course, the Treasurer has the obligation, which he has accepted, of presenting a White Paper which explores the various ramifications of this matter. That White Paper is due to be presented before this parliamentary session ends. As the Treasurer has said, it will provide the opportunity to have an informed discussion because there are many aspects which have to be taken into account. What is it that overseas investment has provided for this country? In the first place it has provided development in areas where, with our own resources, we would not have had that development. Does anyone believe that the areas to the northwest of Australia and the mineral resources there would have been developed in the way they have been, and at the speed they have been, if it had not been for the investment of overseas capital? Does anyone believe that we would have had today what is a most significant import replacement, namely, our resources of off-shore petroleum and natural gas in the Bass Strait area, if it had not been for overseas capital? Does anyone believe that in areas where risk has to be undertaken that we could have found the Australian capital needed to undertake that risk? Obviously we would not have found it.

We have had an exploitation of resources which would not have occurred without the fact that some people who were interested in the political stability of this country, the opportunities for profits and growth, and the opportunities generally for investment, were prepared to come here to take advantage of those opportunities. In addition, we have had through overseas investment in this country the introduction of valuable expertise and know-how. Above all, we have maintained and sustained over this period a continuing employment situation which is part of the growth of this country. The role of overseas capital cannot be underestimated because it has gone hand in hand with the growth and rising standard of living we have all experienced over recent years. It is not to bc suggested that there are not disadvantages. When we have the situation, which 1 think is current in some places, in which overseas interests are coming into Australia simply to take over established enterprises, it is hard to see where the justification lies in terms of bringing in expertise and knowhow and giving the advantages of development which I have given as justification for welcoming overseas capital to this country. But the extent to which government is entitled or should come in to prevent a particular takeover or a particular investment is very difficult of determination. That is something which has been discovered in Canada.

We have heard that over many years there has been a strong feeling in Canada that many Canadian resources are in the hands particularly of United States controllers. 1 do not doubt that that feeling does exist, though there has been debate in

Canada as to whether or not foreign investment is wholly disadvantageous. I understand that there have been several reports on this matter in Canada but that it has taken a long time for any action to be taken with respect to them. A report was prepared by a royal commission in 1957, another inquiry was conducted by a number of economists in 1967-68. and more recently another report was commissioned and presented in, I think. May 1971. In spite of this, it is only in May 1972 that the Canadian Government has come out and indicated what it proposes to do. The Prime Minister of Canada made a statement, I think within the last week or so, in which he indicated the general lines of policy that Canada was proposing to pursue. What Canada is proposing to pursue is not what the Labor Party is now urging, that is a complete shut-down of all share transfers. What the Canadians are suggesting is that there should be an opportunity for each takeover to be reviewed, and to be reviewed in the light of whether or not it will be of benefit for the Canadian situation. Who knows ‘ whether that will be the position in Australia? It is obviously a matter which has to be examined in depth.

It is interesting to see some of the matters to which the Canadians have referred. We are told that the Canadian Government will consider any proposed acquisition by overseas interests in the light of 5 factors. They are the effect of the acquisition on the level and the nature of economic activity and employment in Canada, the degree and significance of participation by Canadians, the effect of the acquisition on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada, the effect of the acquisition on competition within any industry or industries in Canada, and the compatibility of the acquisition with industrial and economic policies. Obviously they are matters which any considered examination of this problem must take into account.

What does this urgency motion contemplate? It contemplates immediate action which, as I have said before, will have the effect of freezing all share transfers. What does that mean? It means that there can be no transfer of shares to a purchaser who happens to have an overseas interest. What form of legislation will adequately police that? There are, of course, people who have beneficial ownership in shares. What sort of legislation can be immediately introduced which will provide effective measures which cannot be avoided? Are we simply to prevent all share transfers, as this proposal suggests, irrespective of the size of the company and the interests in which it is involved, and irrespective of whether there is any prior overseas interest in the company? What is the basis upon which there is to be this freezing of all share transfers? Is it simply to be a matter of whether a person was an owner on a particular date? It is a policy which is not in this country’s interests. We must recognise that we ought to have guidelines, and guidelines predicated after thorough examination, as to what types of overseas investment in what areas are welcome in this country. I do not believe that overseas investors will in any way be apprehensive if those guidelines are laid down. Above all, we must not step in on this ad hoc method which the Australian Labor Party has long enunciated and which unfortunately the Democratic Labor Party now seems to support, for it does not have regard to the fact that irreparable harm may be done to our development if we frighten away overseas investment in this country. It was only a matter of a fortnight ago that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said that the Victorian Government’s action in passing legislation designed to prevent the takeover of Ansett Transport Industries by Thomas Nationwide Transport was something which would worry the foreign investor. All I say is this: How does the Labor Party square that approach by its Leader with the sort of approach it is recommending today, which is consistent only with the type of action that was then condemned by him? I suggest that what we want is the statement which the Government will bring down in the form of a White. Paper in the next 2 weeks. Then, in the light of informed discussion and information, this debate can be conducted in a way which will ensure not only that the objectives are achieved but also that the national interests are not imperilled.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I rise to support the motion, but before proceeding with my support for the motion I would like to associate myself with the remarks expressed by my colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland. Everyone on this side of the House knows - and knows only too well - that this motion is a political stunt that has been introduced by the Democratic Labor Party to bolster up the electoral prospects of Senator Kane. We know that members of the DLP took a calculated risk in the knowledge that the Australian Labor Party is the only Party that has any policy regarding foreign investment. They knew, in bringing a motion like this before the House, that it would receive the support of the Australian Labor Party. It is true, as my colleage Senator Douglas McClelland said, that if they believe the profound sentiments they have expressed here this afternoon regarding the laxity of the Government in its policies on foreign investment, they have had ample opportunity over the years to show how they could apply some corrective measures by withholding their preferences from the Government Parties. But what do we see on each occasion an election is held? We see the Australian Democratic Labor Party rushing and scrambling to give its preferences to the Government.

We all know that the members of the Democratic Labor Party are not sincere. The Australian Labor Party has sought the introduction of many social service measures and has appealed to the humanitarian instincts of the members of the Democratic Labor Party for their support, but what have they done? They have refused to support the Labor Party and have voted with the Government parties. So the members of the Democratic Labor Party are not sincere. As I said earlier, the Australian Labor Party is the only political party that has a policy in this regard. Because we of the Labor Party believe that the cause is the main thing and because we believe in this cause we will be supporting this motion.

It is true, as Senator Douglas McClelland has said, that there is no doubt that foreign investment in Australia is emerging as one of the major issues of our time. It is also true that a long overdue select committee of the Senate is at present investigating the matter. It is to be hoped that the select committee will attack this matter as aggressively and as critically as did the committee which was formed by the Senate to investigate Australian stock exchanges. As with most things, the Government is noticeably silent when it comes to itemising its policy on this subject. But we on this side of the chamber have left no doubt that an Australian Labor Party government will exert tighter controls.I heard Senator Webster interject earlier and ask what is the Labor Party’s policy on this matter. The following resolution was adopted at the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in 1967-

Senator Webster:

– How many years ago is that?

Senator McAULIFFE:

– Five years ago. The following resolution was adopted:

  1. Conference declares chat the Government should restrict the flow of overseas capital into Australia to the creation of new industries and not for the absorption of existing industries.
  2. That the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party be requested to investigate charges made recently at the opening of Edgell’s new production centre at Dubbo, New South Wales, to the effect that the inroads of overseas interests into the Australian food industry have reached alarming proportions, that many manufactured food products displayed in Australian stores are produced in enterprises owned and controlled by foreign companies, and that the profits derived from the sale of such goods are diverted from Australia and Australians to the coffers of investors residing in other lands. We declare that these charges, if true, are indicative of a gross abuse of foreign investment in Australia, and constitute an indictment of the Holt Government’s policy of encouraging uncontrolled financial exploitation of Australia by overseas companies.

There for anybody to read is the Australian Labor Party’s policy. Only in the last 6 months or so have we seen any activity in the Parliament about the effects of foreign investment in Australia; but we have seen nothing initiated by the Government itself.

Let me outline what has been the position. When Mr Gorton was Prime Minister of Australia, he made a statement to Parliament on 16th September 1969 about the terms on which overseas investment was acceptable to Australia. Since then the Gorton statement has been criticised as being a set of generalities and one which does not present guidelines to a clear cut policy. From the replies to questions asked in this chamber by my colleague Senator Poke and in another place by Mr Grassby in February of this year it is obvious that the Government is still relying upon the Gorton statement of 1969. That was implicit in the replies that were given to the questions asked by both of those gentlemen. It was not until the closing stages of the parliamentary session in 1971 that the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party combined to set up a select committee of the Senate to inquire into the foreign ownership and control of industry and resources in Australia. The members of that committee are Senator Withers, who is the Chairman, and Senators Guilfoyle, Maunsell, Byrne and Cant, as well as my Leader, Senator Murphy. Its terms of reference are extremely wide. They enable the committee to report, inter alia, upon whether foreign ownership is excessive and whether that is prejudicial and the best method of reconciling capital inflow with the retention of local ownership and control. Senator Cotton, in his contribution to this debate, has laid the base for the future. He said that he accepted the recommendations of the various committees in Canada and that he agreed that a lot of the guidelines they were posing were acceptable.

Whilst the matter with which I am about to deal was dealt with briefly by Senator Kane, I think he could have made more of it. In order to get the record right, I feel that we should have permanently available in the Hansard record the observations that have been made by these Canadian committees. There are many who believe - I think Senator Cotton is one who would subscribe to this - that the Canadian experience could be the forerunner of what is likely to happen in Australia. Canada’s concern about the inroads of foreign investment resulted from a royal commission in 1957 into Canada’s economic prospects. Then came the Watkins report, which was prepared by a committee comprising 8 academic economists under the chairmanship of a Professor Melville Watkins of the University of Toronto. That Committee worked full time for a whole year to demonstrate that a number of giant foreign corporations virtually dominated the economy of Canada. I think that is a very pertinent observation and one of which Australia could take heed. It took a whole year to demonstrate that a number of giant corporations virtually dominated the economy of Canada. The next report was the

Gray report, which was produced by the Minister of Finance in Canada, Mr Gray. The Gray report has been quoted already this afternoon, but I think it is worth putting in the record what it says regarding the Canadian economy. It states:

The high and growing degree of foreign, and particularly US, control of Canadian business activity has led to a Canadian industrial structure which largely reflects the growth priorities of foreign corporations.

It goes on to state:

The book value of US foreign direct investment increased from approximately $7.5 billion in 1929 to $70.8 billion in 1969.

It goes on to make the following observation:

Even on the basis of very conservative estimates it seems clear that Multi-National Enterprises will continue to grow and become increasingly powerful institutions. It is estimated by one observer that the annual value of output in foreign markets by Multi-National Enterprises will rise from the present level of about $300 billion to over $2,000 billion by 1990 and account for half the free world GNF, compared with some 15 per cent in 1969.

Surely those are frightening observations. As they are regarded by many as an indication of what is likely to happen in Australia, the motion before the Senate, even though it does not go far enough, is timely and requires the support of everybody who is interested in the national heritage of Australia.

It is easy to offer criticism but it is much more difficult to offer solutions to problems. It is important to lay down guidelines which may help us to correct the position in Australia. The Gray report suggests the resisting of the Multi-National Enterprises where it adds nothing to national economic objectives. This is one measure which should be taken here. It also suggests that international co-operative action between governments to control these activities and, failing that, that national measures be taken to ensure that the host economy derives maximum benefits. It also suggests as guidelines that could be useful to other national governments the introduction of a screening process via a government agency with the power to negotiate for better performance from foreign direct investors and with the power to block investment that does not make a net contribution to the nation’s economy or that does not accord with government objectives. However, the authors of the report point out that during the course of their analysis the screening process emerged as probably the most effective and least costly way of dealing with the problems involved. The report also reveals a lot more, and I commend it to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control for its consideration.

Now let me deal with the problem closer to home. What State is better to study than the one which I represent in this Senate, namely, the State of Queensland with its vast mineral wealth and development? The present Country Party-Liberal coalition Government of that State is charged time and time again with selling the State of Queensland or giving it away. A former Labor Premier of Queensland, the late Mr Edward Michael Hanlon, clearly forecast what was to come when in the early 1950s he warned: ‘God forbid that the Liberals ever come to power in Queensland. They are the best team of real estate agents ever seen and they will not be content until they sell every portion of the State’. His prophesies have been borne out. In the ‘Courier-Mail’ of 28th January 1972 it was announced that a DutchUnited States-French consortium would be negotiating a franchise agreement covering the development of the Aurunkun bauxite deposits on Cape York Peninsula, estimated at more than 300 million tons. The consortium members are Holland Aluminium N.V. of the Netherlands, Tipperary Land and Exploration Corporation of the United States, and Pechiney of France. Australia is conspicuous by its absence. The newspaper in which this article appears then goes on to say that Mr Kazuo Ueda, Counsellor and former President of the Sanwa Bank, Tokyo, said:

Return to overseas investments in Australia has been high . . . especially in mining, where the ratio of profit to sales is almost as high as 50 per cent. Of Australia’s ten leading companies (in income earned) five are mining, and in these more than 50 per cent equity is controlled by overseas interests.

Production of bauxite at Weipa in 1970-71 totalled 6.5 million tons valued at S37m. Bauxite is mined by Comalco which is owned by Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, and Conzinc Rio Tinto. Australian equity in Kaiser is nil and overseas equity in Conzinc Rio Tinto is 81 per cent. Australian equity in Comalco is about 15 per cent. Royalties received in 1970-71 totalled $412,000 (1 per cent).

This is the state of affairs that exists In Queensland. The royalty rate in Queensland is Se a ton for bauxite produced for local use and 10c a ton for that produced tor export overseas. The newspaper article continues:

According to the Mines Minister, Mr Camm, the estimated production of export coal in Queensland in 1970-71 amounted to 7-1/4 million tons valued at $83.4m. The total amount of royalties paid for coal in 1970-71 is $362,500 (.43 per cent) - that is for every $100 worth of coal exported, Queensland receives a miserable pittance of forty-three cents, (5c per ton).

That is the price of an ice cream. This is the sort of thing that is happening in Queensland. It is a wholesale sell out of our mineral wealth. All that is being left is large quarries. I do not often agree with the persuasions of the Democratic Labor Party. As I said earlier, I agree with the remarks of Senator Douglas McClelland that it was as a political stunt that the DLP was motivated to move this motion. However^ I am pleased to support it because I think it will go some way along the road towards the cause to which the Australian Labor Party is dedicated, namely, the exercise of extreme caution and supervision of foreign investment in Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation) - Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator COTTON:

– Yes. I believe that the honourable senator misrepresented my comments and I would like to correct him. He said that I agreed with the findings of the committee which worked on this matter. How could I? It has not even found yet. I said that I understood the breadth and depth of its proposed inquiry as agreed to by the Senate. The honourable senator said that I agreed with what the Canadian Government is doing. I did not. I said that the Government knew of the Canadian legislation and was studying it, and I directed attention to the difference between Australia’s and Canada’s relationship with the United States.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– This is the second occasion on which the matter of investment in Australia by overseas interests has been debated in the Senate. The other occasion was on 10th November 1971. The subject is of very great importance to any person who is interested in the Australian business community as well as to many other citizens. I believe that in many instances a discussion of this matter is prompted by a surge of nationalism which pronounces that Australian based companies should be owned and controlled within Australia, and that overseas interests should not be permitted to control overseas interests in this country. That argument would have a wider base of appeal if it applied also to Australian industries and not only to companies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order Senator Webster, are you reading your speech?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is obvious that I am not.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not obvious to me.

Senator WEBSTER:

– My word it is.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you assure me that you are not reading it?

Senator WEBSTER:

– On numerous occasions, Mr President, you have been led to make that comment and I take some objection to it.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are an experienced senator. I allowed Senator McAuliffe to get away with something that I would not be prepared to extend to other honourable senators.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is not unusual, Mr President. I have copious notes from which I intend to quote.

The PRESIDENT:

– I mentioned the other day that I am tired of this copious notes business. The Standing Orders provide that a senator shall not read his speech. Now you may proceed.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If you see me continually reading my speech, Mr President, please direct my attention to it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will do that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I support the argument that a decision should be made by an appropriate authority which will serve as a guideline to owners of Australian stocks as well as to those who wish to invest in this country. Overseas companies over past years have had quite sound guidelines upon which they have been encouraged to invest in this country. This matter has been raised by Senator Kane. Without going into the ramifications of the wording which he has used to bring this matter before the Senate, it is a proposition with which no sensible person could really agree. It is an involved situation which was made clear, I believe, by Senator Cotton, who led in the debate for the Government, when he indicated that the adoption of the proposal would mean the immediate cessation of investment by overseas interests in any stocks in Australia for a projected period of time. This would be entirely unacceptable. Surely Senator Kane does not suggest that it would be unacceptable to a person who has a free right to any stocks, interests or land which he may own in this country. Surely that person has a right to dispose of those interests in the manner in which he wishes. I believe that the Democratic Labor Party in this matter is flowing somewhat with the tide in the light of the take-over bids that have been put forward over the past few weeks.

Senator Murphy was the main spokesman for the Australian Labor Party when this topic was debated previously, lt is interesting to note his somewhat emotional comments on that occasion. On page 1828 of the Senate Hansard of 10th November 1971 he is reported as saying:

The wealth of this country is not the wealth of Australians. Its wealth has come under the control and ownership of others, lt is time a halt was called. Not only must this continue no further; we also must seek out ways and means of bringing our industries, commerce and land under our own control.

I suggest that what has been said by Senator Murphy - indeed, what has been said also by Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator McAuliffe - is just so much humbug to the Australian community. Opposition senators purport to quote from Australian Labor Party policy of some years ago which in short - they may correct me if I am wrong - means that no overseas interest would be permitted to take over a locally controlled industry. That may mean that the establishment of new industries would be permitted.

Senator Georges:

– It does not mean that at alt.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator suggests that it does not mean that at all. I hope that the Australian Labor Party will clearly announce what its true policy is at the present time in relation to overseas ownership in Australia. Has there been any time in the past 10 years when it would have been wise for a government to say that it would cut off overseas investment and deny any overseas ownership and control of Australian industries?

Senator Cant:

– No.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I thank the honourable senator. He says that that would not be the case. That supports my view that the policy of the Government has been wise in at least laying down guidelines but not prohibiting overseas ownership as is the policy of the previous speaker. In the last 10 years about $8,000m has flowed into this country. Can it be said that this should have been prohibited at any time? In fact, 40 per cent of that investment came from the United States of America and no doubt it has been of significant benefit both to the business community and the private citizens of Australia. Development has been our aim in Australia. Perhaps it is not the aim of the Opposition - I do not know what its policy is. Throughout the world today less developed countries are clamouring for overseas investment in order to develop their countries. Can it be said that the attraction of overseas investment has been bad for Australia? I put it to you, Mr President, that at no time in years past would it have been wise to enforce a policy of non-investment in Australia on the part of overseas countries.

In Australia we have achieved a situation in which over 89 per cent of the totality of investment in this country has come from Australian generated and owned funds. The total investment of overseas interests in Australia has been approximately 11 per cent. Can it be said that that is bad? I do not think it is. Looking in retrospect at what has happened in years past, people have acted on emotion in suggesting that overseas investment should be excluded.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you see any dangers at all?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I see dangers. I see that there are significant dangers in several areas of overseas ownership taking control of Australian based companies and Australian based industries. 1 see danger particularly where there is monopolistic control of a particular industry. Perhaps that is the reason for the scare about the takeover bid by the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. If a particular industry is controlled overseas, prices can be set by people living beyond Australian shores and the export policy of that indigenous industry can be set by overseas companies. The policy in relation to the return of dividends can be decided also by overseas interests. 1 believe, however, that there is every reason why this country should be able to lay down guidelines which will satisfy control over those various areas of which I speak but this does not mean that we should turn away overseas investment from this country.

There is a public and growing interest on the part of overseas companies in investing in this country. I consider that the international parity value of the Australian dollar is one of the significant reasons for overseas interest in Australia at this time. There is a conducive business climate in Australia. This is a free climate which is not tied down by socialistic controls. Such controls are the desire and wish of the Opposition and that is what would happen if it ever obtained office. This freedom is one thing which attracts overseas companies to come to Australia. The stability of the Government and its lack of socialist policies has encouraged investment. Lack of control over business is another factor which undoubtedly encourages overseas investment. In short, is there any policy relating to investment control operating in any country today which is attractive and acceptable to Australians? There is none. Members of the Australian Labor Party do not mention any and no member of the Government can put his hand on any. Indeed, even Ministers and prominent citizens who have declared themselves as being opposed to the takeover of Australian companies and industries have not been able to come up with a solution as to what should be done.

I, as a member of one of the coalition parties forming the Government, can take great pride in the way that this Government and its predecessors have performed over the years. This entire situation is a difficult one to assess adequately. Nobody can evaluate the true interest of the Australian shareholder. Should he be denied the right to obtain a large return for his particular interest in a company? Do members of the Opposition holding shares or private land wish to be denied the right of selling to some overseas investor? The pronouncements being made by them are ridiculous.

During this debate it has been encouraging to hear mention of the sale of land in the Northern Territory to overseas companies and how Australians should be encouraged to retain ownership. 1 point out that the public company of the Killen family, the Northern Australian Development Corporation, was floated with financial support from some of the biggest institutions in Australia. But nobody in Australia really was interested in investing in that enormous property with such great prospects. The Corporation was only 50 per cent subscribed on the market. Yet we hear clamours from members of the Opposition who say that Sir William Gunn should not offer his particular tract of land for sale overseas because Australians want to invest in such enterprises. That is the greatest lot of hogwash that we have ever heard from the Opposition. Its members have no expertise in business.

This Government, of which my Party is a partner, has acted wisely and has provided guidelines which have influenced the control and encouragement of overseas companies which have come to Australia. It has allowed portion of the investment to revert to Australian hands, although not as much as I would wish. I would dearly love to see this community with the capacity to control every Australian company and every Australian industry, but I certainly believe that private citizens should have the right to accept an offer if it is made. My experience is that at times overseas ownership is particularly difficult to establish. For instance, it certainly can be said that no-one can say when overseas ownership applies. If a foreigner registers a company in Victoria and then tries to take over a company such as Frozen Food Industries Ltd, it is a case of an Australian company taking over another Australian company.

Senator Cant:

– In name only.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not accept that comment because what I said is factual. I have expressed the view on many occasions that Australian professional consultants should be used. But what happens? An overseas consultant comes to Australia and establishes an office here. He is accepted as an Australian consultant even by such bodies as the Australian Association of Consulting Engineers. Opposition members are unable to tie down the interests they wish to prohibit in this country. I believe that the motion of Senator Kane has been moved not only in the interests of himself and his Party but also with the objective of protecting an Australian national interest. At the same time his action has the wonderful effect of drawing the Australian Labor Party, the major Opposition party, unto the apron strings of the Democratic Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party is going along with the Democratic Labor Party. What a joke it is on this occasion to see the great Australian Labor Party being dragged through the mud and being tied in with one of the smaller parties in this Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Generally, when Senator Webster speaks in this place his words contain some value, but I am afraid that today he has rather disappointed us all. He did not understand the subject about which he was talking. He did not understand the processes that have taken place over the years with respect to it. I want to leave that for a moment, but I will come back to it. I want to look at the matter of urgency that has been raised by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. It commences by placing chains on governments in respect of takeovers - not foreign investment. It deals with takeovers, amalgamations, mergers - call them what you will. The belief seems to be that 7 governments will be able to agree on uniform legislation. They cannot even agree on the time of day. They do not know what daylight saving is from one State to another. How can they be expected to agree on a matter of this nature?

If the terms of the matter of urgency are agreed to - I suspect that they will be - it will take 3 or 4 years for Government inquiries and negotiations between governments before any legislation comes forward. This is one thing that is wrong with the suggestions contained in the matter of urgency. The Australian Democratic Labor Party thought that it was putting the Government on the spot in this matter when it said that such takeovers were not to take place until after the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control has brought down its report. I, along with Senator Withers, do not know when that report may be issued. The matter of urgency goes on to state:

  1. . until the Government has announced the terms on which and the conditions under which equity in Australian public companies may be acquired by non-Australian interests.

This is a complete climb-down. The members of the DLP know that a White Paper on this subject will be presented before the Parliament rises. That will - I do not say that it will lay down guidelines - discuss the Government’s attitude or, at least, the Treasury’s attitude to foreign investment. As soon as that happens the DLP will be off the hook. But, in the meantime, it has all the publicity.

Senator Withers:

– Isn’t it a shame?

Senator CANT:

– Isn’t it a shame? After all, this is nothing more than a whitewash. The members of the DLP have come into the Senate day after day complaining about amalgamations and mergers of trade unions to create better organisations within the trade union movement. Finding that this policy is not popular with the community, they now turn to this matter to try to say that they are consistent. It is only a whitewash for their activities against the trade union movement. They are doing nothing more and nothing less than whitewashing themselves. I take with a grain of salt the idea that there is anything genuine in the proposition put forward by the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

In 1963 a report on overseas investment in Australia commissioned by the Government was presented. 1 venture to say that very few members in either House of the Parliament have read that report. It was found at that stage that 25 per cent of Australian industry was owned overseas and 40 per cent of Australian industry was controlled from overseas. Nothing was done. Sir Robert Menzeies laid down some loose guidelines that did not mean anything. In 1965 the Vernon Committee, again commissioned by the Government, brought down a report on overseas investment, mergers, takeovers and amalgamations. The members of that Committee were brushed aside as being a team of technocrats, and nothing followed from that Committee’s report. In 1969, John Gorton, as Prime Minister of Australia, laid down a set of guidelines in relation to mergers and takeovers and what he would like to see happen. Nothing happened. Industry generally just went on its merry way. If J remember correctly, in March 1966 Mr Holt brought down some guidelines on overseas investment. This is the loose way in which the Government has tried to operate its policy with respect to overseas investment.

Senator Webster:

asked whether the Government could have said over the past 10 years that there shall be no further overseas investment in Australia. By implication, he said that the Australian Labor Party would adopt that policy. I say to Senator Webster that the ALP has never said that it is opposed to overseas investment. Its policy at the present time is not opposition to overseas investment. Its policy is to have controlled overseas investment. We want to know from where the money comes and where it goes, whether it is in the national interest that it should come into Australia and whether the purpose for which it is to be used is in the national interest of Australia. We do not want the position to be, as it is now, one in which no-one knows what is happening to it. We have the case of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation trying to take over Frozen Food Industries Ltd. That Corporation is not bringing any money into Australia. It wants to raise the money for the takeover through a merchant bank in Australia. No inquiry is made by the Government.

Senator Webster also said that there should be no interference with private enterprise. Let him go back to Victoria and tell Sir Henry Bolte that there should be no interference with private enterprise and see what sort of an answer he will be given. When the takeover bid was being made by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd for Ansett Transport Industries Ltd the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said that the Commonwealth Government would not interfere. It would have allowed it to go on. But it did not suit Sir Henry Bolte for that takeover bid to go on. So he took action to save ATI from being swallowed up by the other giant, TNT. I do not recommend anything with respect to ATI or TNT. I do not believe that ATI has been the nice, clean, white baby it has been said to be over the years. I ask honourable senators to look at what happened to Butler Airways in New South Wales, MacRobertson-Miller Airline Services and Guinea Airways. The man who took over those companies flies to the Government for protection when a bigger bird wants to pick him up. I have no brief for any of these people. Senator Webster needs to be fully conversant with these important subjects when he talks about them in the Senate. We are not dealing with dairy farms and the socialist milk board in Victoria to which he has access which guarantees that his farm will be profitable. Mention has been made of socialism. If the honourable senator dislikes socialism so much he should get out of the socialist enterprise in which he is making his living. Senator Webster also says that over the past 10 years overseas investment in Australia has represented on average, about 11 per cent of the total investment in Australia. Some economists would disagree with him. I think the figure most of them would come down on the side of is about 16 per cent. But it is not correct to compare 16 per cent and 100 per cent. The correct comparison to be made in determining where the investment is involves the fact that out of 84 per cent of investment in Australia, 35 per cent is in housing. Do the overseas investors want to put money into housing here? Of course not. They want to invest in multi-storey buildings in the main streets of every city in Australia but not in housing. Therefore it is important to examine where the money goes to, not simply how much of the resources of this country is being farmed out overseas.

Senator Greenwood referred to the mining industry in the north of Western Australia and asked whether it would have been developed without overseas investment. 1 do not think it would have been developed without overseas investments, but I am very mindful of the fact that when the Commonwealth Government on behalf of the Administration of Papua New Guinea allowed Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd to develop the Bougainville copper industry, it insisted that 20 per cent of the shareholding be made available to the Administration at par.

This is the sort of action that should have been taken with respect to development works on the mainland of Australia. I am not married to a requirement of 20 per cent, 50 per cent or any other percentage, but some percentage should have been reserved for the Australian people. There is a possibility that some of these industries can be developed from within Australia. The Kambalda nickel mines cost about $1 70m to develop, and it was achieved by Australian interests - Western Mining Corporation Ltd. There is no overseas money in that enterprise. The money is available if the people concerned will go out and get it, but they are too anxious to sell the resources of this country to the highest overseas bidder.

I heard some talk about the Canadian position. Of course, it was quite different from the Australian position inasmuch as overseas investment in Australia comes mainly from 2 countries, Great Britain and the United States of America. Canada was faced with the might of the American giant right on its border. It was a different position there. Nevertheless, the Canadian Government has some down with a guideline. A committee has been set up to see what will happen. I suggest to the Government that it is quite easy for something to be done. The details can be worked out. A suitable policy could include a provision that a legal or equitable interest in or affecting Australian commerce, industry, resources or land is not capable of being created, assigned, effected, or dealt with whether directly or indirectly except with the authority of the Treasurer. The Treasurer can set up a committee to examine mergers and takeovers and can examine the purposes of overseas investment. Such an expert body would be working in the national interest to see that our policy was properly carried out. The Australian people would know whether overseas investment was being made for their benefit.

If that requirement is thought to be too restrictive, I remind honourable senators of the Canadian requirement concerning a $250,000 or $3m turnover within a company. Such restrictions can be imposed so that there is no interference with minor operations. Honourable senators opposite may raise difficulties but it is a datum peg to start from for a committee examining overseas investment. If the DLP had put forward such a suggestion it would have been acting constructively, instead of putting forward a motion with the intention of whitewashing itself in the eyes of the people - something to get the DLP off the hook with the working people of Australia whom they constantly oppose.

Senator JESSOP (South Australia) (5.39) - I always listen with interest to Senator Cant of the Opposition when he speaks on matters relating to foreign investment. I noticed tonight that he displays a certain amount of irritation towards the Australian Democratic Labor Party. He suggested that the DLP senators were trying to whitewash themselves because of their views on the amalgamation of certain trade unions. I think Senator Cant implied that they were trying to steal the limelight. I suggest that perhaps the superior political strategy has irritated the Labor Party as some of its members may believe that the Australian Labor Party should have put forward such a motion.

I invite honourable senators to look back to 10th November 1971 when the DLP introduced a similar subject to the Senate. On that occasion I paid tribute to the Democratic Labor Party for bringing the matter before the Senate at that time. I believe that DLP senators should derive some satisfaction from the fact that the Senate unanimously agreed to set up a select committee to examine foreign ownership in depth, under the capable chairmanship of Senator Withers. He has under him a very competent Committee that will look into this matter in great depth. It will take some time to do so.

I think all honourable senators will agree that we must show concern at the increasing interest in foreign capital in this country. We must study the areas in which foreign investors are becoming increasingly active to find out whether they are keeping Australian capital out. Going not too far back into our history it is clear that there are areas of Australia which could not have been developed purely and simply by Australian capital. The last time I spoke on this matter I referred to the Gove alumina project. When I visited Gove in 1968 I learned that the Australian Government had requested that 50 per cent of the capital in the project should be raised in Australia. I returned there last year and discovered that it was impossible to raise that amount of Australian capital. It was necessary to seek Swiss capital in order to make the project work. The enterprise has guaranteed work for several hundred people.

I turn to other areas in Australia where a similar situation has arisen. For instance, the Mount Newman venture took a long time to interest Australian capital. A similar position obtained at Robe River and at the Amex project in the Admiralty Gulf. Those projects could not have proceeded without an infusion of overseas capital.

Senator Webster:

– Does not the Premier of Western Australia go to Japan to try to encourage investment in Western Australia?

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I was getting around to that point. I drew Senator Cant’s attention last time I spoke on this matter to the fact that Mr Tonkin, the Labor Premier of Western Australia, only recently returned from a trip overseas on which he tried to attract Japanese capital into Western Australia in order to develop effectively the natural gas resources of that State. I have heard the figure of $400m mentioned as being required for that development. I certainly agree that we must protect Australian interests in all possible ways but we must also face, up to the hard economic facts of life and realise that Australia needs now and will need for a considerable time an infusion of overseas capital in order that industrial expansion in Australia can continue.

Senator Georges:

– But on our terms.

Senator JESSOP:

– I agree; that aspect ought to be considered. I believe that the Government recognises the need to reassess attitudes to overseas investment in Aus tralia. This has been quite clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has instructed the Treasury to produce a White Paper on this very matter to assess the effects on the Australian economy. I hope that White Paper will be presented in the House of Representatives in the not too distant future.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator JESSOP:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had referred to the need to look into the matter of foreign investment in Australia. I think we have to look at the matter in 2 ways, firstly, in a developmental sense and, secondly, in the take-over sense, which is what is creating so much concern in Australia at the moment. I do not think one would have to be a master economist to appreciate the need to increase our productivity at this stage when inflation is presenting us with such a problem. For that reason I believe that we must not disregard the importance of foreign capital in developing Australia’s resources. I submit that at this time it would be wrong to forbid or inhibit the inflow of foreign capital to assist or sustain certain Australian industries because the lack of liquidity could cause serious impediments to the ability of an industry to remain viable. Nobody can say that the Government is not aware of the need to look into this matter.

I have said that the Treasurer has called for a White Paper from his Department on this matter and that a Senate select committee has been set up to deal with the subject in fine detail. No doubt the prominence given to the Rocla pipes case and the attempted take-over of Ansett Transport Industries by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd have drawn a lot of public attention to the matter. The Government must look at this subject very carefully in the future. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and indeed the Government are not unaware of the need to do this and to take steps to prevent such take-overs in the future. Not long ago the Prime Minister made a statement to that effect. He referred to legislation to be introduced, such as amendments to the Trade Practices Act, to deal with future take-over bids. I am no lawyer but I do realise that the legality of the matter is complex. I know that the Attorney-General (Senator Green- wood) has burned the midnight oil in giving these matters consideration so that ihe Government’s actions, whatever they may be, will bc accurate in every respect when it takes legislative action in this area.

I have indicated previously that it is necessary to work out areas in which foreign investment does represent majority interest, and to give a careful assessment of whether Australian capital could be used in those areas. I noticed that Senator Douglas McClelland referred to the awakening of the Democratic Labor Party to the matter of foreign investment in Australia. I could not help noticing a certain division of opinion between the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party in this debate. Senator Douglas McClelland mentioned that the Australian Labor Party has been raising this matter in Parliament and in public on many occasions over the years. It worries me when I hear members of the Opposition discrediting the advantages of foreign investment in Australia, particularly when they have clear evidence that State Premiers who are members of their own Party have travelled overseas deliberately trying to entice foreign investment to their States. I refer particularly to the Premiers of South Australia and Western Australia. I read with interest some time ago that even the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has travelled overseas in an attempt to obtain advice from West German and Israeli trade unionists with the object of attracting, and even using, capital from West Germany in order to provide the trade union movement in Australia not only with expertise but also with possible ways of financing the establishment of a finance corporation designed to enable trade unionists to borrow from it for hire purchase requirements. I suppose it is fair to say that Mr Hawke should go overseas to attract expert advice in the matter of finance because the enterprise that the ACTU took over recently - Bourke’s store - is not doing too well. So it was not surprising to me that he should go outside Australia to obtain financial advice, and probably to attract financial assistance, in order to form a corporation that would be of some benefit to Australian trade unionists.

Senator Poke:

– You said ‘probably to attract financial assistance’. There, is nothing definite about it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I make the observation that it seemed to me to be significant that West German trade unionists came to Australia recently. It was clear to me and to everybody else in Australia, if they can believe what is written in the Press, that the object-

Senator Poke:

– You cannot believe what is written in the Press. You should know that by now. You have been in politics long enough to know that.

Senator JESSOP:

– My friend says that we cannot believe what is written in the Press. That is true, because for a number of years the Press has been conducting a campaign against the Government, lt seems to be mounting. Therefore I am glad to hear Senator Poke’s statement that he does not believe what the Press may have been saying in recent times. Nevertheless, I think that there is a lot of substance in what I believe to be the intention of the ACTU - to attract foreign interests into Australia for its own purposes. I share the concern of the DLP in the matter. Together with my colleagues on this side of the chamber who have demonstrated an equal interest in the matter of foreign investment in Australia, I will urge the Government to look at the matter urgently. 1 do not think we will gain anything at this time by freezing any take-over bids, firstly, because of the action that the. Government has taken in calling for a Treasury document enunciating clearly the effects of foreign capital on the Australian economy and, secondly and not insignificantly, because the Senate has appointed a select committee, to inquire into all areas of concern with regard to the matter. This job will not be completed in a short time. It will require a lot of very careful attention to define clearly the areas in which foreign investment is applied in Australia to work out the precise and significant effects that it will have on the Australian economy.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Mr President, any doubts that I might have had about the ambit of the matter proposed for discussion today were dispelled by the definition of it submitted by Senator Jessop. He spoke about what I would call a feasibility study by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) or the Cabinet. Such a feasibility study would be one of many, many projects, even Senate select committee investigations, which have resulted in most effective reports being brought down about which nothing happens. On the other extreme, Senator Kane in advancing his case delved into Latin American politics. In fact, I thought that it was most courageous of him to deal with Chile. As a matter of fact, he could even have gone back to the previous government in Chile which was more of a Christian Democrat character as distinct from a socialist government, although I know that there are degrees of socialism.

The fact of the matter is that we can read interesting studies of the previous government of Chile led by Frei. Those studies point out that, when he took office, various American oil companies anticipated that they probably would need to make a gesture because of the greater nationalism that follows the advent of a new government that is more to the left, whether it be in Australia or Latin America, and re-negotiate all their agreements. While most of the discussions here have been on share transfers, I believe that the core of the situation concerns the operations of the big ventures, the big international capitalist enterprises, which have their tentacles in Australia. I do not object to them being here, but I say that we should dictate to them as to the ramifications of their activities here.

South America may be an indication of the situation because many countries of South America were subject to uncontrolled British or United States capital investment. Honourable senators may say: Well, the people have an opportunity to exercise, their right at the ballot box’. To take it a little further, we could say that in Australia, through the avenue of the Statute of Westminster, we certainly did achieve political democracy. But I question whether we still have not a form of economic serfdom. In fact, there is no question about that because how often do we find that even companies that are predominantly Australian spurn government policy. Honourable senators must have short memories if they do not recall that, in spite of the cajoling of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd told them to go jump in the lake. Yet, to be quite honest, I must say that the Government can get even with that company and any other big company if its operations are based in Australia. But the fact of the matter is that the Government does not have the same control over the big operators which have their main offices in London or Washington. It is on that point that I am not one who is prepared to accept the views of Senator Cotton and to a lesser degree, Senator Jessop on this idea of a feasibility study and the Government indicating to big business that it must adopt a different attitude.

We cannot get away from the situation that exists today. I believe that it is this situation that inhibits Government thinking. The Government does not believe that it should turn the screws or argue with overseas investors to obtain better deals. I believe that State Premiers, no matter to what party they belong, and also the Commonwealth Government, could obtain better terms. It does not matter whether it is Bass Strait oil specifically or royalties overall that are being dealt with.

We differ from the Government in this respect: The Government says that a Labor government would frighten capital away. I say that we would welcome it on our terms. What do we find invariably when we talk to United States businessmen? Recently, I spoke to representatives of the Nabalco company. I do not believe that they think that the Australian Labor Party is a party characterised by something with horns and a tail. One has only to talk to such businessmen to see that if they were required to negotiate across the table with tougher negotiators Australia would achieve better terms in respect of their investments. But the Government is inhibited because it believes that such action will jeopardise our stature, our treaties or defence commitments. That is absolute rubbish.

In his thesis, Senator Kane spoke about Chile. I invite honourable senators to look at the situation with respect to Bolivia. I see Senator Laucke looking appreciatively at me across the chamber because he knows of the recent talks that I had with the representatives of the Nabalco company. I questioned them very closely on Bolivia. I said: ‘In Bolivia there are revolutions. There have been various governments well to the left of the types of governments found in Australia. But you still have your investments in Bolivia’. Their reply is: ‘Of course. Tin mining is pretty profitable’. I put it to the Government that it need not have any fears about turning the screws on these overseas enterprises operating in Australia. They would come to the party. They would still be with us.

The danger in this respect - again, Senator Kane hinted at this - is: How far will such a company interfere in a country’s Internal operations at election time? One of the ironical features of this situation is that overseas companies did sabotage the Frei Government in Chile and the government that followed it was further to the left. I do not know what analogy can be drawn between what happened in Chile and what might happen in Australia. It may be a warning to big business. I hope that it will be. Usually in such a situation we find that if reforms are not accepted the pendulum swings out of alignment completely. That is the basis on which I approach this matter.

Whilst it is true that America and Britain have been our allies in conflicts of war, when it comes to peacetime activities those countries are rightly concerned with their own affairs. In considering the history of relations between Australia and the United States, I think of the ultramilitancy adopted by Senator Lillico and Senator Lawrie in relation to American trade policies which affected sections of our rural industries. Those honourable senators had every right to adopt that stand. There is no question but that I applaud them for it. But they do not seem to be able to rationalise that approach with what is proposed when we seek a little more uniform policy regarding the overall situation. Honourable senators opposite want to deal with these matters on a sectional basis. We will not have that.

The more one moves around, and the more one talks to people overseas about such controversies, the more one appreciates what does happen. I spoke to people at the headquarters of the European Common Market organisation in Brussels. On the subject of the Common Market debate, they blandly told me that it was only by an amalgamation of European nations that they were able to stand against the huge economic strength nor merely of the

United State, for that matter, of the Soviet Union and some of the other Eastern bloc countries. If we do not accept that argument, we are beholden to the attitude that if we speak up too loudly we will be victimised.

Probably most honourable senators received recently in the mail some material submitted by the Maltese High Commission. If ever the actions of a country should teach lesson to Australia, the actions of the little island of Malta should. Malta played what we might call a game cf brinkmanship. It flirted with one Middle Eastern country and then a very heated scene took place across the negotiating table with British Prime Minister Edward Heath and Lord Carrington, who is known to many people in Australia. Malta also had discussions with China. What was the outcome? Malta obtained a better deal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers and, on top of that, gained a bonus from continental China. This is what that small country was able to achieve. I have not seen the day in recent years when Australia has been able to do anything worth while in this respect.

One of the classic commercial ventures on which I indict this Government - it is one of the reasons why I have little confidence in it - was initiated in 1963 when the then Minister for Defence, at. the behest of Prime Minister Menzies, signed an agreement for Australia to purchase the Fill. When we contrast the lack of escape clauses in that agreement with what Malta negotiated with Britain, we see that it was a pretty sorry day for Australia when the Fill contract was signed. When we go overseas on trade missions, somewhere along the line Foreign Ministers of recent governments say: ‘This is the line that you must follow and away from which you must not step’. One more of less feels that Australia will be left defence naked if that line is not followed.

Whatever criticism I make of the United States or the United Kingdom governments on economic grounds - these remarks apply to any other group - should be kept separate from other matters. I instance discussions that I have had with various European diplomats who have been here. Mark you, I applaud this Government for the series of trade agreements that it has entered into with Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and other Eastern bloc countries. Talking to those people on their trade expeditions when they are trying to deal with Britain on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other, one finds that they seem to be able to walk an economic tightrope. That is one of the reasons why I support this proposal. I have no confidence in feasibility studies unless some positive action is taken. I repeat that international capitalism looks at economic matters very cold-bloodedly. If it must deal with governments to the far left or to the far right, it accommodates its attitudes accordingly.

It is probably equally true that honourable members opposite try to identify propositions that are radical and progressive - I think that this is always in the back of Senator Jessop’s mind - with some leftist plot that they believe exists. When Senator Kane almost equated a country being in economic serfdom with the results of the activities of big business, I agreed with him. But the whole situation seems to be that the Government is afraid that if it goes too far it will be left out in the economic wilderness. We know that undoubtedly there is a place for foreign capital in many fields.

I give notice - the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) is aware of this - that during the, adjournment debate tonight I shall be dealing with a matter involving the Northern Territory. I shall give a classic illustration of an overseas boardroom which seems to know more about Australian policy in a particular field than we do in this Senate. I pass on from that matter. I believe that if this motion does nothing for the various agreements which may be negotiated at a private or government level it is indicative of the fears of the people as a whole. I do not regard it as being concerned with any gigantic takeovers or nationalisation. It reflects a resurgence of genuine Australian nationalism. Nobody likes to be sold short. The fact of the matter is that our chickens are coming home to roost. I have been waiting about 6 weeks for the. Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) to make up his mind about the stupid policy which has resulted because we are exporting wool to Japan. We have become involved in the construction of ore wagons for northern Australia when people here ii the rolling stock and metal trades section have been dismissed.

Then we went to the other extreme. ! know that our balance of trade with Canada does not mean very much but we have more or less mortgaged our rolling stock industry to Canada. These are basic things. I repeat that this is a situation in which we should not have inhibitions. It is not going to rupture our relations with some of the countries which we term om powerful friends. I say to honourable senators opposite: Your powerful friends - rightly - are not overly concerned when their own economic interests are involved. This is on all fours with the observation which I made about the hard line attitude of the United States of America in regard to our meat trade. Senator Lawrie has taken a very militant attitude - for which I applaud him - on this matter. But on the other hand look at the disenchantment which permeated the higher echelons of the Australian Country Party when it was found that if the European Common Market was good for Britain she was going in. I do not quarrel with the Government in Westminster for making this decision. But I say to honourable senators opposite that I can remember when Harold Wilson was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. A lot of members of the Country Party would go to their electorates and say: ‘Look, if we get a non-<Labour government in Britain we will receive good terms when it goes into the Common Market.’ But the Minister for Trade and Industry found that he could not get very far with such a Government. No more could New Zealand. Whether it be a Labour or Conservative government in Britain its first interest is its own people. This is the dilemma with us. We have had these shackles imposed.

We say that we cannot separate our foreign policy from trade. Whatever plans the Government tries to evolve for the wheat growers, honourable senators know as well as I do that Canada got the inside running as far as trade with China in wheat is concerned. In effect we have the worst of 2 worlds. The Government has bandied around its foreign policy. It let Canada outwit it as far as wheat was concerned. On the other hand honourable senators opposite seem to feel that in a commercial world the text of this motion means that if the Government shows a little bit of muscle these people are going to be frightened. There is nothing like that at all in this motion. Let us be real about the. situation, lt may be that sometimes Australians are too apathetic. But. after all. governments change. It is not a matter of battles in the streets and machine guns. If American and British capitalists can live with all the revolution that goes on in Latin American countries 1 am sure that despite any action which is visualised here overseas investors will come back and we will receive far better terms in many commercial takeovers or even partnerships than we have in the last 5 years.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I have listened to my friend Senator Mulvihill speaking with, I thought, some justifiable emotion about what sometimes happens to Senate committee reports. 1 felt that when he was speaking he had in mind the reports relating to the environment. I was somewhat disappointed that he did not spend more time talking about that matter, upon which I acknowledge he is an expert, rather than a matter upon which I have the greatest doubt as to his expertise. But with no further comment T pass on to talk about the matter which we are debating and thai is foreign investment and the sudden radical action proposed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party and supported by the Australian Labor Party. Mr President, I suggest that for a start we cut out the emotion in dealing with this matter on which it is easy to become emotional. I accept that people can, with considerable justification, become emotional on this matter.

Senator Byrne:

– It is the motion that we are interested in. not the emotion.

Senator RAE:

– That precisely sums up the situation. Although I say ‘Let us cut out the emotion’ let us not cut out in any way an expression of economic nationalism. I believe that Australia has reached the stage where it is entitled to indulge in a little economic nationalism - and not only entitled to indulge. I believe that any Australian government with the interests of the Australian people at heart is bound to indulge in a little economic nationalism even if it ls defensive rather than offensive. At a later stage I shall refer to a little offensive economic nationalism which I think we could usefully undertake. But let us be rational and weigh the considerations. Everybody accepts that we need growth. Everybody accepts our need for investment for development. Do we still need foreign capital to enable us to have that growth, that capital for investment and that development which we seek? Are the present circumstances still such as to warrant an unrestricted inflow of capital into this country for the purposes of encouraging development and investment.

I shall diverge for a moment. Because of our striking a particular rate in relation to our currency, have we created a situation which, temporarily at least, cuts out any necessity for a consideration of the encouragement of investment funds flowing into this country? Are we almost at the stage where we can say that we no longer need to worry about that, temporarily, because obviously the exchange rate is such as to introduce capita] whether we want it pr not. Whether people wish to invest in particular projects or not, it will flow into this country while we maintain an unreal exchange rate. Also 1 suggest that we should bear in mind the need to retain the opportunity to share in the growth of this country. Australians should have an opportunity to participate in the major growth points of the economy and in what might be described as the ‘goodies’ which are available to capital, particularly risk capital, in a rapidly developing nation such as this.

Like everyone else’s resources, our resources are limited. If these resources are fully and rapidly exploited at this stage and if further exploration and development fails to find greater quantities then we may find ourselves in a very difficult situation. To this extent I quite agree with the sentiments which have been expressed in this chamber today in relation to this matter. It is a matter for concern. It is a matter about which I believe we are all concerned. Certainly the Government has indicated in varying degrees through various persons its concern about the matters which have been raised here today. But the first and foremost matter which I urge upon the Senate is that balance in the approach is required. The problem is: Where does the balance lie? At the present time that is very hard to determine. If I could criticise - mildly of course - the information available to us I would say that there is a lack in Australia at the moment of adequate information to enable us to say with certainty what is the situation. What is the balance which we should strike? Perhaps before Australia moves in any other direction it would be most advantageous to move in the direction of really finding out what is the inflow, where is it going, why is it coming in and the way in which it is affecting the situation in Australia. To what extent are the matters about which people have been speaking this afternoon and this evening being affected?

Senator Gair:

– That is why the Democratic Labor Party proposed to refer the matter to a committee.

Senator RAE:

– Senator Gair, with that I have concurred and I do not take issue, but 1 point out that the Committee has undertaken, as the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange has undertaken, because of the terms of reference, a complex, long and necessarily involved examination. I think the matter is a little more urgent than that and I hope not only that we can benefit from the results of the deliberations of the Committee to which you refer but also that we can obtain results more quickly, enabling the Government to act even tentatively by requiring and ensuring that we obtain a greater degree of information available to us now as well as a thorough Senate committee type examination, which can be and is usefully being conducted.

Senator Gair:

– This is an urgency motion.

Senator RAE:

– This is where you and 1 part company, Senator Gair. I do not think we know enough at this stage to support the motion, though, as you will gather, I am not differing with you on a lot of major points. I am saying there is a lack of information but the indications are clear. 1 believe the prima facie indications at this stage are that we have a continuing capital inflow. We have a situation in which we need not be as concerned as we were in the days when the Current Affairs Bulletins on overseas investment in Australia published in August 1961 said that the basic attitudes to foreign investment in Australia were largely the product of the universally felt desire for rapid national development. I think we are past that stage. Perhaps it is the result of the particular adjustments that were made lo the exchange rate, but I think we were passing that stage anyway, notwithstanding that. I think we can say, as set out in that very interesting article in that Current Affairs Bulletin in 1961, that no longer do we have to approach it in that way. Whilst we are considering this matter let us have another look at the motion itself that has been proposed by Senator Kane and supported not only by his colleagues in the Democratic Labor Party but also by members of the Australian Labor Party. It says:

The need lo initiate immediately such legislative and administrative measures either alone or in cooperation with the States- and, one may say, wonder of wonders if that could be achieved at this stage - in this particular field, I hasten to add - as will impede, delay or prevent the transfer of the beneficial ownership of shares in Australian public companies lo non-Australian ownership until the report … or until something else has happened. What is the effect of it? The effect of it is to put a complete ban immediately upon the transfer of shares by any person, be he an overseas investor in Australia or an Australian investor, to any person who is resident overseas. The problems of definition are difficult to go into when one has only a quarter of an hour in which to speak, but 1 wish to raise briefly, for the benefit of those who are to speak later in the debate, the problem of definition of Australian companies. What does that mean? I do not know. It has a number of possible meanings. It could mean Australian registered public companies. It could mean Australian public companies which at the moment are 50 per cent or more owned by Australian shareholders. It could mean Australian companies which are owned other than through nominee holdings in some of the States in which it is possible to hold in nominee names by Australian shareholders, or it could mean a great number of other things which at the moment are impossible for us to determine. I suggest with the greatest of respect to Senator Gair and the members of his Party that there are problems in trying to implement a motion such as this. Even if one could overcome the definition problems and understand precisely what is meant, one then comes to the problem of what will happen. With the greatest of respect, I have not heard from those who have preceded me in this debate an examination of the possible effects of this particular action which is sought, andI hasten to add again that I am not in any way at all debating or disputing the general sympathy for the matter which has given rise to this particular motion.

Senator Gair:

– Where there’s a will there’s a way.

Senator RAE:

– That is so, and I trust that we will see from the Government not only a will but also a way.

Senator Gair:

– We want to see some evidence of the will.

Senator RAE:

– As a member of the Government parties, I am expressing a will so fur as I am concerned. I think there is a will amongst a great number of the members of the Government parties that something should happen in relation to these areas and there is a confidence that our Government will act in relation to them. Earlier speakers have referred to the measures that have already been undertaken and the measures that are expected to be undertaken. Let us not have any difference about the general sympathy. Let us get down to a consideration of some of the matters involved. One question that 1 ask, and I was asking when Senator Gair interjected - an interjection whichI did not mind as it was a perfectly reasonable observation - was whether any speaker this afternoon had considered what might happen as a result of the implementation of measures such as these that are suggested. For instance - and I raise this only as a possibility - has anybody ascertained or commented upon the extent to which British and Japanese investment in particular, plus other foreign investment through our stock exchanges and our capital markets in Australia can be taken as a basic element of the support of the depth of those markets. Can anyone say that if Australia withdraws summarily and arbitrarily by legislation the possibility of those people continuing to invest in some of those markets, that such markets will not collapse, particularly when one bears in mind the present much publicised loss of confidence in the Australian economy. I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that 1 believe this to be likely, butI believe it is prudent to consider it before voting in favour of a motion such as this. 1 certainly have not heard an economic argument and a detailed and reasoned argument supplied to us in support of this motion which would make me go even so far as to say that upon the balance of probabilities that would not happen. I have my own view, and I hasten to add that it is that the inflow of portfolio investments into Australia from overseas in recent times has been relatively small and that the amount of money that is available in Australia through the various institutional investors is more than sufficient to take up the lag, and I do not believe that the matter I have raised is a reality. However, I suggest to the mover of the motion and his supporters that it is one of the important things that should be considered and confirmed or rejected before the vote is cast in favour of a motion such as this.

I have my view, but J did not have time when the matter came to my notice this afternoon to research adequately and confirm what is a general feeling as far as I am concerned. I certainly was disappointed to find that apparently nobody who supports this motion was concerned enough to find out this information. If we go on to look at some of the other possibilities, I wonder whether those who support the motion can say with satisfaction that these things which may happen are less dangerous than the thing we all know is happening at the moment. I repeat that I am not suggesting that some action is not necessary. However, I ask why it is necessary to do it in this particular way - this particular and extreme way that has been suggested here today. Let us look for the moment at the capital inflow question. Is Australia really receiving capital inflow only because, as we have heard so often, andI think already heard referred to in this debate, of our relatively high interest rates.I think the Euro bond or the Euro dollar interest rates are higher. I consider that interest rates are no longer the cause, and that there is no cause stronger than that of the exchange rate. I notice that, unfortunately, I have exhausted the time allowed to me in which to speak. However, although my time is completed, I hope that Australia’s time in relation to investment is not.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The debate which has been initiated by the Australian Democratic Labor Party on this very important matter has resulted in speeches being addressed to the Senate chamber by Government supporters and supporters of the Opposition. The approach of the Government on this matter has been one of cairn consideration. While not being prepared to accept the Democratic Labor Party’s propositions, the Government has attempted to analyse them. This approach has been adopted by Senator Cotton, Senator Greenwood and Senator Rae. While Senator Rae can find merit in the general attitude and disposition which supports the presentation of this motion he can also find in it possibilities and implications that would be, to his mind, undesirable and which have not been plumbed in sufficient depth to allow him to support the motion. My colleagues and I respect that approach to the debate on this matter.

From the other side of the chamber - from the Australian Labor Party - on a matter which should be completely nonpolitical we have heard nothing but an intemperate attack on the good will, the good faith and the integrity of the Democratic Labor Party in bringing forward this matter. The Australian Labor Party is not able to, nor does it, disagree with the substance of the proposition or what is intended by the motion. Because the Australian Labor Party cannot say that the Democratic Labor Party is wrong, it says that the Democratic Labor Party is right but for the wrong reason. In other words, the Australian Labor Party is suggesting that the Democratic Labor Party is advancing this motion purely for political purposes and not having in mind any honesty of purpose or any real intent to handle the problem at issue. The Democratic Labor Party has been more interested in this matter than in any other group in the Parliament and it has been interested for a longer time. An examination of the record of my Party in this chamber over the last few years will reveal that this matter has been under the constant scrutiny and attention of the Democratic Labor Party. lt is all right for the Australian Labor Party to ask why the Democratic Labor Party moved today and not before. My reply to that question is: Why did the Australian Labor Party, as the official Opposition, not move first on this matter? 1 go back to 16th September 1969 . when the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, presented in another place the guidelines for foreign investment. They were almost simultaneously read in this place. The guidelines laid down on that occasion embraced a takeover code in most specific terms detailed by the then Prime Minister. After Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson had adressed himself to those propositions the adjournment of the debate was taken by the late Senator Cohen. In other words, at that point the Australian Labor Party had the carriage of the matter if it wanted to investigate it or examine it in depth. From then on nothing was done about it. To my knowledge this matter has not been debated by the Australian Labor Party since then. The official Opposition is so recreant to its trust, to the responsibility which it assumes and to the position and prestige which it claims in this Parliament that a matter which it now says is of vital national importance has not attracted its attention.

I can understand the embarrassment, concern and chagrin of members of the Opposition when the Democratic Labor Party takes the initiative and captures the imagination and support of the whole Australian nation in drawing national attention and parliamentary attention to this important matter. I can well understand the embarrassment of the Australian Labor Party because in this matter, as in so many other matters, the Democratic Labor Party has once again taken the initiative. It was my Party which moved for the appointment of a Senate select committee to consider the whole question of the foreign control of Australian assets. It was my Party which made particular reference of the Ansett-TNT takeover proposition to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. It is my Party which now brings this matter up and wants it to receive immediate attention.

Having disposed of the Australian Labor Party, which is completely in the rearguard of parliamentary initiative in this country, I turn now to the more important matters raised by Senator Rae. The action the Democratic Labor Party seeks will be more or less in the nature of an interim injunction. When one fears that a cetain situation is going to develop, one moves in quickly with some sort of a stay order until the matter can be examined in depth. When this matter was first raised and started to be a matter of public concern and when it attracted the attention of the Democratic Labor Party certain economic conditions were prevailing which, while they gave rise to concern that the present position might develop, were not of the acute nature which is now so apparent and so evident. Things have changed. With the rate of interest as it is in Australia today and with the exchange rate as it is there is every inducement and every opportunity for the circumvention of any action we may take to try and prohibit Australian assets passing into foreign control. That being the position there will be people who will try to take advantage of the situation.

The announcements have been made on this subject. First of all there was the announcement of the appointment of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control. It is quite probable that that committee will in due course bring down firm guidelines to govern this matter. Those who are interested in coming in before the door is closed are likely to move now. We know that there is always great parliamentary reluctance to legislate retrospectively to handle a situation. The second announcement was by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) that he proposes to lay down a White Paper on this matter. That again is going to alert those who want to circumvent any lines of economic and financial discipline that they must move now if they are going to move at all.

We have had recent manifestations of this type of thing. The matter which was raised publicly by Senator Kane in this place of the attempted takeover by the International Telephone anl Telegraph Corporation of one of the big food complexes in Australia is that type of exercise. When the alert has been given and the red signal is being raised it is likely that there will be a spate of this type of approach. It is therefore vital that the Parliament should at this time move as it can to try to impede those who in due time would circumvent what we have in mind.

Senator Rae:

– Takeovers, surely, but not share purchases as such.

Senator BYRNE:

– Ultimately it comes down to the same thing. If one purchases the share capital of a company to the point where one controls it surely that is a takeover. It is a matter of technical terms, but ultimately such action can result, in the complete ownership and control of the beneficial interests of a company. Whether it is a raid on the share market which results in virtually complete ownership and control or a firm takeover offer in the technical sense it amounts to the same thing in the ultimate. It is in an endeavour to try to stifle this type of procedure and to impede this type of assault on Australian resources that the Demoncratic Labor Party is moving on this occasion. The motion contemplates, to use the term Senator Kane used, a ‘complete freeze’.

I do not want Senator Rae or the Government to examine this motion in the most technical terms. It is an intimation by the Senate of concern in principle. When it comes to a clear definition of what is meant by a ‘public company’ or other terms like that, I suppose a motion of this nature is somewhat ineffective and inadequate. But that is not the purport of an urgency motion of this character. The more specific delineation will come at a later stage. The intention of this motion is to draw the attention of the nation and the Parliament to the fact that the resources held by public companies in Australia are now vulnerable and there is a great possibility that they will be captured in a large measure by interests outside of Australia. I do not think one would expect the terms to be technically specific in this type of motion. It is for that reason that we have not sought for them to be technically specific. If the terms of this motion are considered by the Government to be rather harsh in that they contemplate a complete freeze of all proposals of this nature by prohibition, interruption or impediment, I ask the Government to examine - the Senate having intimated its deep and urgent concern in this field - as the motion contemplates, whether the appropriate legislative and administrative machinery is available or, if it is unavailable, whether it can be created. Once it is created, if it does not freeze the attempted takeover of all companies, at least it should give the power and authority to handle particular cases where malice is involved. That is an interpretation of our proposal which is available. We put the matter at the highest level and we will receive the support of the Australian Labor Party at that level. If the Government opposes this proposal and is not prepared to abide by the concern expressed in the Senate, in the fullest terms, at least it should look at particular cases, examine the legislative and administrative machinery to see what can be done and then operate in relation to those particular cases. That is an appeal, and I think Senator Georges at least would agree that we are entitled to ask the Government, if it does not agree with this proposal, to do what I have outlined. This debate has gone on for some hours. I merely say that the Democratic Labor Party has been interested in this matter for a long time. The allegations that this is some sort of a political manoeuvre to advance the candidature of a candidate or to obtain public acclaim are wrong. I draw the attention of the Senate to a speech I made on the Banks (Shareholdings) Bill 1971 which appears at page 261 of the Senate Hansard. I said in that speech:

This is an important Bill dealing with a matter which has been raised by my Party and by me in the Senate in more recent times.

My comment was sparked by the suggestion that money from Hong Kong would be used to obtain ownership and control of a hire purchase empire in Australia. This would have been an extraordinarily dangerous situation because the finance and economic empire is on a parallel with the banking empire, and therefore the credit resources of Australian could be vulnerable to external attack. I went on to say that the Democratic Labor Party had been interested in this matter for a considerable time, and I continued:

I know that it has been suggested that it is very difficult to take action in this area, but a few years ago the Democratic Labor Party in Queensland at a State conference put forward the suggestion that there should be a gradation in scales of company tax so that as a public company had more or less Australian participating equity, so the rate of company tax should vary. In other words, if a public company had SO per cent of Australian equity the company tax would be X per cent. On the other hand, if the Australian equity fell to 35 per cent the company tax would go up. . . .

So a long time ago there was evidence of the Democratic Labor Party’s aversion to this problem in a most practical way with a very practical solution. It is an indication of our continuing concern in relation to this matter. We have raised it all along. We have taken the only practical steps so far taken. When Mr Gorton was Prime Minister the Government knew of (his problem and did nothing; the Australian Labor Party knew nothing and did nothing; we knew and we acted. I commend this proposal to the Senate. In order that a vote may be taken on this matter, I move:

Senator Cotton:

– I rise to a point of order. Under standing order 64 (2.) the time set aside for debating matters of urgency is 3 hours, and we have a senator yet to speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The motion that the question be put is an overriding motion which must be put without debate.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 26

NOES: 23

Majority . . . .3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow, 10 May, at 2.55 p.m. unless otherwise ordered.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Wheeldon - Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Are you raising a point of order?

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, Mr President.

Senator Gair:

– Mr President, I take exception to the last remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! A point of order has been raised by Senator Wheeldon and I have called upon him to state his point of order.

Senator Gair:

– I am neither obscene, nor am I drunk.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Gair. I am taking notice of the observations of Senator Wheeldon.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Mr President, I ask you to ask Senator Gair to restrain himself. He has made a series of most offensive remarks to members of this chamber, including Senator Douglas McClelland.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are making a speech, not raising a point of order.

Senator Wheeldon:

– The point of order I am raising is that just a few moments ago Senator Gair made a most insulting remark. He referred to me as being obscene.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! 1 did not hear it. I shall be grateful if both Senator Gair and Senator Douglas McClelland will attend upon me in my rooms, after I put a deputy in the Chair, and let me deal with the matter there. If I cannot deal with the matter in my rooms then it will have to be resolved by the Senate. Do you agree to that course being taken?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Gair, would you do me the honour of accompanying me to my office?

Senator Gair:

– Yes, I agree.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Laucke, will you take the Chair?

Senator Laucke:

– Yes, Mr President.

page 1454

PRESIDENT NIXON’S DECISIONS ON VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - The statement I am about to read was made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in another place today. It is as follows:

I refer to the important decisions which President Nixon has been obliged to take in the present very serious situation in Vietnam. These decisions were taken because of the blatant invasion of South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese, supported by Outside governments. Not only has there been this invasion of South Vietnam across the demilitarised zone, but North Vietnamese forces have been carrying on offensive military operations in Laos and the Khmer Republic for a period of years. The Austraiian Government strongly condemns

North Vietnam and its associates. It is they who must take the complete moral responsibility for these actions.

The United States has made - with full Australian support - every effort to bring about a negotiated settlement of the present conflict. These efforts have met with an absolute refusal .by North Vietnam to negotiate seriously. The United States has also tried to de-escalate the fighting by progressively withdrawing its forces from Vietnam. The response from Hanoi has been the launching of a long and carefully planned invasion. The Australian Government understands and supports the decisions which the President has felt compelled to take. In our view the United States has done everything in its power to ensure a negotiated settlement and to maintain the independence of South Vietnam and not to abandon the people of that country. The present decisions by the United States reflect its determination to stand by its international obligations and alliances. The United States must also avoid endangering the lives of its own forces in Vietnam.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to order. Can you explain to me, Mr Acting Deputy President, why copies of a statement of such import were not circulated so that all honourable senators at the time the statement was being made would be privy to the contents more thoroughly than they would be by just listening to the Minister?

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania - Minister for Works) - by leave - The statement was made by the Prime Minister this afternoon. It was a very brief statement following upon the compulsive event of President Nixon’s statement. It was thought that honourable senators would have no difficulty in comprehending the full significance of a statement of such brevity, which f read with such clarity.

Senator Georges:

– Might I, with the leave of the Senate, Mr Acting Deputy President, point out that the explanation is not satisfactory. Following the courtesy which normally is extended to honourable senators, copies of such statements are distributed before they are read so that we have knowledge of the contents before the Minister rises, no matter how brief the statement may be. I hope that in future such statements are circulated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! The point of order is not valid.

Senator Keeffe:

– I seek leave to make a short statement on the same matter.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Is leave granted?

Senator Wright:

– No, the debate has been adjourned.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Leave is not granted.

page 1455

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN POLICY

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted?

Senator Keeffe - No

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Leave is not granted.

page 1455

DAIRYING INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western

Australia - Minister for Air) (9.18) - I move:

I point out to the Senate that this Bill and 5 associated Bills were introduced in the other place on 12th April. There are 6 Bills and I ask for the consideration of the Senate so that the second reading speeches in relation to them might be incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Is leave granted?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am dealing with the first Bill, the Dairying Industry Bill 1972. I have asked that the second reading speech of 7 pages be incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted?

Senator Keeffe:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Leave is not granted.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The current 5-year dairying industry stabilisation plan, which is the fifth successive plan, is due to expire on 30thJune next. Representatives of the industry have submitted proposals for a new 5-year plan which include provision for a 2-price quota scheme. The proposals have taken into account the uncertainties facing the industry, particularly in view of Britain’s decision to enter the Common Market. They are based on the recognition that it would be in the long term interests of dairy farmers for future production to be kept at a level which can be sold at satisfactory prices. The industry representatives consider that their proposals for a 2-price quota scheme will achieve this objective while maintaining a sound industry in each State.

In its simplest terms the scheme provides for the establishment of a national butterfat quota, based on home and overseas market requirements, the allocation of that quota amongst the States being on production over a recent base period. State dairy authorities would be responsible for the allocation of quotas among farmers. A premium price would be payable on quota production whilst over-quota production would receive only the basic export price.

Senator Keeffe:

-I rise to order. The second reading speech that the Minister is now reading has not been distributed. I would like to know why it has not been distributed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Copies of the speech will be taken around to honourable senators.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Each farmer would thus be free to determine his optimum level of production in the light of the level of his quota and the price he receives for quota and over-quota butterfat. The industry organisations considered a number of alternative measures to control production but came to the conclusion that a 2-price quota scheme afforded the best means of meeting the needs and circumstances of the industry. The proposals for a 2-price quota scheme were unanimously endorsed on 1st November by an Australia-wide meeting of dairy industry organisations representing farmers, factories, distributors and exporters.

Senator Poke:

– Mr Deputy President, I am sorry to do this but 1 must rise to a point, of order. This procedure is not fair to the Opposition. Apparently the system of the Government has badly broken down and we of the Opposition have to put up with the consequences. Some members of the Opposition would like to follow the speech of the Minister as he reads it and it is not fair that we should be denied that right which has always been extended to us.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Copies have arrived and are now being distributed. The proposals were subsequently considered by State Ministers at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council on 15th February 1972. While there was general agreement that the immediate implementation of the quota proposals was not warranted until market circumstances changed, the Australian Agricultural Council accepted in principle the necessity to plan for a flexible scheme of production control which could be applied when necessary. The Victorian Government stressed the need for any scheme to have temporary application if it became necessary to meet reduced export markets. All governments however agreed to proceed with the planning of a mutually acceptable control mechanism so that it can be available for implementation if necessary. In accordance with the decision of the Australian Agricultural Council a conference of State and Federal officials has since been held to consider the industry proposals and how they could be modified to suit the differing requirements of each State. A report has been prepared for the consideration of the Council and further developments will depend on the reaction of State Ministers to the report.

In the circumstances there is no possibility of legislation being enacted to provide for a scheme of production control by 1st July. However, the acceptance by the industry of such complex and far-reaching proposals and the indication of a preparedness to act by State governments on a mutually acceptable control mechanism has been a significant achievement. The Government considers that a vital factor in the next stabilisation plan for the dairy industry is the preparedness of the States to introduce whatever State legislative measures may be necessary to establish an effective production control mechanism for use at such stage as may be necessary. In addition to the proposals for a 2-price quota scheme the main industry recommendation in relation to dairy stabilisation for the next 5 years is that Commonwealth financial assistance be provided at a minimum of $40. 8m each year which was the amount of Commonwealth bounty granted to the dairy industry for 1971-72.

Because of the uncertainties associated with the longer term outlook for dairy products, particularly with Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, the Government recognises the need for an assurance of continuing Government support to the dairy industry. Accordingly the Government has decided to allocate for each of the next 5 years a minimum of $27m as Commonwealth financial assistance for butter and cheese and related butterfat products produced in Australia. Honourable senators will recall that this is the basic amount provided each year since 1957 under the last 3 stabilisation plans. For each year of the current plan the basic amount has been supplemented by special payments following sterling devaluation in November 1967.

The actual amount of Commonwealth assistance for the next 5 years will be determined each year in the light of the needs of the industry and taking into account the action taken by the States in the adoption of an effective scheme to control production but it will not be less than $27m. The amount of bounty for butter and cheese production in 1972-73 will be considered by the Government later this year and included in the Budget in accordance with the usual practice. Under the existing legislation, which authorises the payment of bounty and specifies the procedure to be followed in disbursing the bounty to dairy farmers, bounty is payable only until 30th June 1972. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the existing provisions of the legislation to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of butter, cheese and other related products containing butterfat for a further 5 years ending on 30th June 1977.

The Government has also decided that the bounty pyable on the export of processed milk products will be continued for each of the 5 years of the new plan. The Government’s decision in this regard is reflected in a Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill which I am introducing in conjunction with this Bill and would wish to be considered concurrently with this Bill. The Australian dairy industry has taken advantage of the present strong market situation to diversify and develop alternative outlets away from the United Kingdom as an insurance against the loss of access to the United Kingdom market when Britain joins the European Economic Community early next year. However, we would be deluding ourselves if we were to act on the premise that the present supply situation for dairy products is going to remain indefinitely or that there will be assured markets for unlimited quantities of dairy produce. Already there are factors starting to show which could lead to a weakening of the present strong market situation, particularly for butter.

As far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned it is essential that there be some mechanism which is recognised by the States so that, if there is to be a necessity for the adoption of production controls, the amount of Commonwealth assistance available can be directed immediately in a manner designed to enable a sound industry to be maintained in each State. In dairying as in all our primary industries it is essential that there be a relationship between what is produced and what can be sold at satisfactory prices. When the effective production control mechanism is settled those points of the plan that are additional to the bounties provided for in this Bill and its complementary Processed Milk Products Bounty Bill and that will require arrangements between the Commonwealth Government, State governments and industry bodies, will be spelt out as necessary in legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1457

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Drake-Brock- man) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

In my second reading speech on the Dairying Industry Bill 1972, I referred to the Government’s decision that the bounty payable on the export of processed milk products will be continued for each of the 5 years commencing on 1st July 1972. The Government has decided to maintain the maximum amount of bounty payable at $800,000 per year for each of the years. This is the amount that the Government has set aside for payment as bounty on processed milk products exports for each year since 1964-65. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision by extending to 30th June 1977 the operations of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1457

QUESTION

THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I interrupt the proceedings of the Senate to make the following statement: The incident earlier this evening has been discussed with me in the President’s rooms in the presence of the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) as well as the parties concerned, and it has been resolved. Senator Douglas McClelland now understands that he had placed a different interpretation on words used by Senator

Gair to that which Senator Gair states he had intended. Senator Douglas McClelland said that, as a result of the interpretation he had placed on the words, he had become inflamed and he had made a statement to Senator Gair in the heat of the moment which he now regrets, and he apologises to the Senate. The incident is now closed.

page 1458

DAIRYING RESEARCH BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Drake- Brockman) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western

Australia - Minister for Air) (9.25) -I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s announced intention to widen the existing Commonwealth/ industry dairy research scheme so that it will apply to the industry as a whole. The existing scheme operates under the legislative authority of the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Act 1958. It is one of 9 such schemes. Together, these schemes cover all major rural industries. They have the common purpose of fostering research for the benefit of those engaged in the industries concerned, by providing a system under which, as an established policy, the Commonwealth matches funds raised from producers by means of levies on the particular commodities produced. In addition there are standing arrangements for a number of other lesser but still important rural industries, by which the Government accords funds for research purposes. All these arrangements, whether backed by legislation or not, are additional to the quite considerable sums that are provided directly for agricultural and agricultural economic research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - CSIRO - and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The existing dairy research scheme covers research financed by levies on butter, cheese, butter oil, butter powder and ghee. In effect it is a scheme applying to the manufacturing sector of the dairying industry, and not even to the whole of that sector.

The industry has proposed and the Government has agreed to widen the scheme, so that it operates in respect of all milk and dairy products. Milk for human consumption and processed and condensery products will thus be brought within the ambit of this enlarged research scheme. The action now proposed has the support of all sectors of the industry. The Wholemilk Conference of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation took the initiative in the discussions within the industry which led to the present proposals. The proposals were endorsed by State bodies of the Federation. The Milk Producers Association has agreed. The Processed Milk Manufacturers Association raises no objection against the levy on all milk used for condensery products. The Australian Agricultural Council has been informed and milk marketing authorities throughout Australia have been consulted. The Australian Dairy Produce Board fully supports action to extend the research levy, to ensure that all sectors of the dairy industry contribute equitably towards the cost of research.

The costs of such research have been rising. In the current financial year 1971-72, a total of $849,216 has been allocated for dairy research projects. Producers predominantly supplying the fluid milk market are already receiving considerable benefits from such research, even though they have not so far been contributing towards its financing. Despite the fact that the volume of research has been cut back compared to earlier years, it has only been possible to maintain the present level of research by drawing on the accumulated reserves of the Dairy Produce Research Trust Fund. The income of the scheme in the current year 1971-72 for instance is estimated to be of the order of $775,000. With parliamentary approval of the measures now being introduced by the Government, the income of the scheme including the Government’s contribution will rise to over $lm. The wider scheme will enable research to be undertaken on problems involved in the producing, handling and distributing of fluid milk. It will also enable rebuilding of reserves; maintenance of the existing body of research activity; enhanced work on problems such as mastitis, diseases affecting calving, pasture and feed problems and the like; and greater emphasis on improvement in the quality of dairy products.

The Bill establishes an account to be known as the Dairying Research Trust Account. This Account will take the place of the existing Dairy Produce Research Trust Account. The new Account will be credited with the balance of moneys standing to the credit of or accruing to the Dairy Produce Research Trust Account as well as funds from Consolidated Revenue equal to the receipts to be raised from the broader based levy, as well as certain minor moneys. Under the existing arrangements, applications for support for research are considered by the Dairy Produce Research Committee. This Committee will be replaced by a new committee, the Dairying Research Committee, whose membership will be enlarged by the inclusion of one additional member who shall represent the dairy farmers of Australia engaged in the production of whole milk for human consumption. Before making an appointment to this seat on the Dairying Research Committee, the Minister for Primary Industry will be required to consult with representatives of dairy farmers engaged in such production. The Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and the Milk Producers Association will be consulted. The term of appointment of this member, and indeed of all members, will be limited to 3 years.

I take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of the work done by the members of the Dairy Produce Research Committee. It is my hope that their knowledge and experience will, as far as practicable, continue to be available for the benefit of the dairying industry. The functions of the Dairying Research Committee will be twofold - to recommend to the Minister for Primary Industry the operative rates of levy for research purposes, and to recommend to the Minister on the allocation of funds for research purposes and related activities. The need for research continues to be great. It is an essential element in the totality of measures that are being taken for the improvement of an industry whose welfare is significant to major regions in all States. The Government is assisting not only through contributions to research but also through support of the State advisory and extension services, through maintenance of stabilisation, the strengthening of equalisation and the provision of subsidy, through the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme to assist amalgamation and diversification, and through its efforts to assist in the defence of existing markets and the encouragement of entry into new markets, especially in neighbouring Asian countries. Every dairy farmer in Australia will now participate in this broad research scheme and the benefits of it will flow back to every dairy farmer in Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1459

DAIRYING RESEARCH LEVY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the imposition of levies on whole milk or on butter fat as the case may he. The levy will be payable on either a butter fat or a gallonage basis, according to the. normal practice of payment to the producer by the factory or plant that he supplies. The legislation provides for the maximum levy to be either 12c per cwt of butter fat or 0.04c per gallon of whole milk produced and sold. In the case of butter fat, this represents no change from the existing arrangements for research purposes under the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1966. The maximum rate of levy proposed to be applied to whole milk is equivalent to the maximum rate applicable to butter fat. Conversion is based on a 3.6 per cent butter fat content in whole milk, a level which is already being met by fluid milk producers in all States.

The operative rates will be less than the maximum rates laid down in the Bill now before the House. The operative rate that is ruling on butter fat at the present time is 10c per cwt. The comparable operative rate for whole milk will be 0.033c per gallon. These operative rates and any subsequent alterations will be prescribed by regulation after recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry by the Dairying Research Committee. 1 stress that there is no increase involved in the rates of levy on dairy produce. Levy collections will be payable initially by the purchaser in the first instance of the milk or cream concerned, and will be recoverable from the farmer who produced and sold that milk or cream. Where, in the. chain of production and distribution, milk or cream or butter fat is resold, there will be arrangements made to ensure that the commodity is not levied a second time. It is expected that the sums raised for research purposes by these levies will increase compared to Current 1971-72 receipts by approximately $150,000 to $160,000. This increase will be matched by a comparable increase in the Government’s obligation to contribute, so making available over $300,000 a year more for dairying research. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1460

QUEENSLAND GRANT BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(9.47)- I move:

Mr President, this Bill was introduced in the other place on 12th April. I ask for leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard, after which the Opposition will move for the adjournment of the second reading debate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of a special advance grant of $9m to Queensland in 1971-72 in accordance with the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission contained in its report on Queensland’s application for such a grant which has already been tabled. Special grants are paid by the Commonwealth to financially weaker States, to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue and higher costs in providing government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they were the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. The main way in which special compensatory assistance is now provided is through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to the 4 less populous States. The financial assistance grants are, of course, the main general revenue grants to the States. The special grants may, therefore, be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, but as having the special characteristic of being independently and expertly assessed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

Up to 1959, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania received annual special grants on the recommendation of the Grants Commission. South Australia withdraw from the special grants system as from 1959-60 and Western Australia as from 1968-69, but Tasmania has continued to apply for a special grant each year.

At the June 1970 Premiers Conference the then Prime Minister indicated that each of the 4 less populous States was free to apply for a special grant on the recommendation of the Grants Commission should it believe that its financial assistance grant was too low relative to New South Wales and Victoria, which were granted additional grants of $2 per capita at that Conference. South Australia applied for, and received, a special grant in 1970-71, and continued as a claimant State this financial year. Queensland applied on 30th September 1971 for a special grant for 1971-72, bringing the number of claimant States at present to 3.

Normally the States make their applications for special grants well before the beginning of each financial year, and the Commission then makes its recommendations in time for the necessary legislation to be passed in the Budget session. Thus the special grants to South Australia and Tasmania in 1971-72 were authorised by the States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1971 passed last year. Because of the timing of Queensland’s application, the recommendation by the Commission concerning that application has become available only recently.

The method used by the Grants Commission, briefly put, is to calculate grants which will bring the claimant States’ budgetary positions up to those of the States taken as ‘standard’ - at present New South Wales and Victoria - after allowing for differences between the States concerned in their financial practices and in efforts to raise revenue and control expenditure. This involves a detailed comparison of the standard and claimant States’ budgetary revenues and expenditures.

The payments of special grants recommended by the Grants Commission consist of 2 parts. One part - known as the advance grant - is based on an estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the Budget results and standards of effort and of services provided in that year for both the claimant State and the States which it takes as standard. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance grant made 2 years earlier and is known as the completion grant. It may be either positive or negative. Thus, the amount of $9m recommended by the Commission for payment to Queensland this year will be subject to adjustment in 1973-74.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission’s assessments of advance grants are based on necessarily approximate estimates of the claimant States’ financial needs in the current financial year. In this instance, the assessment is more tentative than usual because Queensland is a newly claimant State and the Grants Commission has not yet had the opportunity of making a detailed examination of Queensland’s financial practices compared to those of the standard States. Details of the bases on which the Commission reached its decision, including summaries of submissions put to it by Queensland and by the Commonwealth Treasury, are set out in its report.

The present Bill is very similar in form to previous legislation authorising the payment of special grants by the Commonwealth to the States. Clause 4, it might be noted, authorises the Treasurer to make payments to Queensland in the first 6 months of 1972-73 up to a maximum of $4.5m, which is half the grant payable this year. The purpose of this clause is to enable monthly payments to be made in the early months of 1972-73, in accordance with normal practice, against any special grant which might be recommended by the Commission, and approved by Parliament, for payment to Queensland in that year. Since the inception of the Commonwealth Grants Commission its recommendations have always been accepted by the Commonwealth Government and by Parliament and the Government considers that the present recommendation should also be accepted. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1461

DAIRY PRODUCE SALES PROMOTION BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western

Australia - Minister for Air) (9.49) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In speaking to the Dairying Research Bill, mention was made of the fact that the joint Commonwealth-Industry dairy research scheme that has operated in the past derives its authority from the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Act 1958-1965. There are 4 parts to that Act. Part II deals with research. This Part embraces sections 6 to 16 of that Act. The Bill now before the Senate repeals Part II of the Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Act. Certain clauses are also included to ensure continuity of actions authorised under the old scheme and to provide for transition from the Dairy Produce Research Trust Account to the new Dairying Research Trust Account. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1462

BUTTER FAT LEVY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1966. That Act empowers the raising of levies for 3 purposes, namely for research, for sales promotion and for the operations of the Australian Dairy Produce Board. The present Bill repeals those sections of the Butter Fat Levy Act 1965-1966 which relate to levy for research purposes. As already explained, funds for research in this industry are to be raised by virtue of the provisions of the Dairying Research Levy Bill. I commend this Butter Fat Levy Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1462

DAIRYING RESEARCH LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill, which is supplementary to the 2 Bills on which I have just made second reading speeches, is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the levies imposed by the Dairying Research Levy Bill 1972. The effect of the Bill I am now presenting is that the incidence of levy will be borne by the producer.

In earlier legislation relating to similar Bills, the Parliament debated certain clauses concerning matters of law and justice. These referred to right of access to premises and the time limits to commence prosecutions for offences under the Act. In the Bill now before the Senate, the relevant clauses adhere to those adopted by Parliament in comparable legislation last year.I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 1462

SENATE HOUSE COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I bring up the sec ond report of the Senate House Committee. It relates to the provision of staff and other facilities for members of Parliament. It reads as follows:

  1. At its meetings held on 13th April 1972 and 27th April 1972, the Committee considered the matter of provision of staff and other facilities for members of the Parliament, necessary for the discharge of their parliamentary duties.

  2. The Committee reports the following Resolution to the Senate, as a statement of principle:

    1. That it is inconsistent with the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the Executive Government that the need or justification for the provision of any staff or other facilities for members of Parliament, necessary for the discharge of their parliamentary duties, should be determined by any agency of the Executive Government.
    2. That it is therefore not proper that Senators should have to make application to the Prime Minister, Minister for the Interior or other Minister or their Departments, for the staff or other facilities necessary to carry out the duties of their offices, whether as Senators or as office bearers of the Senate, such as the President, Chairman of Committees, Leaders or Deputy Leaders of Opposition parties or Whips.
    3. That the proper course is that the appropriation by Parliament for such staff and other facilities for the Senate, its members and office bearers, should be administered by the President acting, where necessary, with the advice of the Senate House Committee and subject to any direction of the Senate; and that insofar as it may be convenient for such staff and facilities to be provided by Departments or Branches of the Executive Government, such agencies should act purely as service agencies on the authority of and in accordance with arrangements made with the President.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of silting.

page 1463

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 April (vide page 1021), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– It is not the desire of the Australian Labor Party to make a long drawn out issue of the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) in the Senate as was made in the other place. I indicate immediately that the Opposition does not oppose the amendment. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in introducing the Bill said:

This Bit) proposes minor amendments to - sections ofthe Customs Tariff - section 8 relating to the free on board price of goods and section 31 relating to overseas freight and insurance in connection with the landed cost of goods.

I have not made a study of the Act in relation to those 2 sections but I am quite prepared to accept the word of the Minister that those 2 sections are somewhat loose and that they want tightening up. This being so I think that we as a responsible Opposition should not agree at any time that any person or persons should be able to manipulate certain sections of the Customs Tariff Act to their own advantage. The Minister in his second reading speech went on to state: values can be manipulated by arrangement between exporters and importers . . .

As 1 say, we cannot be a party to the manipulation of customs duties such as can happen under that section. The term ‘tariff avoidance’ is a polite way of saying that we are robbing the Australian Government of revenue. This reacts against the taxpayers. The Opposition will not tolerate and will not support that type of procedure being indulged in. As I said in my opening remarks the Opposition does not oppose the motion and will give it a speedy passage.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply -I thank the Opposition and my colleague Senator Poke for the ready facilitation of the passage of the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2). What the honourable senator said is quite correct. This is a case where we are jointly involved in stopping an abuse of misappropriation or the stealing of revenue belonging to all people. Accordingly I welcome the support of the Opposition. I suggest that we proceed to the third reading.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1463

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

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

(10. 1) - Before the next Bill is called on, I crave the indulgence of the Senate to move a motion in relation to tomorrow’s sitting programme. I move:

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I oppose the motion. In discussions on the committee system, 1 have continually raised the point that in days gone by it was unthinkable that the Senate should give up broadcast time for the purpose of committee work. The position is more difficult now. I opposed restriction of senator’s rights whenthe Standing Orders were amended so that senators might speak for only i hour at such times as the proceedings were being broadcast. Broadcast time is of such importance and value to senators that there should be no reduction of their right to speak at such time. In the last week that we were in session we gave away prtctically the whole of broadcast time on the Wednesday, other than question time, which is broadcast during the dinner adjournment on non-broadcast days, and the broadcast was resumed when we came in for the adjournment debate. It would appear that broadcasting time in the Senate is of no value if we can afford to sacrifice broadcast time on Wednesday for committee work. I do not see why we should adhere to the agreement or the standing order whereby the time limit of speeches on broadcasting day is reduced. I register a protest against the giving away of valuable broadcasting time for the purpose of committee work, which is not broadcast to the general public. I oppose the motion.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I endorse the remarks of my colleague Senator Cavanagh. On previous occasions a number of senators on both sides of the chamber have expressed in forceful terms their opinion that the Estimates Committees would probably have some value if they met singly but invariably more than one committee sits at the one time so that a senator who is interested in a particular subject that is being debated by Committee A cannot hear what is being discussed by Committee B, though he is interested in that subject also. One cannot be in 2 places at once; even the Leader of the Government has said that. This becomes an intolerable burden if a senator is trying to keep up with all subjects under discussion at any particular time. The motion moved by the Leader of the Government is even worse than :he motion that he moved a couple of weeks ago.

It is proposed that tomorrow the Senate will suspend at 4 p.m. I am not aware of any occasion in this session when question time ha,s finished by 4 p.m. on a broadcasting day. Almost invariably it does not finish by 4 p.m., whether the proceedings are being broadcast or not. Now it is proposed that further time should be given away when this chamber ought to be in session. I object strenuously to the whittling away of the debating time of members for the sake of convening sittings of the Estimates Committees. We do not let standing committees and select committees sit during ordinary parliamentary debating periods unless as a matter of urgency and by clear decision of the Senate. Why should an exception be made on every occasion for the Estimates Committees? If the Estimates Committees have to sit, they should sit on Monday and Friday and on Tuesday morning so that the debating time of the chamber is not interfered with.

Senator Little:

– What about Sunday?

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is reserved for the honourable senator to read “The Little Red Schoolbook’. The days I have mentioned are the days on which the Senate Estimates Committee ought to be sitting - not on the days that are normally reserved for parliamentary business. We have to come to the crunch somewhere. We must examine whether the Government is whittling away the powers of Parliament by reducing debating time in open public forum. It is all very well to say that the public are entitled to sit in on Estimates

Committees debates. First of all, people are likely to be turfed out because there is no room for them in the rooms where the committees meet. One would need a map or a compass to find some of the committee rooms. Tonight there was a committee meeting in room LI 16. Two attendants of whom I inquired did not know where it was. I do not blame them. It is a place at the back now known as the old Hansard section. If one took a reel of wool and unrolled on the way to the committee room, one might be able to find his way back from the room. If the committee system is to work, it must be re-examined from the point at which it was started a couple of years ago. I make no apology for thinking that the Estimates Committees are - I almost used a word that might have been unparliamentary-

Senator Little:

– You have been reading The Little Red Schoolbook’.

Senator KEEFFE:

– But not the sex part. The Estimates Committees system is in a large measure unsatisfactory. 1 have no option but to oppose the motion. I am pleased to be associated with the remarks of Senator Cavanagh in this regard.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (10.8) - in reply - This is a difficult area; I do not gainsay that. By way of explanation, I feel bound to remind honourable senators that on 26th April the Senate sat in Estimates Committee almost all day.

Senator Keeffe:

– I objected to it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes. I am pointing out what was done. The Estimates Committees sat last Wednesday week from about 4.30 p.m. until 10.15 p.m., after which the Senate resumed. Let us face the facts of life. If we are to deal with Appropriation Bills, we must get through the work of the Estimates Committees first. My idea is to try to facilitate the business of the Senate. Senators are masters of their own destiny in this.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We will vote against it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– You have your right to vote against it. The point I make is that if we dispose of the business of the 2 Committees, we shall clear the decks for our own management and for continuation of the sittings of the Senate. One committee has only one item to deal with, and Committee E because of the work of the Department with which it has dealings, is usually very quick in its deliberations. My job is to try to keep the work flowing. I believe it is desirable to get rid of the work of the 2 Estimates Committees so that we can bring on the Appropriation Bills. When we do that we will have a better programme for the continuing period of sittings, for the next 3 weeks or whatever it may be. lt is true that we will not be in a session of the Senate when these 2 Estimates Committees are sitting. As one of the Committees will be sitting in this chamber, Senator Keeffe will not have any trouble in finding it. I gather that the other one will be sitting in a very prominent committee room and that Senator Keeffe and all other honourable senators will be informed of where it is sitting.

The fact of the matter is we cannot have it both ways. We have to dispose of the business of the Senate before we rise. It should be borne in mind that the Senate has resolved to bring on matters pertaining to committees on Thursdays and that General Business is usually debated after 8 p.m. on Thursdays. We have spent 3 hours today debating an urgency motion, I believe h is desirable that we should try to dispose of the business before the 2 Estimates Committees to which I have referred in order that the Appropriation Bills can be brought on for debate in the normal way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1465

STATES GRANTS BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18th April (vide page 1152). on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that a cognate debate should be conducted on this Bill and the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1972.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– 1 think that is an excellent idea. I agree entirely.

Senator WILKINSON:

– I offer an apology to the Senate in that I will be very brief in dealing with the States Grants Bill 1972 and the State Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1.972 because I am at the moment busily engaged on the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, which is inquiring into the Ansett-TNT takeover. I have returned to the chamber just to handle these Bills. I am afraid that I will not be going into them very deeply. 1 think the salient features of these 2 Bills are apparent. 1 do not think that very much discussion will flow from them, although I believe a number of speakers wish to participate in the debate.

The States Grants Bill and the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill (No. 2) are slightly different pieces of legislation. They flow fram a meeting of the Premiers with the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in Canberra in February of this year to determine what should be done to help the States in the difficult financial situations in which they find themselves at that time in the financial year. It was eventually agreed by the Commonwealth and the Premiers that the States be granted an amount of Si 5m under the States Grants Bill to be divided among the various States according to a ratio roughly approximating the normal method of distribution. I should mention that a grant of $5<m has been made to New South Wales; $3.7m to Victoria; $2.3.m to Queensland; $1.6m to South Australia; $1.7m to Western Australia; and $700,000 to Tasmania, making a total of $15m. I should also mention that that grant is in addition to a $40m grant which was made at the Premiers Conference which was held in June of last year and that it is not proposed that the present amount of $15m or the previous amount of $40m will be included in the calculation which will be made when the quotas which will be apportioned by the Commonwealth Government to the State governments at the next distribution and in subsequent years are’ determined. That, statement was made by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in his second reading speech. A feature of the Minister’s second reading speech was the statement that during discussions between the Commonwealth and the States it was claimed that New South Wales was ‘in special need and that the circumstances in that State warranted the payment of some $ 1 7.5m in addition to the grant to which I have referred. It was agreed by the Commonwealth that this would be made available on the basis of a loan over a period of 5 years. It does not form a part of this legislation. It will come forward in Appropriation Bill (No. 5), which will be dealt with in due course.

The States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill (No. 2) is designed to assist the works and housing programme of the various States and provides for an increase of $9.3m in the capital grants payable to the States in 1971-72. The amount provided is, of course, smaller than the amount to be provided under the States Grants Bill. The sum of $9.2m will be divided up among the States on the basis of $2.96m to New South Wales, $2.37m to Victoria, Si. 18m to Queensland, $ 1.27m to South Australia, $870,000 to Western Australia and $650,000 to Tasmania. Following the discussions with the Commonwealth the various Premiers expressed themselves as being satisfied with the assistance which was given to them at that stage by the Commonwealth. In view of the fact that 2 of the Premiers at that time were Labor Premiers - there could be 3 on the next occasion - and that they expressed themselves as being satisfied with the assistance, I feel that the Opposition can do no more than give its approval to the measures which have been introduced by the Government. We support the Bills.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I wish to make a few observations on the 2 measures which are before the chamber and which are of special significance to my own State of Tasmania. Right from the inception of this particular scheme of grants, Tasmania has been a claimant State and has had to obtain assistance through the activities of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to enable it to put up a performance equivalent to the performance put up by the other States. The idea behind this has its origins in the early part of the Second World War when powers over certain areas of taxation were referred to the Commonwealth. With the utilisation of section 96 of the Constitution, it was possible for grants to be made to the States to enable them to carry on their services. In a document entitled Commonwealth Grants Commission, 37th report, 1970’ and the supplement to it, which deals with reports on applications made by the States of South Australia and Tasmania for financial assistance from the Parliament of the Commonwealth under section 96 of the Constitution, some interesting references are made to the bases on which judgments are made on the level of grants to be provided to the various States and for the various types of services.

Senator Wilkinson has commented upon the arrangements made in these 2 Bills insofar as the quantum of assistance to the various States is concerned. But. as I ‘lave said, I am particularly concerned about the situation in Tasmania. My concern has been further accelerated by something which occurred in September of last year when the then Premier of Tasmania raised the question of the attitude which was current in the minds of people who were engaged in the affairs of the Grants Commission in relation to the benefit which is conferred by grants to the smaller States or to the less populous areas within States for specific purposes. The Premier at the time said that it had come to his notice that officers of the Commission had voiced the opinion that it was something in the nature of policy of the Commission not to grant aid to the smaller and less populous areas because the benefit derived from those grants were less evident in those sorts of areas than in the more populous areas of the nation.

I understand from my own reading of the various types of financial arrangements and the approaches made on the various bases to judge the appropriateness of grants made to the various areas, that in fact something of the nature of a philosophy does exist. That was very worrying to the Premier of Tasmania at the time. Of course, it was subsequently refuted by the Treasurer of the day to whose notice this particular comment had come. But it was a comment that was made in the Press at the time, and I took it up in a direct approach to the Treasurer and suggested to him that if this was the thinking in the minds of officers engaged in the affairs of the Commonwealth Grants Commission it was time something was done about it because, as I have said, the allegation had been refuted.

An area of doubt still exists there, especially when it is understood that this is something in the nature of a philosophy of the people who are concerned with the provision of monetary funds to assist the various purposes and services of the States. It is interesting to note in this report that a judgment is made on the basis of difference in fiscal capacity. Obviously it comes down to a judgment of the sufficiency of funds to enable the various States to provide services of an average overall scope and standard.

I think it should be put on record that on page 12 and subsequent pages the report points out some most interesting things, lt states that Tasmania has little more than 3 per cent of the total population of the Commonwealth, and goes on:

Tasmania’s growth rate is comparatively low, so its comparatively small percentage of the population of the 6 States tends to decline further. . . . Tasmania has the ‘youngest’ population of all the States, in terms of preschool and school-age sections of the population … it has the lowest proportion of population in the ‘working-age’ group, and a comparatively low proportion of elderly people. Thus it has ihe lowest proportion of workforce to total population.

I mention these things because they are all factors taken into account in a total judgment of the appropriateness of the funds which are provided to carry on the services of the State. Of course, these sorts of things naturally would be brought into account when judging the relative positions of the other States involved. As we know, over the past several years South Australia has been a claimant State; Western Australia was a claimant State; Queensland, as I understand it, now is becoming a claimant State. These factors ought to be known and understood as bases of judgment in relation to the amount of grant which is to be provided for the various States to enable them to match the standards of the other States.

Senator Gair:

– What is the total population of Tasmania?

Senator DEVITT:

– Approximately 389.000 or 390,000 people. It represents about 3 per cent of the total population of the nation. Tasmania has other problems which 1 pointed out in some detail on the last Thursday night that we met which make life in certain areas extremely difficult indeed. The Commission in its report further states that Tasmania has a comparatively low fiscal capacity, and then continues with an aspect which I emphasised some days ago:

The greater proportion of young people in Tasmania tends to produce a relatively greater need for expenditure on education and for infant and child welfare services. . . . that State may need to incur greater expenditure per head of population in order to provide government services. It is consistent with this that Tasmania has a comparatively high percentage of Slate government employees to total occupied persons.

It then goes on to say that Tasmania has a comparatively low taxable capacity. The report further suggests that Tasmania has a higher proportion of its work force in mining and quarrying than has any other State except Western Australia; that it has a lower proportion of the work force in the commerce, finance, property, etc. industry group than has any other State; that it is notable for the relative importance of dairying and forestry, in which industries its net value of production per head of population is considerably higher than the figures for other States, and for the relatively low value of its pastoral production. These primary industry characteristics also affect the size structure of rural holdings. On average these are much smaller in Tasmania than in other States. The report also states:

The level of personal income per head of population in Tasmania is approximately fifteen per cent below the Australian average. . . . 1 suggest that these are extremely significant figures in relation to the ability of Tasmania to match performance relative to the performance of the other States, and these are the things which concern me very greatly. It is reported that Tasmania is approximately 9 per cent below the average in relation to expenditure per capita on alcoholic drink; that Tasmania is well below any other State in relation to railway operations.; that its operating results in this field showed the largest deficit per capita of any State in the Commonwealth; that railway employment as a percentage of population is lowest in Tasmania; that there has been also a reduction in passenger journeys per route mile, especially in Tasmania, and that operating results per capita, as estimated by the Commission, have improved in all States except Tasmania. I mention these points and again draw the attention of the Senate to their relevance which gives credence and credibility, I suggest very strongly to the Senate, to the representations that are made from time to time in this chamber in the interests of our small island State.

According to the Commission, in the field of education, the ratio of pupils at government schools to total population is much higher in Tasmania than in other States; that there is a higher proportion of government to non-government school enrolments; that the degree of utilisation of public hospitals in Tasmania about equals the average; that the cumulative total of Tasmania’s net loan expenditure has more than doubled in the last decade, and is much higher in Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia than in the other States, and that the relatively high expenditure on housing in South Australia and Tasmania partly reflects the fact that those States for a number of years were not parties to the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. In summary the report states:

The greatest single item of expenditure in Tasmania has been hydro-electric works but this relatively high capital expenditure has not imposed any burden on the budget as the scheme is financially self-supporting. In Tasmania road expenditure has been relatively much greater than in any other State, reflecting the high cost of road construction and maintenance due to topographical conditions.

I mention those things as a background to the economic situation in the State of Tasmania. In relatively recent days I have referred to other matters of a financial nature as they relate to the economic performance of the State which place us at a very serious disadvantage. While I do not want to cry wolf in this respect, I do think it is necessary for us from time to time to make judgments and to turn our minds to the particular problems that are being experienced by other States of the Commonwealth. Of course, grants which are provided for Tasmania are matched against the performance of the standard States. I suggest that this tends to take away from those States which have become claimant States their right to autonomy and their right to implement policies which the political party in government at a particular time wishes to implement in the interests of that State. That government cannot implement those policies.

Debate interrupted.

page 1468

ADJOURNMENT

Newspaper Articles - Young Men’s Christian Association: Papua New Guinea - National Parks: Conservation - Repatriation Aboriginals: Housing - Sales of Commonwealth Equity in Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Ltd - Papua New Guinea - Australian Foreign Policy.

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– Mr President, I refer to an article appearing on page 14 of ‘The Bulletin’ dated 6th May 1972. This is the first opportunity in this parliamentary session that I have had the opportunity to refute the allegations made by this article. ‘The Bulletin’ is a magazine published in New South Wales, printed by Conpress Printing Ltd of 168 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, at 61-63 O’Riordan Street, Alexandria, for the publishers Australian Consolidated Press of 168 Castlereagh Street, Sydney. The references in the article to me are untrue and are unfounded and in my opinion will defame my character. From comment made to me already the article is most harmful to me personally. In a wider sense it will cause untold damage to the results of many years of endeavour in aspects of work which I regard as of great importance to me, to certain Australian national institutions and to the Australian national interest, as well as to the interest of the people of the Territory of Papua New Guinea. This article has caused me harm in my political life in both Slate and national political circles and in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. My lifelong association with important philanthropic institutions has been harmed and - this is of significant importance to me - my close relationship with people of overseas countries in public and private life has been impaired.

The Bulletin’ article conveys to readers an impression that I would not wish to be seated in an aircraft next to certain types of natives. It conveys to readers that I find little in common with certain types of natives and that in pursuance of that attitude 1 moved to other seating on an aircraft flight from Rabaul to Lae. The article is untrue. While my recent trip to Papua New Guinea was officially to represent the Commonwealth at Anzac services held in the Territory, the main purpose for me personally was to pursue matters associated with the expansion of establishment and developmental work for the National Young Men’s Christian Association of Australia. Yet the work and interest may be wider than the Australian body as the Vancouver YMCA of Canada and the Canadian Government have a direct interest in the work which has been conducted for many years and which was being pursued during the visit to which this article refers.

During 1962 and 1963 the National YMCA of Australia carried out a survey of the existing needs for such an organisation in the Territory. I took part in that survey. In 1963 the National YMCA, a body representative of all associations in Australia, sent a secretary to Port Moresby to commence work and lay a basis for acceptance of typical YMCA activity. This work was difficult. The traditional activities of this body in those areas of physical, mental and spiritual uplifting was impaired by the attitudes of various ethnic groups and individuals in the local community. The problems were not insignificant. Our secretary lived with the indigenes and encouraged them to pursue endeavours conducive to a well organised society. The movement has spread its work to many areas in the Territory. YMCA officials wrote the whole of the physical education programme accepted by the Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea. Young men who have shown ability as leaders in the community have been further involved in YMCA activities and have been given advanced training in the National YMCA’s Youth Leadership College in my State of Victoria. Some are doing this training at the present time.

The community and business leaders in the Territory, and in Port Moresby in particular, have been encouraged by the grassroots work which the YMCA conducted to supply funds for the continuing work of the YMCA. The Territory Administration has been prompt in its encouragement of this elevated body in that it has acquiesced in grants of land for YMCA facilities in the Territory and, along with other like organisations, has seen to it that the continuing work is assisted with limited current funds. I have been party to the negotiations which have brought these matters into being.

Significant in the encouragement of these services to the indigenous youth of the Territory has been the involvement of business leaders and of trading companies in Port Moresby and other areas of the Territory. Companies with head offices on the mainland and with branch interest in New Guinea have seen the wisdom of this YMCA operation amongst the young indigenous population. One could go to great lengths to indicate the wide area of public interest which takes part in this YMCA work. The main financial assistance comes from the work of the various YMCA clubs throughout Australia - and they represent a very wide body of public opinion in Australia. All these areas of philanthropic interest are for continued encouragment of the indigenous youth of Papua New Guinea.

The article published in ‘The Bulletin’ harms that interest. 1 have been the chairman of the New Guinea Committee of the World Work Committee of the National YMCA for the past 10 years and have had the closest relationship at the highest level with all those aforementioned bodies, particularly the indigenous youth. I have entered into the sporting activities of indigenous youth in the Territory. I have eaten with them on many occasions and have travelled with them throughout the Territory.

The untruthfulness of this article conveys harm internationally. The Committee which I have the honour to chair has taken part in encouraging overseas interest in the Papua New Guinea project. I make it clear that this interest has taken no encouragement from the Commonwealth Government or its agencies. The interest of the YMCA in Vancouver, Canada, and thereby the interest of the Canadian Government and the people of Canada, was prompted by the YMCA in Australia. These 2 overseas bodies are contributing not only a personal interest in YMCA activity in the Territory but are allocating Canadian dollars to assist in the development of YMCA services there. I suggest that no other country is making such direct financial assistance to the Territory and this, I may say, has gone very much unrecognised in this Commonwealth. Within the next year or so this aid could reach well over S250.000.

This international interest is placed in jeopardy by the written article. I have encouraged Canada and its YMCA. I have played a part in arranging special contracts in the Territory which involve Canadian financial support and I have personally reported on activities to individuals in Canada. My chairmanship of the Committee heading this work for these past 10 years is continuing at the present time. My view of this work is that it has little peer in any work done by this nation as part of its various overseas aid programmes. It has not received great publicity. I am dismayed that the work of the YMCA is now prejudiced and considerably damaged. I am distressed not only on a personal basis. As a member of Parliament, one meets fairly frequently with untruthful reports in the news media. But, once written, an article such as this will be of untold detriment to YMCA work. As mentioned, I have chaired the Australian committee extending YMCA services. My relationship with all those areas of interest has been without mark or strain. ‘The Bulletin’ article can be calculated only to do untold damage to this service. I ask the proprietors of ‘The Bulletin’ for a prompt apology and for the apology to be printed in their magazine in a prominent position and in like space to the article to which I take objection.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise again tonight on behalf of the many conservationist groups throughout the Commonwealth that are gravely perturbed at the procrastination that has been exhibited by the present Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) in regard to the proclamation of what is known as the Top End National Park in the Northern Territory. When this project was first mooted in 1945, it was visualised as an area of 2,475 square miles. Ultimately, the previous Minister for the Interior, Mr Nixon, more or less adopted a favourable attitude towards a reduced area of 1,000 square miles. I think conservationists felt that he had at least outlined some worthwhile establishment. Subsequently, when the present Minister for the

Interior, Mr Hunt, took office, he made several announcements on this matter. As far as I have been able to ascertain through the channels of the Senate, a freeze was to be adopted. In using that term, he indicated that after his predecessor had agreed in principle to a 1,000 square mile area the mining people were agitating for a certain intrusion into the area. I, like most people, I think, was under the impression that even if this freeze were to apply the mining companies might be taking certain samples and at some point of time a form of arbitration would have to be adopted.

As a member of a Committee headed by Senator Laucke, I visited the Northern Territory last week. Using a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft, we were able to fly over this area which would be called a vision splendid. I think that my colleague from Queensland, Senator Keeffe, would agree with me that it was a magnificent panorama. I refer particularly to the Jim Jim region where the falls would be comparable with anything in the world. 1 do not say that idly. As a matter of fact, at page 37 of the Northern Territory annual report for the year 1969-70 the Government’s advisers talked in terms of a park with an area of 1,000 square miles. They said that when developed it could rank with the Great Barrier Reef and Ayers Rock as a great Australian natural attraction.

I was fortified by that assessment. On returning to Darwin on Tuesday of last week, I saw a copy of the ‘Northern Territory News’ of Friday, 28th April 1972. It contained an open letter headed ‘A challenge.’ The challenge was directed to to the Minister for the Interior. Three leading Darwin citizens - Mr Graham McMahon, Mr Colin JackHinton and Mr Ian Barker - had written a very important letter in which some remarkable information was made public to people such as ourselves who live in the south. An important point emerges. Mention is made of a mining company known as Noranda Australia Ltd. I do not know why the word ‘Australia’ appears because the annual meeting of this company was held in Toronto, Canada, a short time ago. There the company stated that it would not bring the Jim Jim uranium deposit into production until satisfactory sales had been negotiated. On one hand, the Minister for the Interior has assured us that there is a virtual freeze until 1973 and then he will try to equate the views of the conservationists and those of the mining interests. At the same time, our observations fortify our opinion - Senator Keeffe would concur in this - that this company has gone far beyond the idea of just scratching the ground for samples. Not so far from these magnificent falls to which 1 have referred there is a sizable indication of the extent to which mining has been carried on.

Whatever the views of the mining company, we find - I am quoting from this letter of 28th April over the names of Messrs Graham McMahon, Colin Jack-Hinton and Ian Barker - that organisations have been clamouring for the Minister to provide a public hearing in Darwin before the mining warden. The organisations which are seeking this hearing are the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Northern Territory Reserves Board and the Northern Territory Museums and Art Galleries Board. These bodies have asked for a public inquiry. Initially, the legal officers of the mining company questioned the jurisdiction of such a tribunal. This query was rejected. At this point of time we find that a virtual blackout of news on the subject has been imposed by the Minister. I just qualify this by saying that, as Senator Cotton will appreciate. I sent telegrams to both him and the Minister for the Interior. Mr Hunt, to the effect that I intended to raise this matter tonight. I know that the Minister for the Interior visited Darwin last weekend. Some news may be given in reply to this challenge. But I put it very forcibly that, if it is the case that a freeze has been applied until 1973, nobody in his wildest dreams would visualise that this extensive earth gouging would be carried on. Some small samples might be taken. But here we find a situation where a mining company at its annual meeting in Canada can virtually anticipate what the Minister for the Interior will do. In those circumstances, where the area of more than 2,000 square miles has been reduced to an area of 1,000 square miles, half measures cannot be adopted.

I would imagine that, if a Minister of the Crown had a massive block of flats and he let one of the flats to the operator of a call-girl racket and let the rest of the flats for moral use, the blemish would still exist. The same situation applies to this 1,000 square miles. Any one who has explored northern Australia knows that there are ample alternative sites. I have said this publicly at seminars and in the Senate. I am waiting for one occasion on which a Minister will say to the mining people: ‘This is one battle you have lost’. In some issues probably we have to compromise. But 1 believe that this is a situation in which at least a meeting could have been convened before a mining warden at which these people had to justify what they are doing. Instead, we are told that the Minister will make a decision in 1973. But let there be no doubt about it. By the time 1973 comes around this company will have expanded its activities. I have another map here. Already in the area concerned I can see at least 3 sites on which there is major mining exploration. 1 put it to the Senate that on every count the action taken is not good enough.

If the Minister were sincere when he said that there would be a freeze, that would be reasonable enough. But on 21st March I submitted a lengthy question to the Minister. 1 received a partial answer to it. I wanted to document the whole sequence of events. It is significant that there has not yet been a complete answer to my question of 21st March. On top of this, the extract from the ‘Northern Territory News’ of Friday, 28th April, leaves many things unanswered. At the very least I would not mind if the Minister said that he would stand or fall by the result of a mining warden’s hearing. I know, as my northern colleagues such as Senator Georges know, that battles have been fought in Queensland before some of these mining warden tribunals. In Canada they are saying that an exploration company will not bring Jim Jim uranium deposits into production until satisfactory sales contracts have been negotiated. As to the powers of the Minister for the Interior, I have not the slightest doubt that this mining company and others will be putting pressure on the Minister for National Development. I am critical tonight of the lack of action by the Minister for the Interior, but I know that his position will be made much harder because the Minister for National Development would make the whole of Australia a gigantic quarry.

This letter that I have, signed by 3 leading citizens of Darwin, calls for some clear cut answers. It also calls for a public hearing for the mining company to come out of the dark alleys and to say that it is not interested only in using this part of Australia for its own short term gain as at long range this national park could unquestionably rate with any similar area throughout the world. It is ironic that while Canada has a far greater number of acres of forest land preserved as national parks than we have, a Canadian company is coming into an Australian area and trying to intrude into what would be virtually the last worth while bastion as a national park on this continent.

I indicated to Senator Cotton thatI wished to raise a second matter concerning correspondence which came to me from the National Parks Association of the Australian Capital Territory. The Association is concerned at earlier answers I received from the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt about Australian Capital Territory national parks and nature reserves. I ask for leave of the Senate to have the Association’s letter incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows): 8th May 1972

Senator J. A. Mulvihill,

Parliament House,

Canberra 2600

Dear Senator, 1 refer to your questions in the Senate (Hansard Reference Page 2516) addressed to the Minister for the Interior, asking for an up-to-date list of the land designated as national parks or nature reserves, and to the answer supplied by the Minister. My Association is concerned that the terminology used in the Minister’s reply may lead to a misunderstanding of the present nature of the ‘reserves’ in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay area.

The only legislation at present available for designation of public areas for any purpose is the Australian Capital Territory Public Parks Ordinance19281942, and Tidbinbilla, Black Mountain and Jervis Bay areas are formally gazetted under this Ordinance. The use of the term ‘Nature

Reserves’ is indicative of the management process of the area, not of its legal status. The Association understands that the Department of the Interior who administers the area either is preparing or has prepared management plans for these areas as nature reserves; however, we are not aware of any public announcement being made of the plans.

A small area of the Molonglo Gorge and another at Gibralter Falls have been managed as scenic nature reserves for some years but have no formal land-use status.

The ‘Hill’ or ‘Mountain’ Reserves referred to in the Minister’s reply are also without formal landuse status. The NCDC have repeatedly referred to hill’ reserves in their reports (see Planning Report, February 1961, ‘Recreation Areas’ and map; the Annual Report 1968-69, ‘Landscaping’, page 32 our copy; and Part 3 of ‘Growth of Canberra’ 1958-65 and 1965-72 by Lord Holford) but these are no more than a planning concept; the areas have no land-use status protected by legislation. These ‘hill’ reserves, left unidentified by a specific land-use status with legal protection, are vulnerable to piecemeal disturbance and a whittling away of the areas. Jurisdiction over these ‘hill reserves’ is also ill-defined; it is not clear at what stage of NCDC planning a ‘reserve’ is handed over to the Department of the Interior to administer.

The Public Parks Ordinance in its present form is not suitable for either the creation or administration of special purpose parks and reserves. The Department of the Interior has advised that new legislation is under preparation for the management of reserves but there is no definite date as yet in view for its issue. We are particularly concerned that the creation of the proposed Gudgenby National Park should receive full status as such, with the necessary legislative protection.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank you for the material you send to the Association from time to time. We are very pleased indeed to have the copies of letters, Questions in Parliament, and other documents we receive from you and have found them most interesting and useful.

Yours sincerely,

  1. M. CHIPPENDALE

President

I hope that a specific answer can be obtained by Senator Cotton from his colleague, the Minister for the Interior to the matters raised by this organisation.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Senator Mulvihill sent me a telegram which obviously was a copy of the telegram he sent to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) whom, amongst many other Ministers, I represent in this chamber. I have obtained some information that might help to clear the doubts in Senator Mulvihill’s mind but before 1 give that information I wish to advert to his passing remarks about the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). I thought they were quite unnecessary and uncalled for. Senator Mulvihill said that the Minister was prepared to turn the whole of Australia into a quarry. He is referring to the Minister who is responsible for helping our forestry and water resources programmes, and for giving aid through soil erosion and conservation measures. To say the least, the honourable senator’s remarks were quite unfair.

The Minister for the Interior has provided me with some information which 1 shall give to the Senate in answer to some of the points raised by Senator Mulvihill. If any points he raised are not answered tonight, the information required can be searched out and provided later. The honourable senator has expressed concern about various matters affecting the proposed northern national park area. The question of continued prospecting and mining and of possible conflict between mining and conservation interests was considered in depth by the Government in September 1971. It was then decided that prospecting should continue and that the situation would be reviewed at the end of 1973 when more should be known about the mineralisation in the area. A new land use advisory council representing all interests would be set up and asked to advise the Government at this point.

The honourable senator is no doubt aware that there have been 3 major uranium discoveries within or adjacent to the proposed park area. The proven reserves are now estimated to be in excess of 100,000 tons of uranium oxide. On present market values, this is estimated conservatively to be worth $1.2 billion. This is a major resource of world significance and the Government believes that control of it must be regarded as a matter of national concern. The Government believes that with careful planning it is possible to utilise the uranium resources and at the same time conserve the outstanding anthropological and ecological features of the, area about which more people than only Senator Mulvihill are concerned. Two localities of special interest have been reserved from mining and prospecting activities. These are Deaf Adder Valley of about 90 square miles and Jim Jim Falls of about 39 square miles. It has to be remembered that the area that was proposed for a national park totals 1,436 square miles. We do not believe that in an area of this size the only choice is between total mining and total conservation.

The Government’s views accord with views expressed by Mr Rogers C. B.

Morton, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, in a foreword to a paper relating to evaluation of environmental impact:

Man cannot survive on this planet without utilising ils natural resources prudently. Every human action affects the world around is in some degree and the full effect is difficult to assess because of complex relations among living and nonliving things. Under the circumstances one can neither expect to restore the entire past nor preserve the entire present for future generations. However all can and should strive for proper balance between resource development and maintenance of pleasant surroundings.

An environment impact study for the Alligator Rivers area of the Northern Territory has been set up. Field studies are a ‘so being undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, and Water Resources Branch of the, Northern Territory Administration. These are directed to the prevention of stream, waterway and flood plain pollution, the preservation of wildlife habitats and animal and plant species, the prevention of air pollution, the preservation of scenic and wilderness quality, the preservation of Aboriginal art and relics and the .control of erosion. I would like to place on record on behalf of the Minister for the Interior the willingness with which the mining industry has joined with the Government in this exercise.

The Northern Territory legislation limits the size of normal mineral leases to 40 acres. Applications for these leases must be referred to a warden’s court for public hearing and recommendations. The legislation also provides for special mineral leases, the terms of which are settled by negotiation. Applications for these are not referred to a warden’s court. Gove, Groote Eylandt and Frances Creek leases were all granted as special mineral leases. This would also apply to the 3 companies seeking leases to mine in the uranium province.

The negotiation of special conditions provides the opportunity to include stringent conditions for the protection of the environment. The views of conservation interests will be taken into account in framing these conditions.

Senator Jessop:

– When I was with the Public Works Committee on a visit to the area we paid due regard to the represen- tations about a national park there in planning the particular road which was the subject of our inquiry.

Senator COTTON:

– Although that is not mentioned here, I understood it to be the case. 1 thank the honourable senator for his interjection. The Government recognises the need to protect the proposed national park area and is taking steps to have the area protected under the Northern Territory Wildlife Conservation and Control Ordinance; to safeguard Aboriginal paintings and sacred sites under the Northern Territory Native and Historical Objects and Areas Preservation Ordinance; and to obtain suitable staff including additional rangers for the area. 1 assure Senator Mulvihill that the Government, together with myself and I think most other honourable senators, is as concerned as he is to protect the environment. The measures I have outlined on behalf ot the Minister for the Interior should ensure that this is done until it is time for the full review in 1973. I repeat that if a reading of Senator Mulvihills speech in Hansard reveals that any points he raised have not been covered, I will see that they are covered.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– Mr President, I apologise for taking time in the adjournment debate to raise this issue but it is one with which 1 have become closely associated over the last few days and one which has caused me some concern. It involves Mr Derwas Farrer Reynolds, who lives at 3 Fleurs Street, Moonah. He is 85 years of age.

Senator Byrne:

– Where is Moonah?

Senator Rae:

– In Tasmania.

Senator POKE:

– I would have thought that honourable senators would have known that 1 was referring to Tasmania when I spoke of Moonah. The man to whom I refer is a returned serviceman from World War I. He is 85 years of age. I think his Army number was 769, but I am not sure of that. He was wounded in action in France. His wife is 75 years of age, so this places her in an unenviable position so far as looking after her husband is concerned. I think that will be revealed as I unfold the story. This man was wounded in action. To the best of my information, he receives a 50 per cent war pension and a Service pension. He has a married daughter who lives in the near vicinity. She has had a heart condition for a number of years and this makes it difficult for her to give attention to her father. Mr Reynolds suffered a major stroke on 27th April. He is now confined to bed completely.

He applied for admission to the repatriation hospital in Hobart on 4th May. He was not admitted. The reason given for his non-admission was that there was a shortage of medical staff to attend to him. I understand that recently one doctor resigned from that hospital, and that another doctor is absent on sick leave. I have been informed that beds are available at the hospital, and that nurses and a number of orderlies are available to attend to patients who are confined to bed. That being the case, one would have anticipated that this man would have been admitted to hospital and would have been given treatment. 1 understand that his repatriation doctor has stated that Mr Reynolds does not require a lot of medical attention but that he does require specialist nursing treatment.

I am concerned about the matter because I can recall, certainly only as a lad, these men who went to serve in World War I. As a child living at Somerset I travelled on more than one occasion to the Buurnie railway station and to the Burnie wharf to see men embark for service in France. Those men were waved off with flags. They were patted on the back. They were given every encouragement to enlist for war service. They were told that they would be looked after on their return to this country, if they returned. Now we have to face up to the fact that they have reached an age and a stage at which they need medical and hospital treatment. It is time that the government of the day, whatever political colour it may be, had due regard to the requirements of these people. While I admit that the issue which I have brought forward is a parochial one - it deals with a particular case - my main purpose in bringing it forward is to direct attention to the fact that many returned servicemen from World War I, from World War II, from the Korean conflict and later still from the Vietnam war will require hospital and medical treatment. I want to see something done for those people who may have to be treated in the future. 1 checked on this issue at 5 p.m. today. Mr Reynolds is still in his bed at home. It would appear that on many occasions when returned servicemen become sick they become only a statistic on the books. 1 feel strongly about this matter. Only yesterday Dr Palmer of the suburb of Glenorchy, who is one of the repatriation doctors for that area, again asked that this nian be admitted to the repatriation hospital. Again admission was refused because it was claimed that the hospital did not have the medical staff to permit him to bc admitted. An approach was made to the Sunnyside Rest Home in Hobart to have this man admitted, but admission would cost to the family $28 a week, and he would not qualify for repatriation assistance while he was in that home. However, that rest home is not suitable for this man because I am informed - fairly reliably so - that the night watch at the home does its rounds only every 2 hours and Mr Reynolds’ condition does not permit him to call for assistance if it is required. I raised this matter with the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in Hobart yesterday. He referred to the avenues which were available to this man and to the family, namely, an appeal to a board, a tribunal or a commission. If that procedure has to be followed it will take not hours, not days but weeks before something can be done for Mr Reynolds. The family is in dire circumstances. The man should be accommodated in what I consider to be the place where he should be accommodated, that is, in the repatriation hospital.

I appeal to the Government to treatreturned servicemen in a better way than the way in which they are being treated now. It is my opinion that a returned serviceman is entitled to the best medical and nursing care that it is possible for any State to provide. If that medical and nursing service is not available in the State in which that person lives, I think it is encumbent on this Government or any other government to transfer him, at the cost of the Repatriation Department, to another State where he can get better treatment if belter treatment is available. I apologise for raising this parochial issue, but I feel that it is warranted. I am confident that I can depend upon the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) to co-operate on this issue. We do not want it in a month’s time; wc do not want it in a week’s time; we want it now.

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

– I think Senator Poke would agree wilh me that each repatriation case is a matter that has to be looked at individually by the Repatriation Department. I cannot give a general answer. I do believe that the services and facilities offered by the Repatriation Department are second to none. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the case which the honourable senator presented tonight. J shall certainly present it to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) and endeavour to get what assistance I can from him.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to take up only a few minutes of the time of the Senate to report a grave injustice which I think has been done to an honourable senator. I preface my remarks by offering some sympathy to Senator Webster in respect of the injustice which he disclosed in his address on the motion for the adjournment tonight and which he has suffered from the publication of an article in a newspaper. One must feel sympathy for the victim who suffers an injustice or a libel in a publication, especially when that publication is inaccurate, and the more so when it holds the individual up to riducules and contempt by a group which it was his whole motive and interest to protect.

We heard from Senator Webster that he has done some most valuable work in trying to assist the young indigenous people of Papua New Guinea. The publication of what Senator Webster claims to be a very untruthful statement which holds him up to ridicule may prevent a continuation of the effective work which he has done over a period. I do not know what redress at law there is on this question. I do not know whether members of Parliament desire to be involved in such questions at law. But, when such a situation arises, the aggrieved senator deserves the sympathy of the Senate, which should be cognisant of the fact that these things do happen. We might well consider the question whether the Privileges Committee should consider whether it can assist and prevent such happenings in future.

My concern is for a group of people, including Aborigines and supporters of Aborigines in Adelaide, who come to me on occasions for assitance in their fight for equality and better conditions. As a result of discussions with these people, I have asked and placed on the notice paper many questions. This group came to see me last week, concerned at the attempt by certain Ministers of the Crown to hold Aborigines in contempt, as second class citizens with whom no-one likes to be associated, in relation to using them to stop special assistance being given to Aborigines. Grave suspicion was thrown on the actions of one person in particular whom they had always accepted as a champion of their cause. Grave suspicion was thrown on whether in championing their cause over a period the senator concerned was sincere and loyal.

I was surprised at and asked for proof of the allegations made. These people returned with extracts from the minutes of the Conference of Housing Ministers held in Hobart on 7th April 1972. Present at that conference, I believe, were State Housing Ministers and the Commonwealth Minister for Housing, Mr Kevin Cairns, together with departmental officials from the departments responsible for housing. It was quite a large gathering. At page 66 of the report of the proceedings, Hon. A. M. Hodges of Queensland, who is a Minister of the Crown and, I assume, the Queensland Minister responsible for housing, made this statement when the conference was discussing the housing of Aborigines:

And, if I may digress, the ability to buy homes In any part of the State has a very retarding effect on these ‘do-gooders’ who desire to promote in their own minds the aboriginal attitude at the present time. When we find there is somebody who is very vociferous in promoting the aboriginal cause, we immediately buy a home alongside him and he changes his attitude at once. We never hear much more from him. Although J am aware the position is very serious, at the same time it has been, promoted out of all proportion. As soon as one takes the action I have mentioned, these people go back into their shell and don’t promote it any further.

So an attempt is made to use Aborigines for the purpose of discrediting those who would support the Aborigines’ cause. We see the basis for the propaganda that the Aborigines are inferior people and that noone likes living next to them. This is similar to what Senator Webster spoke of tonight. It was suggested of Senator Webster that, although he may be a commonplace individual, he will not sit next to an indigenous person from Papua New Guinea in an aeroplane.

These statements which I have quoted as being made by Mr Hodges come from such a responsible source that what he says would appear to be the policy of the Queensland Government, that is, not to house Aborigines for the sake of providing housing for them but to house them for the purpose of the destruction of those who are out to promote their interests. The Commonwealth Minister for Housing made a statement about the Commonwealth’s attitude to Aboriginal housing at the Ministers conference. We find that Mr Hodges went on to say:

May I add, there is one senator who has been promoting the Aboriginal housing problem with his tongue in his cheek. We are building a house alongside him in north Queensland for an Aboriginal family, and he is now racing around trying to sell his own home.

No-one has suggested to whom this statement by Mr Hodges refers. I know of only one honourable senator who has been championing the cause of Aborigines and who lives in northern Queensland among the Aboriginal people and among supporters of the Aboriginal cause. Senator Keeffe would be recognised as one of the greatest supporters that the Aborigines have. What hypocrisy appears now if this honourable senator, who has been championing the cause of Aborigines, is trying to sell ‘lis house because Mr Hodges is deliberately placing an Aboriginal family next door. Was the honourable senator not true in his advocacy of this cause? Believing this statement referred to Senator Keeffe I took the extract from the Housing Minister’s Conference to him and asked him about it. He said: ‘Yes, the reference is plain enough. This refers to me.’ I asked him whether the allegation was true. He said that the vacant block of land next to him had been bought by the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. He said he inquired about the matter and would welcome whom they might put there. The honourable senator said: ‘Furthermore J am negotiating to put additions on my home. That is strong evidence that I am prepared to continue to reside there. As the block will take 4 dwellings I only hope that they put 4 Aboriginal families next to me.’

I think we all know there is a type of individual whom no-one likes as a nextdoor neighbour, whether he is an Aboriginal or anyone else. But is someone to have the worst type of Aboriginal community dwelling placed next to him because he is prepared to champion a cause? Worse than that, we come to this deliberate lie told at a conference of Ministers, where there are representatives from all States, for the purpose of libelling someone who is championing the Aboriginal cause. If the lie were accepted and believed one could not condemn those supporting the Aboriginal cause for holding Senator Keeffe up to ridicule and contempt. As I have received the document, I bring the matter up. I do not think that it is a question on which Senator Keeffe can speak. There may be some excuse for the ‘Bulletin’ and the Packer newspapers looking for sensationalism and scandal, but 1 do not think there is any excuse for a lie. There is no excuse for a responsible Minister to go along to a responsible conference and make untrue allegations for the purpose of damaging a political opponent. I record my protest with the Minister of the Crown from Queensland.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise to bring to the attention of the Senate 3 statements made by Ministers in another place whom I represent here. The first is a statement by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Peacock) on the sale of the Commonwealth equity in Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Ltd, and the second is a statement by the Minister for External Territories on recent events in Papua New Guinea. Each of those statements I present to the Senate and, if it is the wish of the Senate that they be incorporated in the Senate Hansard, I seek leave for their incorporation.

Mr PRESIDENT:

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

page 1477

SALE OF COMMONWEALTH EQUITY IN COMMONWEALTH-NEW GUINEA TIMBERS LTD

In 1952, the Commonwealth Government and a Canadian company, Bulolo Gold Dredging Ltd, formed a joint enterprise Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Ltd, to establish a veneer and plywood industry at Bulolo as a major pioneer industrial venture. The Commonwealth Government subscribed $1,500,002 to the paid-up capital of $3m. In 1966, Bulolo Gold Dredging Ltd amalgamated with Placer Development Ltd.

The Commonwealth Government has now approved the sale of the Commonwealth’s shareholding in CommonwealthNew Guinea Timbers Ltd to the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea. The Commonwealth would make provision for long-term loan finance on favourable terms to enable the Investment Corporation to take up the Commonwealth’s shareholding. The Government’s policy is to encourage overseas investment in Papua New Guinea which will assist in developing the country on a sound and balanced basis. It looks to such investors to meet a number of conditions including the provision of opportunities for a significant local share in ownership. The Investment Corporation was set up to enable this condition to be realised in cases where the people of Papua New Guinea lack the financial resources or the knowledge to take advantage of such opportunities individually.

The Corporation is empowered to obtain a share in the ownership and control of selected major overseas investment projects and hold this share for future sale to individual Papuans and New Guineans. The Corporation commenced operations atthe beginning of the year and this represents its first major acquisition. It is fitting that with Papua New Guinea’s progress towards self-government the Commonwealth’s interest in this highly successful partnership with private enterprise should pass to the Investment Corporation.

In 1970-71 the plywood factory of Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Ltd produced 42 million square feet of plywood of which 26 million square feet valued at $2.5m were exported. The company also produces sawn and dressed timber as part of its Bulolo operations. The Government has also endorsed proposals for subsequent consolidation of CommonwealthNew Guinea Timbers Ltd with other interests in Papua New Guinea owned by Placer Development. This will extend the range of business interests in which there is local equity through the Investment Corporation which will have a substantial shareholding in the consolidated company, one of Papua New Guinea’s major industrial enterprises. In due course, a Bill to repeal the New Guinea Timber Ageement Act, passed in 1952 to approve the agreement between the Commonwealth and Bulolo Gold Dredging Ltd with respect 10 the formation of CommonwealthNew Guinea Timbers Ltd, will be brought before the House. The present arrangements for duty-free entry into Australia, of 16 million square feet of Papua New Guinea plywood annually, will be maintained.

page 1478

QUESTION

RECENT EVENTS IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

I wish to advise the Senate of recent events in Papua New Guinea which may be of interest to honourable senators. Elections were held in February and March of this year for the third Papua New Guinea House of Assembly which will run until 1976.

These elections were contested by 3 main political parties, namely the United Party, the Pangu Party, the People’s Progress Party, a number of smaller parties such as the New Guinea National Party and political associations such as the Mataungan Association and a number of independent candidates. The results of the elections gave no one party a majority in the hundred elected member House of Assembly but shortly before the opening of the House on 20th April the Pangu Party entered into a coalition with the People’s Progress Party, the New Guinea National Party, the Mataungan Association group and a group of independents led by the former speaker, Dr John Guise, to form a governing coalition group. This group was successful in setting up a Ministerial Nominations Committee of the House of Assembly and, following agreement between the Committee and the Administrator, in having the House endorse its list of members to form the executive government of Papua New Guinea.

Following acceptance by the House of Assembly of the coalition’s list the Minister for External Territories formally created 17 Ministries and the Ministers then elected one of their number to be the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council. The Ministers elected Mr Michael Somare, the parliamentary leader of the Pangu Party, to be the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council and the House of Assembly in turn endorsed that election. Following discussions between the Administrator and the Deputy Chairman of the Administrator’s Executive Council the Administrator recommended to the Minister for External Territories the allocation and distribution of portfolio responsibilities among the Ministry and those Ministers who should make up the elected membership of the Administrator’s Executive Council. On 28th April the Minister for External Territories executed instruments under the Papua New Guinea Act giving effect to these recommendations and the Minister has placed copies of these instruments in the Parliamentary Library.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The third statement is a statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) in the House of Representatives today, lt is a long statement, and 1 bring it to the attention of the Senate out of courtesy to members of the Senate. If the Senate wishes it, I am prepared to have it incorporated in Hansard, although for myself I doubt the justification for the expense of duplicating the printing which will be done in the House of Representatives’ Hansard, but I know that it will be a matter of convenience for the senators to have it in their own Hansard. Senator Murphy indicates to me that it is the Opposition’s desire to have it incorporated, so I ask leave for it to be incorporated.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are there any avenues for debating this statement?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted to incorporate the statement in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

page 1479

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN POLICY

1 propose in this statement to outline the changing environment in which the Australian Government is formulating its foreign policies. I will also report on some of the initiatives taken in recent months and on the Government’s policies in some situations of current importance to us.

page 1479

THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE

This decade will be one of change, lt will be a time of challenge and of danger. Already in the seventies war on a substantial scale has been unleashed in our own region - first on the Indian sub-continent and now with greater intensity in South Vietnam. The Middle East is at risk. If true peace and national integrity are to be secured on the world scene, the countries constituting the European Communities, the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan and the People’s Republic of China will need to arrive at some balance. Particularly is this so in the Asian and Pacific region. Each will have to learn to live with an understanding of the different systems, fears and aspirations of the others; and with respect for the wish of the less powerful countries in the region to preserve and strengthen their own independent societies.

I he European Communities are shortly to be enlarged by the entry of Britain and others, lt is difficult to overrate the importance to us of the trading position of the countries of the enlarged Communities and their influence for the security of the world including South East Asia. We will need to keep clearly before the individual countries of the Communities, before the Commission in Brussels, and before such influential bodies as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the growing strength and potential of Australia and our wish to maintain and expand our close and traditional ties with the countries concerned.

The United States, while maintaining its treaty obligations to its allies, including Australia, is adopting more flexible policies. It is looking to its allies for a greater measure of self-reliance in security matters and is seeking to reduce its land forces overseas. Its trading and financial policies, as well as its security stance, continue to be of paramount importance to us.

Japan has advanced rapidly to the position of a major economic power. Its trading and financial policies and its growing political influence constitute a major factor in our situation.

The Soviet Union is significantly enlarging its great power role. It is now very active in the Middle East and also in 2 areas of proximity and special interest to us, namely, the Indian Ocean and subcontinent and South East Asia itself.

The People’s Republic of China has taken the China seat in the United Nations and is beginning to play a part in the international community. It continues to devote a massive effort to the development of its nuclear capability, lt has made it clear on many occasions, including the occasion of its entry to the United Nations, that it will continue to give support to revolutionary and subversive movements in other countries. Where these movements are designed to overthrow noncommunist governments they are designated by China as movements of national liberation’.

Strong competitive tensions between the Soviet Union and China are evident at present in the Asian region. Because of our resources, our stability and our potential role in the region we cannot rule out that both China and the Soviet Union may seek in the future to improve their relations with us in support of their respective positions in the region. On the other hand we cannot ignore the possibility that in the longer term the Soviet Union and China, both pledged to a common ideology, may develop a less hostile relationship and may find wider areas of co-partnership, as in North Vietnam.

South East Asia is, of course, the region to which, for reasons of proximity and as a conscious act of policy, we must continue to devote a great part of our attention and effort. Most of the countries in this region have achieved independence only in the last 25 years. They are embarked on a course, each in its own way, leading to self-reliance in the field of security, economic viability and the capacity to achieve higher standards for their peoples. Promising steps are being taken by them towards greater regional co-operation in associations such as Association of South East Asian Nations. They are soon to be joined in the region by Papua New Guinea when it achieves nationhood.

We look with close attention and some hope to the working out of the relationships among the great powers, to the balance of forces within our area and to the movement towards a possible future United States of Europe. These adjustments among the mighty may well be accompanied by consequences which will at times be difficult and even dangerous - for themselves and perhaps even more for the less powerful countries which are or may become involved. At the same time they will open up to those countries, including Australia, opportunities for greater freedom of action.

The challenge of our time is not confined to problems of security. It is clear that this decade also presents us all with great issues affecting the way in which man is to live and prosper in his environment. Included in these issues are the preservation of the environment itself; the development of its resources, particularly those of the sea and the sea-bed; the solution of the problem of population growth; the reform of the international monetary system and the liberalisation of world trade.

page 1480

MAJOR AREAS OF FOREIGN POLICY

The European Communities with Britain included, the United States and Japan are the major sources of foreign capital for investment in our resources development; with New Zealand they are our major trading partners, accounting for some 60 per cent of the world’s trade and about 70 per cent of Australian trade; and they are countries which have open forms of society, with free speech and a free Press and where there is the possibility at all times of ready communication at all levels with their peoples. They are countries whose current foreign policies do not contain significant elements hostile or inimical to us - on the contrary they share most of our hopes for a stable and peaceful world order.

I say this in order to place matters in some perspective. Our relationships with them - dynamic, not static - are of great and abiding concern to Australian foreign policy. To them must be added, of course, our friends and neighbours in the Asian and Pacific region. Together they constitute our major areas of foreign policy.

The Enlarged European Communities

On the basis of traditional trade patterns, the enlarged European Economic Community will be our largest trading partner. The group will be a dominant force in international trade and finance. The individual member states will, of course, continue to develop their own individual foreign policies. However, it is probable that in the longer term we shall see an increasing movement towards a Communities’ foreign policy. Already the Communities have their own Commission member, Dr Dahrendorf, with special responsibilities for external relations. Already some countries accredit a separate ambassador to the Communities as well as an ambassador to each member country. Already the Communities have their own unofficial mission at the United Nations in New York. Already the ambassadors of the member countries in capitals such as Canberra meet on an informal basis and with a chairman from one of their number chosen in rotation to discuss, and perhaps to concert, their approach to foreign policy matters.

With the enlargement of the Communities following Britain’s entry, the great strength of the group may well lead to increasingly liberal and outward-looking policies, which could be of great importance to the stability of world trade and finance and to the future security of other countries throughout the world. It is our firm policy to develop a close and harmonious relationship with the group.

The Government has already taken steps in this direction. It has decided to strengthen our missions in the capitals of the enlarged Communities, especially in Brussels, the headquarters of the Communities, so that Australia will be more adequately equipped to influence and to follow developments in this vast new economic grouping.

We have recently had a visit from Dr Dahrendorf, the member of the Commission with special responsibilities for external relations. He has welcomed our intention of developing closer links with both the Commission and the individual members of the enlarged Communities.

The Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr Van Lennep, recently visited Australia for wide-ranging discussions with senior Ministers and officials. Our experience since

June last year, when Australia became a full member, has confirmed the Government’s assessment that Australia stands to benefit in many ways from full membership of the OECD.

None of this involves any weakening of our close ties with Britain. On the contrary, with Britain in the Communities and an influential member of the group, it is more than ever necessary that we strengthen and develop our relationship. We have decided that overall responsibility for the Australian High Commission in London will be transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Planning for the transfer has already reached an advanced stage and the initial practical steps have already been placed in train to bring it about smoothly and efficiently.

United States

A partnership with the United States, based on friendship, trust, self-reliance and a close similarity of interests and objectives, remains a central element of our foreign policy. The relationship, which had its origin in the Second World War, is underpinned by common interests, one reflection of which is the ANZUS Treaty. The 2 countries, despite the occasional differences of viewpoint, which are an inevitable and healthy part of any developed and complex relationship, have been stable and dependable allies on all important occasions during the post-war period.

Although this intimate relationship now goes back more than a quarter of a century, it is continually evolving and developing as international circumstances change. The United States administration is endeavouring lo shape a new foreign policy to meet the requirments of a new era and to lay the groundwork for a new structure of international peace. Although it is withdrawing ground forces from Asia, the United States still regards the Pacific and, to an extent, the Indian Ocean areas as vital lo its own ultimate security. Australia, as the largest land mass in the area, as a technologically advanced people controlling a country of enormous potential and as a trusted ally, has importance for the United Stales. The Australian Prime Minister was among the first of a series of leaders of friendly countries to whom President Nixon expounded his plans and hopes before embarking on this historic year in United States foreign policy.

It is in this setting that ANZUS is seen to be of such importance to Australia, New Zealand and the United States. In the words of the Secretary of State’s Report to Congress on ‘United States Foreign Policy, 1971’, published on 7th March 1972: ‘The alliance of Australia, New Zealand and the United States (ANZUS), 20 years old on September 1st, 1971, is as vital to the 3 partners in the changing circumstances of the seventies as it was during the Cold War of former years.’ This, of course, refers to ANZUS with its military content. Without its military content, ANZUS would be irrelevant to any discussion on defence or security.

The Australian Government, during my own experience in government, has always made its own independent assessment of its interests and its own independent decisions on its policies. Australia is presently endeavouring to evolve its foreign policy to meet changed international circumstances as they affect us. The range of choices open to us is necessarily different from that open to the United States, and our respective assessments of international developments may in some cases differ. The United States is a nuclear super-power with world-wide interests and involvement. It has, in terms of military involvement and of civil aid, shouldered an immense burden and adopted a most responsible role in world affairs in the interests of world peace. Australia is less powerful. It is not a nuclear power. It has a more limited area of direct involvement and opportunity for significant influence. It is more closely involved regionally in the future of South East Asia and the South Pacific. lt is the policy of the Government to maintain a close, friendly and reliable relationship with the United States. This we believe will be a valuable and continuing element in the changing environment.

New Zealand lt is no exaggeration to say that with New Zealand we have closer and more intimate ties than with any other country. Proximity, kinship and common interests bind the future of our 2 countries. There is a regular exchange with New Zealand of ministerial and official visits and an annual two-way flow of visitors of approximately 100,000 in each direction. It is one country of which I can say I have found it convenient and mutually useful for me to lift the telephone and speak to my opposite number, as I believe it is for other Ministers. Since the signing of the New Zeland Australia Free Trade Agreement in 1965 there has been a marked increase in trade between our 2 countries. There is a close understanding and co-operation in defence and matters affecting security. We fought together in Korea and in South Vietnam. We are partners in ANZUS, the South East Asia Treaty Organisation and the recently concluded Five Power Defence Arrangements. In our common interest as members of the South Pacific Forum we have worked together on Pacific problems.

It is our policy to nurture our relationship with this nation; our ties are fraternal and not simply those of friends. We welcome the visit of the new Prime Minister, Mr John Marshall, to Australia, which will take place in the middle of June.

Japan

Close co-operation has been maintained with Japan through frequent consultation at ministerial, official and non-governmental levels. In addition to my own visit, a number of Australian Ministers travelled to Japan during 1971. In February this year a Parliamentary delegation, led by the Minister for the Navy, visited Japan. The Treasurer has just returned from an official visit to Tokyo. The Japanese Minister for International Trade and Industry visited Australia in April last year.

Japan is the one country in respect of which we have a Standing Interdepartmental Committee to co-ordinate matters affecting the relationship. The recently established Japan-Australia Ministerial Committee will provide an annual forum for a high-level review of all aspects of the bilateral economic relationship and of multilateral economic issues of concern to both parties. Meetings will be held alternately in each country and will be presided over by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of either country. The first meeting is to be held in Canberra later this year.

There has been further substantial growth in bilateral trade relations. In the 1970-71 financial year Australian exports to Japan were valued at $l,19lm a 16.6 per cent rise on the 1969-70 figure. This represented 27 per cent of Australia’s total exports. Imports from Japan were worth $574m, a 19 per cent increase over the 1969-70 figure, and representing 14 per cent of Australia’s total imports. In parallel with the growing trade between the 2 countries, both Australia and Japan are pursuing policies of widening their avenues of trade throughout the world.

We find increasingly we have a common interest in problems arising in international affairs. For example, our stand on the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations was similar; our approach to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty has been broadly on similar lines. Last year the announcement by President Nixon of his visit to China and the subsequent announcement of the 10 per cent surcharge on imports to America raised for both countries broadly similar problems of great anxiety. Our 2 countries find they have common interests in wishing to help the developing countries of the Asia-Pacific region to sustain and expand their economic growth in conditions of peace and stability. We are already cooperating in regional organisations.

We will continue to develop this valuable pattern of frank consultation on international and regional questions of mutual interest.

page 1482

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Of major importance to us are our relationships with the countries of the Asian and Pacific region. I cannot deal wilh all these countries in this statement. However, I want to say a word now about recent developments affecting Indonesia, ‘.he countries on the Indian sub-continent, and the South Pacific. I shall deal in an Annex to this statement with developments affecting Thailand and the Philippines, with whom we are so closely associated in SEATO, and Malaysia and Singapore, with whom we have so recently concluded the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

Our policy is to help our friends in the region to ensure their own stability and security, and by our aid programmes to assist the development of their own strength and resources and their own ability to improve the lot of their peoples. As part of our process of maintaining contact with the region, the Prime Minister will be visiting Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia in June. I shall join him in Indonesia, following my own visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in late May/early June.

Indonesia

The stability and economic progress of Indonesia, a country of about 125 million people and our nearest neighbour, is of direct importance to Australia and, indeed, to all countries of our region. Already this year there have been developments in our relations with Indonesia which deserve special mention.

First, at our invitation. President Soeharto, accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Malik, and other senior members of the administration and armed forces, recently made a most successful visit to Australia. The Communique made clear the special relationship that exists between Australia and Indonesia across a broad range of political, economic and security interests.

During the course of President Soeharto’s visit I was able to reach agreement with Mr Malik on proposals which I had initiated earlier with him for the establishment of annual consultations between senior Australian and Indonesian officials about foreign policy matters. These consultations will be held alternately in Canberra and Djakarta; they will cover a wide range of subjects, and will formally confirm the habit of frequent contact on matters of mutual interest which we have developed over the years with Indonesia.

Another consultative arrangement made during the President’s visit was for regular meetings on trade policy matters, initially at ministerial level.

The two governments have also decided that negotiations for an agreement to delineate the sea-bed boundary between our two countries, carried to a first stage in May 1971, should be resumed in the near future. I expect the second round of discussions to begin soon, extending to discussions on the exact definition of the land boundary between Papua New Guinea and West Irian.

The continuing recovery and progress of the Indonesian economy has been a matter of close concern to us. Indonesia has, in fact, occupied a dominant position in our bilaterial aid programmes since 1967-68.

We respect the fact that Indonesia wishes to remain non-aligned. There is no thought on either side of a defence pact. We look towards increasing cooperation in specific instances when there is something useful to be achieved. This cooperation, going back many years, has taken the form of exchanges of personnel, exchanges between Staff Colleges, provision by Australia of mapping assistance including both the RAAF and the Army, training at Australian military establishments and, most recently, the offer by Australia to provide 1.6 Sabre aircraft to assist. Indonesia in bridging a gap in its Air Force equipment programme.

It will be our aim to maintain the steady development of the close relationship we now enjoy with Indonesia.

Indian Sub-Continent

I turn now to the events of recent months on the Indian sub-continent - the flight of millions of refugees from East Pakistan into India and their subsequent return, the brief war between India and Pakistan, the emergence of Bangladesh, and the new shape of relations between these three countries.

This is another area in which Australia has taken not simply an active interest but a positive role, and in some aspects a leading role.

The Government’s policy throughout has been that, if we thought we could make a useful contribution towards reducing tensions and working towards the establishment of peaceful conditions, we should do so. In this we reflected not only our regard for the significance of India, Pakistan and, now, Bangladesh to the future course of events in our region, but also the close and continuing interest of the Australian people in the welfare and future of the people of the countries involved.

Throughout the crisis 2 considerations were uppermost in our minds - first, that there should be a political settlement, acceptable to the people of the region; and secondly, that we should make a substantial contribution towards relieving widespread hitman suffering and distress.

When the fighting ended, the Government began to consider the problem of its relations with Pakistan and what clearly would shortly be the new state of Bangladesh. Precipitate action by us to recognise Bangladesh could have compromised Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s future, made things more difficult for Mr Bhutto, and led to a break in our relations with Pakistan. Two developments fundamentally changed the situation: first, in a statesmanlike action President Bhutto released Sheikh Mujibur Rahman unconditionally; secondly, the reception given to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on his return to Dacca left no doubt that the people of Bangladesh were set on independence and wanted an acknowledgement of their sovereignty.

In these circumstances we felt we could best meet the aspirations of the people of Bangladesh, while at the same time easing President Bhutto’s path, if we could recognise Bangladesh in company with a representative group of states. We were mindful, too, of India’s problems. From the time when the Prime Minister in Washington last year had frank and useful discussions with Mrs Gandhi and I had talks with Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh in New York, we were conscious and, I believe, understanding of their difficulties and their idea of solutions which might be appropriate. In the event, we decided to take the initiative and recognise Bangladesh ahead of most of those whom we had consulted. Before doing so, however, the Prime Minister wrote twice to President Bhutto explaining our attitude and giving him prior notification of our decision.

In the result Bangladesh received wide international recognition and has now become a member of the Commonwealth. Pakistan left the Commonwealth but did not break off diplomatic relations with Commonwealth countries recognising Bangladesh.

A lasting settlement on the sub-continent will require restraint on all sides, and sympathetic understanding from the friends of the countries concerned. The Australian Government will give every encouragement to genuine initiatives to secure a peaceful settlement. In particular it hopes for an early solution to the problem of the Pakistani prisoners of war held in India and Bangladesh. Meetings have already taken place between senior Indian and Pakistani officials, which have laid down the framework for a meeting soon between Mrs Gandhi and President Bhutto.

We recognise that the possible role for any third party is limited in view of the known attitudes of the parties. They feel that they must resolve their own outstanding differences, and we acknowledge this position.

In looking at the new situation, we acknowledge too that the power balance has changed. Instead of 2 states, not so dissimilar in capacity, we now have 3, of which India is clearly the pre-eminent in terms of population, economic strength and military capability. This is not necessarily a disrupting factor. It may in fact lead to a more settled situation; but it is an important change.

During my forthcoming visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it will be my endeavour to increase our mutual understanding and further to develop our position as a helpful neighbour.

South Pacific

Yet another area in which we are developing special initiatives and to which we are paying increasing attention is the South Pacific. We have long had substantial economic interests there and our air, sea and telecommunications links with North America and beyond to Europe lie across it.

My first visit overseas as Foreign Minister was to Fiji. We have, in response to a request from Fiji, provided an Australian judge to serve as their Chief Justice. We look forward to a visit later this month by the Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara.

Our commitment to the support of South Pacific regionalism is wellestablished. We took the initiative in the founding of the South Pacific Commission which, in the 25 years it has been established, has done much to promote the economic and social welfare of the peoples of the region.

By its constitution, the South Pacific Commission and its important organ, the South Pacific Conference, are non-political So, when last year the leaders of the independent and self-governing island territories sought a meeting which could discuss political issues, the Pacific Forum was established with the full support of Australia and New Zealand. The second meeting of the Pacific Forum was held on 23rd to 25th February in Canberra. It was attended by the President of Nauru, the Prime Ministers of the Cook Islands, Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa and the Foreign Ministers of New Zealand and Australia.

This second meeting strengthened the process of mutual consultation between island leaders and served to reinforce a sense of regional identity. 1 believe that the Forum, offering as it does an opportunity for frank discussion of the widest range of common problems, has in 2 years made much progress towards becoming a significant and influential regional body. In the actual sessions of the Forum the sense of equality among the members and what I can only describe as a sense of brotherhood, has been a notable feature. The Forum’s decision, already put into effect, to establish a South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation is an indication of the important, practical role the Forum can be expected to play in regional affairs.

page 1485

RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

So far I have made only passing reference to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to the People’s Republic of China. Each of these countries has a special importance to us and is also of major concern to us in formulating our foreign policy, but in a somewhat different way from the countries I have so far discussed.

We believe in the rights of people and of nations to secure and maintain their peace and freedom, free from any form or manner of interference by outside powers. In the past Australia has expressed its opposition to many policies followed by the Soviet Union, notably where they have resulted in the curbing of the freedom of peoples and nations around them, and to policies of the People’s Republic of China, where they have disturbed the peace in the Asian region.

Nevertheless, we believe this is an era characterised - to use President Nixon’s phrase - as one of ‘negotiation, not confrontation’. In that spirit, we have increasingly in recent times adopted and pursued policies directed towards the increase of exchanges of all types between the Australian people and the peoples of the Soviet Union and China. We have sought to normalise the relations between our countries with a view not only to their progressive improvement but as a step towards improvement in the stability of the world order.

page 1485

USSR

The importance of the USSR to Australia goes beyond any developments which may occur in our purely bilateral relationship. The maintenance of a world order within which countries such as Australia can maintain their independence and prosperity still depends to a great extent on the evolution of a stable relationship between Washington and Moscow.

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia a kind of Russian Communist hegemony has been established in Eastern Europe and at all events a period of relative stability in this area has ensued. With the negotiation of Treaties between West Germany, the Soviet Union and Poland in 1970, the subsequent negotiation of the Four Power Berlin Agreement and the entry of Britain into the Enlarged Economic Communities, it seemed that a period of relative stability and security would be assured in Europe as a whole. It seemed, too, that the limited settlement of the Berlin situation would be sufficient to enable a course to be followed which would bring both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic as separate states into the United Nations. This would have been an application of the principle of universality with promising implications for North and South Korea and North and South Vietnam. However, the West German government has not yet secured parliamentary ratification of its Treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland, which the Soviet Union has linked to its signature of the Berlin Agreement.

The Soviet Union’s great increase in naval strength in the Mediterranean, its role in the Middle East crisis and its increasing presence in the Indian Ocean carry serious implications for Australian foreign policy which cannot be ignored. The Russian-Indian Treaty of Friendship and the subsequent role of the Soviet Union in the recent conflict of the Indian sub-continent are of direct concern to us. Indeed, the Soviet Union’s relations with China, India and Japan, its increasing interest and influence in the Indian Ocean, its show of military might on the northern border of China and its massive support of North Vietnam to the extent of thousands of millions of dollars of military aid over recent years, constitute one of the. most important and disturbing and one of the least manageable elements in our foreign policy situation. At the same time there has been a change in the Soviet Union’s relations with Japan. Previously the question of the northern islands was held by the Soviet Union to be a closed subject, whereas at the conclusion of Mr Gromyko’s recent visit to Tokyo it seems this question was left as one which might still be open to discussion. No change and no solution to the dispute between the Soviet Union and Japan, however, have so far emerged.

I have mentioned the increasing Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. The importance to Australia of this fact needs no amplification. As an island continent with a vast external trade Australia is extremely vulnerable to any possibility of interference with its sea and air routes. A substantial section of our sea and air routes lies across the Indian Ocean. The significance for us of the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean lies not so much in the actual number and power of Russian naval vessels there at any one time, as in the rapidly increasing capacity of the Soviet Union to place and sustain large naval forces of considerable power in the area very quickly. This capacity would, of course, be considerably augmented by the opening of the Suez Canal.

While the Australian Government would not wish to see any competition develop between the larger powers in the stationing of naval forces in the area - a policy view reflected in the decisions of the last ANZUS meeting of Ministers in November 1971 - the situation is one which has been sufficiently significant to be the subject of consultation between Australia and the United States and Australia and Britain. We believe these 2 friends and allies share our concern and our view that the position requires close attention. We note that France similarly views the position with some concern. For our own part, we believe it is more than ever necessary lor us to proceed with our plans for the establishment of our naval base at Cockburn Sound and our Air Force base at Learmonth.

By what 1 have said, I do not wish it to be inferred, least of all by the Soviet Union, that I am saying we feci that the Soviet Union is threatening an attack on mainland Australia. This is not my point. What I am emphasising, and what I believe I would be failing in my duty to the Australian people if I did not emphasise, is the growing military capacity and influence of the Soviet Union in areas of vital concern to Australia.

We have in fact been increasing our friendly contacts with Russia and its people over recent years. I believe both Russia and Australia recognise and accept the sharp divergences in our social and political systems, our attitudes to freedom of thought and communication and our approach to many international problems. But we both equally recognise common ground on which we can engage in fruitful and friendly exchanges. As 1 have indicated, it has been part of our foreign policy to nurture and develop these opportunities for positive, development of relations between our 2 countries.

In May 1971 the Prime Minister announced that the Government, after considering the stated desire of the Soviet Government for an improved relationship with Australia, has agreed to certain Soviet proposals in which it recognised mutual advantages. Specifically, the Government agreed that the Societ Union could open a consulate in Sydney, station in Sydney a representative of the Baltic Steamship Co., which is a member of the Australia-Europe shipping conference, and appoint an agricultural attache to its embassy in Canberra.

The Government also announced that it favoured exchanges of visits by Ministers and senior officials between the 2 countries.

Since these announcements, useful contacts on bilateral questions have been developed and progress has been made towards placing our relations on a practical working basis. It is because the Government sees value in exchanging views with the Soviet authorities on questions of bilateral and international interest that it has invited the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr S. P. Kosyrev, to visit Australia this year. A senior officer of my Department will visit Moscow for consultations in June.

The Government places particular value on the development of mutually beneficial trade relations with the USSR, and has invited the Soviet Foreign Trade Minister Mr N. S. Patolichev, to visit Australia this year also. It is also ready to explore the prospects of mutually advantageous cooperation with the USSR in other fields, for example, scientific and technical exchanges.

On a wider scale, we welcome the recent evidence of a spirit of reciprocity which the Soviet leadership has given in response to United States approaches on disarmament.

China

China has, of course, been much in the news. There have been 2 major developments since I last spoke to the House on this subject - first, the seating of representatives of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations and, secondly, President Nixon’s visit to China.

As 1 said in the House immediately after the United Nations vote, we were pleased that the People’s Republic of China would be represented in the United Nations and would take the Security Council seat. By our speeches, and in the resolutions we co-sponsored, we had actively supported that outcome, while seeking to maintain the membership of the Republic of China on Taiwan.

As for President Nixon’s visit to China, it will be recalled that the Prime Minister issued a very full statement on this subject on 28th February, the day after the joint communique was released in Shanghai. 1 will not repeat now what the Prime Minister said then, but I should like to emphasise 2 points.

First, we ail stand to gain from the establishment by the United States and China of some working relationship with each other. But it is important to recognise that President Nixon’s visit is only the beginning of a beginning. It was not a settlement of matters at issue even between the 2 powers themselves, let alone of wider issues in which they are involved. Further efforts are required to reduce immediate tensions and to eliminate the basic causes of conflict.

Secondly, the very fact of the visit having been sought, agreed, and successfully made, marked a significant point of departure in the policies of both the United States and China. In particular, it represented the breaking of the set pattern of hostility in which Sino-American policies have been immured for a generation.

I do not mean that the United States - or indeed China, for that matter - is about to abandon old friends. Far from it. The United States, for example, has made it abundantly clear that its security treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan will continue. The People’s Republic of China has made clear its continued support of North Vietnam.

I turn to the question of Australia’s own relations with the People’s Republic of China. The Government has recently been in touch with the Chinese Government through diplomatic channels. It would not be proper to discuss the details of these and past exchanges. However, the exchanges have been useful and correct, and each of us has a clearer idea of where the other stands. We, for our part, are considering carefully the implications of the Chinese position. We intend to pursue our objectives in a continuing dialogue, appreciating that these things necessarily take time, patience and care.

Countries can, of course, in practice, have dealings with each other in a whole variety of ways without formal recognition and diplomatic relations. Negotiations can be carried on through ambassadors in third countries. Countries can sit and work together in the United Nations and its various agencies. Trade can be conducted. Visits can take place. Working relationships can be established in international bodies. All these contacts in fact exist as between Australia and China. Moreover, lack of formal recognition will not detract in the future, any more than it has in the past, from our perception of the important place of China in the world and our respect for the individual people of China, and from the framing of our policies accordingly.

The size and population of China suggest that its external trade could well increase substantially beyond its present modest level. However, we should keep in mind that it would require a great change in the nature of the Chinese economy before this could occur, and that this may well take a long time.

So far as information is concerned, it seems to be the experience of many countries with ambassadors in Peking that, because of the rigidly ‘closed’ nature of the Chinese society at the present time and the restrictions placed upon them, the amount of solid information which they are able to secure or transmit to their governments is severely limited. lt is a fact to be noted that, although countries far removed geographically from the region have hastened to join the recent movement towards ‘recognising’ the People’s Republic of China, our friends and neighbours who are actually in the region have not so far exchanged diplomatic representatives with them. The fact that China has provided massive support for North Vietnam, assisting to bring that country to a position where it could launch an invasion of South Vietnam. Laos and the Khmer Republic, cannot be ignored. Furthermore, China still maintains its policy of supporting national liberation fronts within the borders of countries in our region.

In saying these things I am not seeking to underrate the importance which we attach to developing and formalising our relations with the People’s Republic of China and to expanding our mutual trade. I am seeking merely to place matters in perspective, against the quite exaggerated ideas which are sometimes put forward about the benefits which might flow from recognition’.

Australia’s position is that we are willing to ‘recognise’ the People’s Republic of China and to exchange diplomatic representatives in accordance with normal international practice, (n normal international practice, by extending recognition and establishing diplomatic relations neither party is required - or to be assumed - to approve or disapprove the policies of the other; neither party is required - or to be assumed - to pass judgment upon disputed territorial claims of the other party. But, as we understand it, the People’s Republic of China insists as a condition of establishing diplomatic relations that we acknowledge it as the sole legal government of China and as having sovereignty over Taiwan.

The Australian Government notes the claim made on either side of the Straits of Taiwan that there is only one China and that it includes Taiwan. History shows how rapidly circumstances may change. We hope that this matter will be resolved by the respective peoples concerned and in a peaceful manner.

As matters now stand, Peking’s stipulation that we acknowledge its sovereignty over Taiwan creates difficulties for Australia. Australia has the reputation in the Asian region of being a staunch friend and a country which does not readily yield to pressure to change policies which it believes to be right, whatever others may do. No country should lightly throw away this reputation and this goodwill.

In view of our long-standing relations with the Government on Taiwan, which has been not only a friend but also a responsible member of the Asian community and, indeed, the wider world community, Australia is naturally and quite properly reluctant and indeed unwilling to submit to Peking’s stipulation that it should abandon its friend.

For our own part, we will continue our present policy of seeking the progressive normalisation of bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China, moving at all times with prudent caution and being guided by a careful assessment of Australia’s national interests, including the need to bear in mind the interests and concerns of our friends and neighbours.

Indo-China

The Prime Minister has made a statement commenting on President Nixon’s decision to take new measures to deny war supplies to North Vietnam. I do not propose to repeat here what the Prime Minister has said, but to outline, in the course of this statement, the circumstances which have Icd to the present situation in Vietnam and the Australian Government’s response.

The troubled and tragic states of IndoChina - the Republic of Vietnam in particular - are struggling to cope with enormously difficult problems. They face a North Vietnam which remains determined to impose by force on the South a government of the North’s choosing. North Vietnam has launched its regular forces in attacks in great strength outside its own borders into the Khmer Republic and Laos as well as into South Vietnam.

North Vietnam is supported in this by extensive aid from the Soviet Union and Other Eastern European countries, and from China. The bulk of this aid, much of it in the form of the most modern weapons, now comes from the Soviet Union.

I emphasise that what we are watching now is not a ‘people’s uprising’. It is not a civil war. It is an invasion of one country by another. The great bulk of North Vietnam’s regular Army is now deployed in the South.

Why has North Vietnam persisted in this war policy? It is not for lack of alternatives. The peace proposals put forward by President Thieu and President Nixon on 25th January this year offered the opportunity for the people of South Vietnam, on whose behalf the North Vietnamese claim to be acting, to determine their own future through elections conducted by an independent commission and under international supervision. President Thieu offered to resign prior to these elections. But the Communists are still not prepared to face the test of elections.

A statement jointly signed by the President of North Vietnam and Prince Sihanouk on 5th March said that the 2 parties categorically reject Nixon’s so-called “Eight Point Proposal for Peace”’. This statement, as did the earlier Seven-Point Proposal of North Vietnam of 1st July 1971, called, in effect, for the dismantling of the administration of the Republic of Vietnam as a pre-condition for negotiations and the handing over to the ‘Provisional Revolutionary Government’ of the task of establishing a ‘government of national concord’ and the holding of elections.

Why did the North act when it did? No doubt a number of factors were involved in the timing. There is some evidence that Hanoi wanted to attack earlier, in the region of the Central Highlands, but that its plans were disrupted by South Vietnamese and United States pre-emptive operations. Another factor was probably the weather - suitable for campaigning while providing some cover from air attack. Another may have been a wish to demonstrate, at a time of increasing contacts between the United States and the Soviet Union and the United Slates and China, that it is Hanoi which determines events in Indo-China. Yet another factor, which was evident at the time of the unsuccessful Tet offensive in 1968, appears to be a deliberate attempt to exert pressure on United States opinion, and through it on the United States Administration. They are mindful that this is a presidential election year.

It also seems clear that a compelling reason for the invasion at this time was an assessment on the part of the North Vietnamese leadership that South Vietnam was doing too well. Hanoi needed to disrupt the consolidation that has been going on in the Republic of Vietnam, both within its Armed Forces - the Army of the Republic of Vietnam - and in its society generally; and to act before South Vietnam became too tough a nut to crack. Their offensive had been foreseen; but it is one thing to foresee events and another to live through them, preserve one’s balance, and, in circumstances where the aggressor naturally has the initiative, to withstand them.

The South Vietnamese forces have suffered reverses. There may be further setbacks before the situation clarifies. But it is worth remembering the experience of the offensive of Tet in 1968, which showed the importance of reserving judgment on the outcome of the fighting. In 1968 hasty judgments allowed the communists to make great propaganda gains, although subsequent events showed that Tet 1968 had, in fact, been a major setback for the communists, both in terms of military casualties and of damage to their organisation and infrastructure in the South.

On behalf of the Government, 1 condemn the invasion of the Republic of Vietnam by North Vietnamese regular army units. It has been launched, and could only have been launched, with massive support from the Soviet Union and China. I believe the overwhelming majority of Australians have deep sympathy for the people of the Republic of Vietnam. They were fighting courageously in defence of their country even before their allies came to their assistance with ground troops. They have continued lo fight with great courage notwithstanding that the ground troops of their allies are being withdrawn.

We are continuing with our civil aid. We are dispatching urgently needed supplies (o assist them in coping with the flood of mcn. women and children fleeing as refugees before the advance of the invading armies. If the South Vietnamese fall before this onslaught not only will it be a sad day for all who believe small countries and their peoples should be free to determine their own Government, but the repercussions of their fall will reverberate in the South East Asian region for years to come.

page 1490

AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST

Africa

It is impracticable in a statement of this type to discuss our relations with each of the countries of this great continent. Although the countries of our own region must necessarily be our primary concern. I would not wish it to be thought that we do nol greatly value our relations with the many and diverse countries of Africa. We have especially close relations with those African countries which are members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

In particular, we appreciate the resentment which is felt at the continued implementation of policies of racial discrimination and minority rule in Southern Africa. Race and racism are prominent moral and international issues on which Governments more and more have to take a position. The Government’s position is clear. It has been stated many times. Policies of apartheid, racial discrimination and severely restricted franchises, which the minority Governments of South Africa pursue, have no support in Australia. At the same time, it is not our policy to encourage or support calls for the use of force to change the racial policies applied in Southern Africa.

The Middle East

The unresolved dispute between Israel and the Arab states remains the main cause of continuing tension in the Middle East.

Negotiations on an overall settlement on the basis of the principles contained in Security Council Resolution 242 were halted in March 1971, with the suspension of the mission of Dr Jarring, the special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Since then, both Egypt and Israel have separately continued to explore the possibility of an interim accommodation related to the re-opening of the Suez Canal. The differences between the 2 sides, however, on the extent and form of such an accommodation and its connection wilh a comprehensive Arab/ Israeli settlement are still considerable.

A promising aspect of the situation last year was that the ceasefire was generally observed, even though it formally expired, after 2 extensions, on 7th March 1971. In late February, however, armed clashes occurred between Palestinian guerillas and Israeli armed forces on both sides of the Lebanese/ Israeli border, resulting in a further deplorable loss of life.

The Australian Government’s altitude towards the Arab/Israeli dispute remains as stated in Parliament in April last year. Our policy is one of neutrality and sympathetic interest in a settlement of the conflict. We are friends of both the Arab States and Israel and wish to remain so. Accordingly the Australian Government has supported United Nations resolutions which were concerned with the welfare of those who have suffered from the dispute, but has abstained on those which tended politically to favour one side or the other.

We hope that it will not be long before substantive negotiations are resumed on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 and we remain concerned that, unless diplomatic initiatives on an Arab/Israeli settlement can be maintained, the risk of a renewal of hostilities must correspondingly increase.

page 1490

UNITED NATIONS

Before I close I wish to refer to the United Nations. Australia has always taken an active part in United Nations affairs.

The Government has decided that we should seek membership of the United Nations Security Council, for service on the Council in the 2 years 1973-74. The Western European and other States’ group in the United Nations has already endorsed Australia as one of its candidates for 2 WEO seats on the Council. Even at this early stage - the elections for the Council will not be held until the end of this year - we have received promises of support from a number of countries in addition to WEO Group members.

Under Article 24 of the Charter the members of the Security Council are ‘primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security’. We have served on the Council on 2 occasions in the past - in 1946-47 and 10 years later in 1956-57. It is mainly because of the great and rapid increase in the membership of the United Nations itself that we have not sought membership of the Council for the last 15 years.

I know that in the eyes of many people and many governments the United Nations has failed to fulfil the hopes held by so many for its peace-keeping role. But in assessing its performance we must ask not whether its member governments have given it the moral and financial support it must have if it is to function properly. My own conviction is that this support has not been given.

The Australian Government is committed to the principles of the United Nations Charter, and has played a significant part in its many fields of activity. We have consistently supported the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations. At present, Australia is a member of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and is represented in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Palestine, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan and in the United Nations Force in Cyprus.

Australia has tried to adopt a constructive approach to the numerous questions raised in debates in the United Nations General Assembly and its other bodies. We have deplored its use for propaganda and as a forum for controversy and mutual recrimination. We have built up a reputation as an interested and responsible mem ber of the organisation. It is because of this that I believe that many members of the United Nations would expect Australia to accept its obligations and stand for election to the principal organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council itself.

page 1491

QUESTION

CONCLUSION

I have outlined the Government’s attitude to some of the most pressing problems of the day and have described our major policy areas and some of the initiatives taken. I have referred to the good relations we have developed, and will continue to foster, with our friends and neighbours in Asia and the Pacific.

There are, of course, other developments and areas of the world of significance to us. I have prepared an Annex to this statement which I shall seek leave to table. This Annex deals with a large number of important aspects of our foreign policy, which it was simply impracticable to cover in my statement. Nor have I dealt with our foreign aid programmes. Later, perhaps during the debate on the Estimates, 1 hope to make a special report on this aspect of our foreign policy.

Our basic national objective is to establish and maintain conditions in which Australia is secure, free and prosperous. Beyond this objective of national wellbeing we have a broad regional objective, in the Asian and Pacific area, to play as helpful a role as we can in the promotion of a peaceful, stable region, a region of security, economic growth, political stability and peaceful social change, in which we will be accepted as a staunch and reliable friend and a welcome and helpful member.

Beyond this, we have a wider role, to play our part in the world as a trusted, responsible and respected member of the community of nations, to heed and respond to the ‘responsible common opinion of mankind’ while not hesitating to maintain and express our own firmly-held convictions.

At these 3 levels - national, regional and international - we are playing, in the changing international environment of. the seventies, a proper and effective part and a distinctively Australian part.

I present the following papers:

Statement on Australian Foreign Policy by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated 9th May, 1972

Annex to that Statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is there a motion relating to this statement?

Senator Withers:

– The Minister can move that the House take note of the paper.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We are debating the motion that the Senate do now adjourn, and without leave it would not be proper to move a motion of the character that has been indicated. It is the view of the Opposition that the important statement on the matter of foreign policy should be discussed.

Senator Wright:

– We can have a discussion on it tomorrow.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the Minister for his indication that the appropriate steps will be taken tomorrow to enable a debate to be had at some convenient time on the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.24 p.m.

page 1493

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were given:

page 1493

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL SHIPPING LINE

(Question No. 2087)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. What action is proposed to be taken in the way of staff changes and reorganisation of administrative and managerial practices in the Australian National Shipping Line, following the revelation of 11,500 unfilled passenger berths on the Australian National Line passenger/vehicles ships on the Tasmanian run during November and December 1971 and January 1972.
  2. Does the Government accept that the situation so revealed reflects managerial incompetence which threatens the economic viability of the Australian National Line’s passenger services and does serious harm to a sensitive area of the Tasmanian economy almost entirely dependent on shipping.

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

  1. and (2) The Government does not propose to initiate any action for staff changes in the Australian National Line’s organisation and rejects the suggestion of incompetence on the part of the Line’s management.

The Government and ANL are aware of the importance of the Line’s passenger services to the Tasmanian tourist trade. However, the figures of unfilled berths quoted in the question gives the overall position only. The vacancies per month were as follows:

These figures must be consideredin the light of the purposes of the services, the reasons for the vacancies and the situation in previous years.

The Line’s Tasmanian passenger services are designed to cater to the needs of tourists. This trade, which is important to the Tasmanian economy, is seasonal in nature so that demand for travel fluctuates from month to month throughout the year.

From the beginning of November until about midway through December, i.e. until the start of the Christmas tourist season, demand for tourist travel is not very heavy. In fact November is normally the third lowest month in any year for passenger bookings. Consequently, there are a number or unfilled berths during this period. However, the demand in 1971 was higher than in the corresponding period of the two previous years.

In January 1972, the month in which demand for tourist travel normally reaches its highest level each year, the three vessels carried 14,753 passengers. This means they operated at almost a 90 per cent load factor, i.e. the percentage of filled berths to total berth available.

The level of cancellations experienced in January 1972 was slightly higher than thatinprioryears. However as soon as this situation became evident, the Line immediately introducedproceduresto obtain definite information of bookings orcancellations at an earlier date so that unfilled berths could be advertised and utilised to the greatest possible extent.

In theory, the Line could achieve a load factor significantly higher than 90 per cent by imposing very stringent conditions on intending passengers to ensure that they either travel or pay in full for unused berths. In practice, however, these conditions cannot be imposed as they would not be acceptable to tourists. Prospective passengers would simply turn to other areas for their holiday requirements and the Line, and the Tasmanian tourist industry, would suffer.

page 1493

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

(Question No. 2077)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Are imported parts for artificial limbs liable to Customs duty; if so -

is such duty at the rate of 30 per cent; and

is this duty payable for parts purchased by, the Repatriation Department.

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

Most parts for artificial limbs are free of duty when they qualify for importation under the Preferential Tariff and 7½ per cent by value under the General Tariff.

Preferential countries include United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand while typical General Tariff countries include the United States of America, France, Germany and Switzerland. Exceptions of these rates of duty are minor parts such as nails, tacks and screws.

Imported parts which are the property of the Repatriation Department at the time of importation and are not imported for the purposes of trade are free of Customs duty.

page 1493

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES

(Question No. 2047)

Senator BYRNE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. In the case of an attempted take-over of an Australian domestic airline operator by another company, what general authority, resides in the Department of Civil Aviation or the Minister, to affect the outcome of such a manoeuvre.
  2. What, if any, approval, permission or assent is required from the Department, or the Minister, to (a) the transfer of the operator’s licence, (b) the hypothecation of contract, (c) the transfer of assets and (d) the transfer of franchises, licences, etc.. for the use of airport facilities.
  3. Does the Department require any proof of administrative or economic competence in the prospective new operator.
  4. Will the Minister prepare and lay down a paper detailing the role which the Department or the Minister is by law required to play, and also the roles they may play by the exercise of Departmental or Ministerial discretion.

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

  1. Thereis no specific provision in the Air Navigation Regulations or any other legislation administered by the Department of Civil Aviation which directly, empowers the Minister or the Department to prevent the takeover of a company holding an airline licence under the Regulations.

  2. (a) In the normal case of a takeover of a company there is no change in the legal entity which holds the licence, but only a change in the persons holding shares in or controlling that company. Airline licences issued under the Regulations are not transferable and, inthe case of a company takeover, the licence would normally remain in the name of the company taken over.

    1. The reference to hypothecation of contract is not clearly understood in this context.
    2. No permission or consent of the Department of Civil Aviation or the Minister is required in the case of the transfer of assets of an airline, except in the case of TAA. Section 21 of the Australian National Airlines Act requires the approval of the Minister for the disposal of any property right or privilege by the Commission where its value exceeds $100,000.
    3. Leases of land and buildings within airports to airlines and other tenants usually contain a convenant by the tenant that he will not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the premises, except with the consent of the Director-General of Civil Aviation. The legislation in some States provides that such a clause must be read as meaning that the consent of the landlord cannot be unreasonably withheld. Airline operators are entitled to the use of other airport facilities, such as runways, taxi-ways and navigational aids, by virtue of their payment of air navigation charges and they cannot be denied the use of those facilities.

  3. In relation to the issue of an operating licence, the Director-General is required to take into account the following matters:

    1. Interstate Operations -

Whether the applicant has complied with or has established that he is capable of complying with the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations, or any direction or order given or made under those Regulations, relating to the safety of operations:

  1. Intrastate Operations -

Matters concerned with the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation and to no other matters;

  1. Operations within, to, or from a Territory,

Whether the applicant has complied with such conditions as the Director-General considers necessary.

In considering the matters referred to above, the Director-General would have regard to the administrative or economic competence of the prospective operator insofar as this impinged on these matters.

  1. The matter of Ministerial and departmental discretions is a far-reaching subject which would require considerable research and time to study in detail. Unfortunately, the resources needed to engage in an investigation of this nature cannot be made available at present, but the request will be borne in mind and considered for implementation when the opportunity occurs.

page 1494

OIL TANKERS

(Question No. 2041)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Could the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission decision to lift the ban on the oil tanker Texaco Skandanavia’ be interpreted to mean that foreign-owned tankers can deliver at will on the Australian coast while Australian-crewed tankers face redundancy.

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

As the honourable senator’s question calls for an expression of opinion and for an interpretation of a legal judgment, I do not propose to answer the question.

page 1494

KINGSFORD-SMITH AIRPORT

(Question No. 1988)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for permission to break the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew at KingsfordSmith Airport were made during 1971 to (a) the Minister, and (b) the Regional Director in New South Wales.
  2. How many applications were approved by (a) the Minister and (b) the Regional Director.
  3. How many applications were refused by (a) the Minister and (b) the Regional Director.
  4. How many breakages of the curfew occurred without permission and what action, if any, was taken by the Department in respect of such occurrences.

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

  1. Initial applications for jet aircraft to operate within the curfew hours are usually made to officers of the Department of Civil Aviation by telephone and no record is kept of the number received. It is not possible therefore, to indicate how many applications to break the curfew were made during 1971.
  2. The number of flights by jet aircraft which took place during the curfew period in the year 1971 and which were approved by me was 108.

The number of flights by jet aircraft which took place during the curfew period in the year 1971 and which were approved by the Regional Director. New South Wales Region was 201.

During the year 1971 there were 123,526 aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the approvals given for jet aircraft to operate within the hours of 1 1 p.m. and6 a.m. represent a small, but nevertheless essential percentage of these movements. The majority, of departures and arrivals which took place during these hours were confined to the Botany Bay area.

  1. As mentioned in the answer to question (1), information concerning the number of applications received is not available, so it is not possible to indicate how many were refused. However, I should stress that many applications are refused at the time they are received on the basis that alternative arrangements are desirable.
  2. The number of flights by jet aircraft that occurred during the curfew period without permission was 3. Investigation revealed that the three events involving operations by jet aircraft within the hours of11 p.m. and 6 a.m. without permission resulted from misunderstanding on the part of operator. It had been assumed that approval was given for the flights in question when in fact such approval had not been granted. The matter was taken up with operator concerned and it is unlikely that there will be any repetition of these occurrences.

page 1495

QANTAS: ADVERTISING

(Question No. 1987)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Did Qantas recently call for certain advertising companiesto submit proposals concerning the handling of its advertising account; if so:

which companies were approached for this purpose,

where is the head office of each of the companies.

how many were foreign -owned and how many were Australian-owned companies,

was any fee paid to each of the companies by Qantas for the submission of a proposal: if so. what was the amount of the fee involved.

which company handled the account prior to the approach being made, and

which was the successful company.

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

Yes. In July 1971 Qantas did ask certain advertising agencies to submit proposals and the following information relates to the Australian based firms that were approached.

and (b)-

Jackson Wain & Co. Ltd (now Leo Burnett) - Chicago

USP Benson (now USP Needham)- Melbourne

Masius Wynne Williams - London

Ogilvy and Mather - New York

Foote Cone and Belding Pty Ltd.

All the agencies were foreign-owned with the exception of USP Needham, who have 50 per cent Australian shareholding.

Yes. A fee of $1,000 was paid to each agency to offset the cost of their submissions.

The account was handled previously by Jackson Wain and Co. Ltd, who were the largest Australian-owned advertising agency prior to the merger with Leo Burnett in November 1970.

The successful company was Leo Burnett, who were previously Jackson Wain and Co. Ltd.

page 1495

KINGSFORD-SMITH AIRPORT

(Question No. 1986)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen a report that a spokesman for BOAC has said that a simple engine modification, consisting of a bell-shaped air intake and with more sound-absorbing material fitted inside, will cut the noise level of Jumbo Jets leaving Kingsford-Smith (Mascot) Airport by 30 per cent and that that company’s latest 747 jet has had the engine modification effected; if so. is this report correct.
  2. Have international carriers, other than BOAC adopted similar modifications to their 747 aircraft; if so, which companies.
  3. Is it possible for the same type of modification to be made to 707 aircraft.

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

  1. I believe that the honourable senator may be referring to a report in the April 1972 issue of Aviation News’. The ‘simple engine modification’ referred to in that report is a complete new engine inlet nacelle which was specially developed to ensure that the Boeing 747 aircraft would meet the noise certification requirements of the United States Federal Aviation Administration. The new nacelles have no inlet blow-in doors, have a revised inlet shape and incorporate considerable sound absorbing material. If they are installed, a significant noise reduction will result.
  2. All Boeing 747 aircraft delivered since 1st December 1971 have incorporated the new nacelles. International carriers which have received such aircraft include BOAC, Iberia, KLM, Qantas, TAP, UAL and Universal Airlines. Qantas’ first three Boeing 747 aircraft do not incorporate the new nacelle but it is understood that Qantas are keen to modify these early aircraft as soon as possible, not only because of the improved noise characteristics but also because of improved engine operating margins. However, the cost of the new nacelles for Qantas’ first three aircraft will be in excess of $800,000 and, unless some financial arrangement can be made with

Boeing to recover the cost of the early model nacelles, which are worth in excess of$1m, the financial burden will be heavy.

  1. It may be possible for a similar type of modification to be incorporated on Boeing 707 aircraft. It is known that considerable research is in hand on this matter but no such modification is available at this time.

page 1496

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1975)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is it a fact that Australian insurance companies are rewriting household policies to include damage caused by the sonic boom of the Concorde supersonic airliner. If so, does this indicate that the insurance companies have no faith in assurances that the Concorde will be operated so as to preclude any possibility of property damage.

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

I have no information indicating that household insurance policies are being rewritten to include damage caused by sonic boom. Inquiries are being made with the Council of Fire and Accident Underwriters on the matter, and I will arrange to see that the information is recorded when it becomes available.

page 1496

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1902)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is it a fact that the Concorde aircraft while in flight will spread sonic boom up to 60 miles wide on the ground along the whole of its flight path, and is it also a fact that such sonic booms could cause pregnant women to have a miscarriage.

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

The width of the sonic boom area resulting from a Concorde aircraft flying at 60,000 feet is about fifty miles. A person who is within this area will hear the boom as the aircraft passes overhead. The sound will taper off to the point that a person who is just outside the area will not hear it at all.

About500 supersonic flights per week have taken place within the continental limits of the United States since 1967, and I have been unable to find any evidence to suggest that sonic boom has caused miscarriages.

page 1496

AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES COMMISSION

(Question No. 1816)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What forms of cadetship, if any, have been made available in recent years by the Australian Airlines Commission to young men and women who have recently completed their schooling and intend going on to a university, a college of advanced education, a technical college or similar educational institution.
  2. What forms of cadetship have been made available this year by the Australian Airlines Commission.

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

  1. A cadet training scheme has been in opera- tion in the Australian National Airlines Commission since 1964. It is open to young men of Matriculation standard and covers rotational training in the Operational, Commercial, Financial, Supply and Personnel divisions. Cadets are generally appointed at the age of 18 years and their appointment is subject to their agreement to continue approved educational courses at various educational institutions for which they are reimbursed on obtaining the necessary passes.
  2. Eight new cadetships in the above category were approved this year.

page 1496

CHINA

(Question No. 1958)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Now that President Nixon’s visit to the People’s Republic of China has concluded, will a full statement regarding the visit be made to the Parliament; if so, when can this statement be expected.

Senator WRIGHT - The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

I propose to make a general statement on international affairs later in this session of Parliament. I expect it to include some reference to President Nixon’s visit to the People’s Republic of China.

page 1496

CHINA

(Question No. 1939)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

Does the Government intend to establish a full diplomatic post in Hong Kong as a prelude to normalising relations with the People’s Republic of China; if so, is the Minister aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs has in its employ only one fully-trained Chinese specialist and has decided to dispense with Chinese speaking staff in its China section.

Senator WRIGHT - The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. I would refer the Senator to the Prime Minister’s reply; to a question from Mr Whitlam in another place on 1st March.
  2. It is not clear what is meant by ‘fully trained Chinese specialists’. However, the Department of Foreign Affairs has in its employ a number of officers with varying degrees of expertise in the Chinese language and in Chinese affairs generally. The Department has not decided to dispense with Chinese speaking staff in the section dealing with China; the present China Desk officer has a fluent knowledge of the Chinese language.

page 1497

WINE EXCISE

(Question No. 2048)

Senator McLAREN:

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

In view of the fact that I was informed on the morning of 11th April 1972 by the office of the Minister for Primary Industry that Professor Grant has not tendered a report on his inquiry into wine excise and its effect on the community, will the Minister advise the Senate (a) who authorised the Federal member for Angas, Mr Giles to make a statement, reported in the ‘Advertiser’ of Saturday, 8th April 1972, predicting that wine excise would be substantially reduced, (b) did Mr Giles have access to Professor Grant’s report to enable him to make this prediction; if so, will the same privileges be granted to other members of the Parliament who are vitally interested in this matter.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The report was received by me later on that same day. Its contents and whether it should be published are currently under consideration by the Government. It has not been made available at this time to either Government or Opposition members. I am unable to assist in answering the other question asked by the honourable senator.

page 1497

FEDERAL PROBATE DUTY

(Question No. 1824)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What would be the estimated cost to the Treasury in each year if Federal probate duty were abolished on all estates up to the value of (a) $50,000 and (b) $70,000.

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

The annua) cost to revenue of exempting estates of net value (a) up to $50,000 and (b) up to $70,000 from Commonwealth Estate Duty, without altering the rate scale or statutory exemptions, has been estimated as follows:

In these estimates, allowance has been made for shading-in’, i.e., a reduction in duty otherwise payable on estates with net values somewhat higher than these exemption levels. The purpose of shading-in’ is to case the transition from complete exemption from duty to liability for duty at normal rates. Under the ‘shading-in’ arrangement assumed for purposes of the estimates, the duty payable on the excess of the net value of an estate over $50,000 (or $70,000, as appropriate) is limited to 50 per cent of the excess, so that reduced duty applies to estates of net value up to the level at which the amount of duty calculated on the dutiable value of the estate at normal rates equals the amount of duty payable under the shading-in’ arrangement.

I must emphasise that, if at any time it should be decided to exempt from estate duty estates of net value up to the amounts mentioned by the honourable senator, it would not follow either that the present rate scale would continue in force or that ‘shading-in’ would be provided on the basis of the arrangement assumed for purposes of the present estimates. If the exemption of estates of these net values were to be effected by increasing the statutory exemptions (i.e., the statutory amounts which are deducted from the net value of estates to arrive at the value for duty) without adjusting the present rates of duty, then the cost to revenue would be much greater than the estimates given above.

page 1497

MEDICAL BENEFITS

(Question No. 2022)

Senator McAULIFFE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a person treated for an injury in a hospital operating theatre, but not admitted to hospital overnight, receives no medical benefit for this treatment; if this is so, would not this be a positive inducement to overhospitalise, in an effort to provide health insurance benefits for the patient.
  2. Will the Minister examine this situation with a view to removing any existing anomaly.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The question of whether a person treated for an injury in a hospital operating theatre, but not admitted to hospital overnight, is eligible for benefits depends on the rules of : he registered medical or hospital benefits organisation with which he is insured. Until recently organisations registered to operate in Queensland did not pay such benefits.

However, the Queensland Council of National Health Benefit Organizations at a recent meeting recommended to its member organisations that they should consider the introduction of an ancillary fund benefit of $10.00 for a theatre fee incurred by an outpatient for treatment received at an approved hospital.

The following hospital benefits organisations registered to operate in Queensland have made application and been given approval to pay this benefit as from 1st April 1972-

Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland;

The Grand United Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society;

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Queensland District No. S;

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia, in Queensland (The Grand Council);

The Queensland Branch of the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society:

The Queensland District, No. 87, Independent Order of Rechabites, Friendly Society;

Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society.

page 1498

CHEMISTS FEES

(Question No. 1959)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Does the Minister consider that professional fees are not and never have been payment for physical work done, but are, in fact, the buying price of know-how and compensation for responsibility accepted and discharged by chemists.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

–

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

Remuneration paid to chemists including professional fees for supplying pharmaceutical benefits takes into account the aspects of physical work done by pharmacists, as well as the professional knowledge and responsibility accepted and discharged by them.

page 1498

CIGARETTES

(Question No. 1784)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

In view of the inability, of the States to reach agreement on the health dangers of cigarette smoking, will the Minister consult with his Cabinet colleagues with a view to investigating the possibility of introducing Commonwealth laws banning all advertising associated with cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

I am not aware that disagreement exists between the States concerning health dangers associated with cigarette smoking. 1 understand that State Health Ministers have repeatedly acknowledged authoritative medical evidence linking smoking with many diseases. There has been a number of discussions on this subject at Conferences of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers over the last decade. Responsibility for all forms of advertising and promotion, except on radio and television lies with the individual States who would need to introduce appropriate legisla tion. Control over advertising on radio and television of products such as cigarettes tests with my colleague, the Postmaster-General. On 23rd April 1972 in a Press statement on the health hazards of cigarette smoking I announced decisions taken by the Government to combat this problem. The Government has decided to implement a national health education programme directed towards young people and to seek uniform State and Commonwealth action on the health labelling of cigarette packages. The Government will also require that all cigarette advertising on radio and television include a health warning. The Government will make amounts of up to $500,000 available for each of the next 3 years for a national health education programme. Details of the implementation of these decisions will be discussed in the near future with all appropriate bodies.

page 1498

SHIPPING

(Question No. 2097)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

How many vessels have been taken into custody in waters off the Queensland coast or the Gulf of Carpentaria from

Taiwan,

th: Peoples’ Republic of China, and

other countries.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

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

The number of vessels that have been apprehended in waters off the Queensland coast or the Gulf of Carpentaria are

Taiwan -

Under the Fisheries Act 1952-1970, one boat, apprehended twice

Under the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act I96S, three boats, involving a total of four apprehensions

Peoples’ Republic of China -

Nil

  1. Other countries -

Nil.

page 1498

CYCLONE DAMAGE

(Question No. 2103)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the total amount of Commonwealth funds which have been directed to Queensland up to this time to alleviate the damage caused to Townsville and district by cyclone Althea on 24th December 1971. (Question No. 2132)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the Prime Minister recall that he promised to obtain for Senator Keeffe, as a matter or urgency, details of Commonwealth financial giants made available to the Queensland Government for relief and rebuilding of the cyclonedamaged city of Townsville and details of how such finance was to be allocated.
  2. ls the information now available; if not, is this because no grant has yet been made by the Commonwealth to Queensland.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

–

The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

I have been informed that so far, $1,624,318 has been paid to the Queensland Government in connection with cyclone Althea. Of this amount, $233,180 was for relief of personal hardship and distress: $643,233 for restoration of State Government assets; and $747,905 for restoration of local government assets.

page 1499

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

(Question No. 1936)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: ls a team of experts from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development scheduled to carry out a survey of the Australian economy; if so, will ihe result be known before November 1972.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

–

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

Annual surveys of the economies of member countries are ;t regular and important feature of the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As a first stage of the 1972 survey of Australia, a small team of experts from the OECD Secretariat will visit Australia for several days in September.

The team will then return to Paris to prepare a draft report for consideration by the Economic and Development Review Committee of the Organisation.

The Committee will consider the draft report at the earliest opportunity after it becomes available, but the programme of committee meetings for the second half of 1972 has not yet been fixed.

The report will bc published as soon as possible after the Committee has finalised it.

Present indications are that the likely time of publication wil! be late December or early January 1973.

page 1499

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(Question No. 1954)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Does, the Attorney-General recall his statement in the Senate on 9th December 1971, to the effect that legislation to put more ‘bite and more strength’ into the Restictive Trade Practices Act, would be prepared as soon as practicable; if so, can the Attorney General indicate what progress has been made and, in particular, whether changes are envisaged to Part 13 of the Act relating to Overseas Shipping Conferences.

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

Since 1 made the statement referred to by the honourable senator, the Government has been engaged in a comprehensive review of the restrictive trade practices legislation. As I indicated to the Senate recently (Hansard, 23rd March 1972, page 846), I hope to be able shortly to make a full statement outlining the Government’s proposals for further legislation. The Minister for Trade and Industry announced on 10th March 1972 a proposal for the amendment of the overseas cargo shipping provisions in Part XII of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971.

page 1499

ADVERTISING

(Question No. 2058)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Towards the end of 1971 did the Commonwealth Advertising Branch call for applications from advertising agencies operating in Australia for the appointment of placing and charging agencies for Press display and classified advertising; if so, (a) which advertising agencies were carrying out this work previously, and for how long, (b) which advertising agencies were successful in obtaining the work, (c) how many made application to the Commonwealth for the work,

did the advertisement calling for applications state the appointment would bc for 5 years, and

what is the length of term for which the appointments have been made.

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

Yes. (a) Press display. Berry Currie Advertising (NSW) Pty Ltd, since 1941; Press classified - Gordon and Gotch (Australasia) Limited, since 1949.

Press display - Berry Currie Advertising (NSW) Pty Ltd, Press classified - Gordon and Gotch (Australasia) Limited.

Press display - 15; Press classified - 4.

Yes.

Two years from 1st April 1972.

page 1499

ADVERTISING

(Question No. 2059)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Has the Commonwealth Advertising Branch called for applications from advertising agencies operating in Australia for the appointment of placing and charging agencies for Commonwealth radio and television advertising and miscellaneous advertising; if so (a) which agencies at present handle this work on behalf of the Commonwealth, and for how long have the agencies been doing the work, and (b) are they Australian or foreign-owned agencies.

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

Applications for appointment as placing/charging agency for Commonwealth radio and television advertising were called in November 1971. Applications have not yet been called for the miscellaneous category. George Patterson Pty Ltd has held the radio/television agency since 1941, Masius Wynne-Williams (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd the miscellaneous agency since 1941. I am informed that both agencies arc substantially foreign owned.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKMAN - On 8th March Senator Laucke asked the following question without notice:

I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Towards the end of last year an investigation was made by officers of the Department of Primary Industry and the Lands Department of South Australia into problems of finance and rentals confronting war service settlers on Kangaroo Island, to enable a general review of the situation there. What is the current position in respect of this review? When will the determinations in respect of it be announced. Further, is it a fact that recently the South Australian Minister of Lands, the Director of Lands and soldier settler representative of zone 5 in South Australia conferred with the Minister for Primary Industry in an endeavour to resolve problems in regard to rentals and related matters? What has been the outcome of this conference? Finally, will a determination favourable to zone 5 settlers flow on to similar betterment of the position of Kangaroo Island settlers,

The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 refer to the honourable senator’s question of 8th March 1972 concerning War Service Land Settlement in South Australia. The Minister for Primary Industry has now provided me with further information on the matters raised. The conference on Zone 5 matters to which the honourable senator referred took place on the 2nd of March and all the settlers in the area have now signed their leases. The decisions relative to Zone 5 are specific to that area. The review of problems confronting settlers under the War Service Land Settlement Scheme on Kangaroo Island is a separate undertaking. The problems are most complex and the review is still proceeding.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKMAN - On 12th April 1972 Senator Lawrie asked the following question without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate why the Cannon Hill, Brisbane, abattoir has lost its licence to process meat for sale in the United States? How long is this suspension likely to last? I point out that the peak of the meat export season is approaching.

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

The certification of the Cannon Hill abattoir to prepare meat for the United States market was withdrawn on 11th April 1972. This action was taken because of the failure of the establishment to conform with United States requirements on several counts, the details of which have been furnished to the Metropolitan Public Abattoir Board.

It is not possible to say for how long the suspension is likely to continue as the rectification of the deficiencies is a matter for the Board. However, the Board is anxious to have its establishment reinstated and it could be anticipated that the premises will be reviewed quickly as soon as the Board considers that the adjustments have been satisfactorily completed.

page 1500

KANGAROO ISLAND

page 1500

CANNON HILL ABATTOIR

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 May 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720509_senate_27_s52/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant