Senate
1 June 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

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

page 2423

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

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

That (here be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, the following matters:

  1. The means by which ‘isolated school chil dren’, that is, children who for geographic reasons have no reasonable daily access to an appropriate school -

    1. can be afforded equal educational opportunity with other children not so situated; and
    2. can be provided with an education suitable to the children’s talents and interest, which will equip them . for employment in the occupational field which they select;

  2. The means by which these disabilities can be overcome whether by an extension and deployment more widely of schools or institutes of tertiary education, the provision of financial aid to such children or otherwise.

page 2423

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it true that the British Overseas Airways Corporation and Air France will place orders for the Concorde on the condition that their respective governments guarantee to underwrite them against operating loss, major engineering failure and so on? Does the Minister consider that such conditions applied to a Qantas Airways Ltd procurement of such aircraft would duplicate some of the harsh clauses in the F111 agreement with United States aircraft manufacturers?

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

– This is a fair exercise in fantasy. My knowledge of the matter is this: The British Overseas Aircraft Corporation has placed firm orders for 5 Concorde aircraft. I know of a rumour that Air France will place orders, as I would expect it would, for Concorde aircraft, but I know nothing positive. I do not know about the price, the operating conditions or any guarantee. As far as Qantas Airways Ltd is concerned, I believe that the time would be a long way off before that airline would be interested in the Concorde. There are fundamental and very sound economic reasons for this. Beyond that I cannot go and I do not want to speculate in these areas.

page 2423

QUESTION

SENATE COMMITTEES

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware that there are currently operating 7 legislative and general standing committees of the Senate, 2 Senate select committees, 3 joint statutory committees, 3 joint committees and 7 other standing committees? Is the Minister further aware that honourable senators who are members of one or more of these committees - that is most honourable senators - are committed to meet for committee work in Canberra or elsewhere on most weeks throughout the’ entire parliamentary recess? Is this not a negation of the main purpose of the recess period in denying to honourable senators the time essential to give attention to their substantial duties in their individual States? Will the Minister discuss with the appropriate authorities ways and means of ensuring that in future the committees revert to being the effective instruments and servants, not the dominating masters, of the Senate?

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

– I do not know how many committees are operating at present. However, I take it that the honourable senator, in preparing his question, checked on this matter. I take it that the position is as he said. I realise that these days the work of a back bencher is getting very heavy indeed. I can well understand what the honourable senator said about the work load of each senator in the recess period. I think that is a problem that we have to look at. I am not sure who is the authority with whom we can discuss it.

Senator Murphy:

– Ourselves. We are the authority.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is right. Senator Murphy and I might be having an argument later today about the reference of a matter to a committee. I think we have to look at the position and look at it very closely. We just cannot accept a motion to refer something to a committee and then support it willy-nilly.

page 2424

QUESTION

SPACE TRACKING STATIONS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply a question relating to an announcement made yesterday in another place by the Minister for Supply that the Island Lagoon tracking station near Woomera in South Australia would be closed if planned alterations to the American space programme were carried out. What effect would this have on the activities at the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury? Will consideration be given to alternative operation of the facilities at Woomera or Salis- bury to take up any slack that may arise?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not know whether I have all the information which the honourable senator seeks, but before coming into the chamber J did make it my business to get some information on this matter. I understand that at present there are no approved programmes between the end of America’s Skylab project due to be completed by the end of next year and the first orbit of the space shuttle project which will not be before 1978. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has advised that it has under consideration a number of changes brought about by its changed activity in space. Included in these changes is a reduction in the number of tracking stations from 23 or 25 to about 15. The Honeysuckle Creek tracking station will be converted to a deep space station, and this will lead eventually to the closing down of the Island Lagoon tracking station which is a short distance from Woomera. NASA’s plans with regard to Carnarvon are tentative, but it is expected that there will be a reduction of activity there after 1974.

page 2424

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Are there ominous signs that the prolonged drought in the main wheat growing areas could considerably reduce the expected wheat yield this year? Is there not a distinct possibility that wheat production could be so reduced that Australia would be unable to fulfil its export commitments? Will the transfer of wheat quotas be considered by the Minister as a means of alleviating the situation if the dry spell continues?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think it would be fair to say that at this time of the year there are always doubts, particularly when it has been as dry as it has been in many parts of Australia, on whether Australia will fill its quota of 407 million bushels on which the Government will pay a first advance. This is something that the Australian Wheat Board must consider very carefully in regard to how much wheat it has available for carryover from one season to another. I feel sure that if rains come in the near future, and if there are follow-up rains there will be a good harvest. I do not think that I can obtain any information for the honourable senator that will indicate at this time of the season just what is the position.

page 2424

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to yesterday’s Press statement by Mr George Crawford, Chairman of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party, that he would personally be conducting the electoral campaign of the Labor candidate for Hotham, one Barry Johnston . . .

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I order the description of the man given by Senator Hannan to be deleted from the record.

Senator HANNAN:

– Barry Johnston is the endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Hotham presently held by Mr Chipp. I ask the Attorney-General: As all of Mr Crawford’s public statements must be vetted by Mr R. J. Hawke, senior vicepresident of the Australian Labor Party, and Mr Innes, does this-

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question obviously is contrary to the Standing Orders to which you have referred in that it contains arguments, inferences, imputations, ironical expressions and is not directed to a matter which is properly within the scope of the Minister’s affairs. It should not be asked at question time, which is for the purpose of seeking information.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is a matter of interest and gratification to me to find my determination to purge question time in accordance with the Standing Orders being supported by the Leader of the Opposition. I call Senator Hannan.

Senator HANNAN:

– I point out that I have not made any inference, innuendo or anything else.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Just keep within the Standing Orders.

Senator HANNAN:

– I am referring to a report of a Press statement made by Mr Crawford. As the Melbourne Press has reported that all Mr Crawford’s public statements must be vetted by Mr R. J. Hawke and Mr Innes, does this mean that the full blessing of the highest echelons of the ALP is given to Mr Crawford and Mr Johnston? Does this action make Mr Crawford an accessory? Can the AttorneyGeneral state whether the ALP has any defence policy other than reliance upon the United Nations?

Senator Keeffe:

– That no longer hurts.

Senator HANNAN:

– That does not surprise me. Does Mr Crawford’s statement indicate that the much vaunted reform of the Victorian Branch of the ALP 18 months ago was nothing more than a propaganda exercise?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I say to the Attorney-General that if he answers the question he must do so in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 98.

Senate Murphy - Mr President, I raise a point of order. I would go further than that. If this kind of question is to be permitted and if the questioner is entitled, as I understand it, to ask the Minister whether the Australian Labor Party has any defence policy, any rural policy or any other policy, that does not accord with the purpose of question time. Question time becomes just a farce. These matters can be debated at other times.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Last week I ruled on the matter of questions being asked of the Leader Opposition or Opposition senators which relate to the policy of the Australian Labor Party. I ruled that form of questioning out of order. I also this morning ruled out of order a question asked by Senator Poke relating to Govern ment policy. Senator Hannan, who is an experienced member of this chamber, has endeavoured to ask a question which conforms with the rulings I have given. I now call upon the Attorney-General to answer that question if he wishess to do so. In answering it the Attorney-General also should conform with the Standing Orders.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware of the situation which has developed in Victoria concerning the difficulty of the Commonwealth Police in apprehending Mr Johnston and of the fact that he is to be a candidate at an election and that certain responsible persons or persons who hold high office in the Australian Labor Party are prepared to conduct a campaign on his behalf. I can understand why that situation would cause tenderness and sensitivity in certain quarters. My attention has been drawn to these matters, Mr President. What does concern me is the fact that certain leaders of a political party are concerned with maintaining in hiding a man for whom a warrant has been issued by the court. I believe it is a dereliction of responsibility for the leader of that party not to take action to bring that state of affairs to an end.

Senator Murphy:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Such conduct is a perversion of question time. Government supporters should not be permitted to use question time in this chamber to ask questions on matters of policy of the Australian Labor Party and make attacks on its leaders. With respect, Mr President, I submit that you should take a line which will exclude such conduct. It is not right. The alternative for the Opposition will be simply to put motions on the notice paper which will enable my colleagues to ask me questions about Liberal Party policy and use the same sort of tactic. Government supporters have every opportunity to use the procedures of the Senate to their advantage. They can bring on debates on these matters by moving urgency motions. The tactic is developing of turning question time into discussions about, and attacks on the policy of the Labor Party and its leaders and the Labor Party has no opportunity to answer or intervene.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Having sometimes sat in the chair in which you are sitting at the present time, Mr President, I know that questions of this nature are asked by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber.

Senator Murphy:

– At least you can answer them. We have no chance of answering them.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Senator Murphy need not stand up in this chamber and look so injured. I say that because I have had to put up with all sorts of questions from his side of the chamber. I recognise that what you have said, Mr President, is the right way of tackling the matter. I think the present practice should be cut out by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. But I do not know why Senator Murphy should stand up and look so injured and cry about what Government senators are doing.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Question time will be resumed.

page 2426

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the growing importance of Australia as a developing country and as a focal centre for regional and international conferences and the need to use the present Parliament House for this purpose in the future, will the Acting Leader of the Government use his influence on his ministerial colleagues to make 1972 the year of decision to commence the construction of a new parliament house and so fulfil 2 long-standing hopes of the Australian nation, namely a new parliament house and a suitable conference centre?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will have a look at the honourable senator’s question and see what f can do about the matter.

page 2426

QUESTION

DUTCH WRECKS

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Have the Commonwealth Government and the Dutch Government reached any agreement concerning the ownership of historic Dutch wrecks along the coast of Western Australia and its adjacent reefs and islands? If so, will the Commonwealth Government release the details of any such agreement as soon as possible? Is the Commonwealth Government negotiating with the

Western Australian Government with a view to initiating a joint recovery programme for these wrecks? ls the Commonwealth Government fully aware that the equivocal legal position resulting from their off-shore location remains an open invitation to plunders and despoilers of this priceless national heritage?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am well aware of the honourable senator’s interest in this area. 1 believe he has raised this matter several times in the Senate before. It is a fact that negotiations have been proceeding between the Australian Government and the Government of the Netherlands with a view to having assigned from the Netherlands Government all the interests of that Government in a number of historic wrecks, and the articles to be found in those wrecks, which are to be found off the Western Australian coast. The interest of the Dutch Government arises from the fact that it is regarded in law as the successor of the Dutch East India Company.

The negotiations which have been taking place have been going on with the knowledge and aquiescence of the Western Australian Government which has been appraised of all the steps that have been taken. I am not able to say at what precise point these negotiations are, but I understand that a final conclusion of all the documents involved in the transfer is not far off. As to whether this matter will be made public must depend ultimately on what the arrangement really specifies. But 1 think what I have said to honourable senators will indicate the real interest of the Commonwealth Government. Of course, under the proposed arrangement the Commonwealth Government will become the Government entitled to the property in these wrecks and the articles in them.

There is a proposal that a joint committee be established, on which the Western Australian Government will be represented, so that any decisions as to disposition and, I would presume, as to mounting discovery expeditions, can be made by that committee. The whole problem is marked by a determination to ascertain who has the authority over these wrecks, and to do it in a spirit of co-operation which enables that decision to be made.

page 2427

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT LANDING SYSTEMS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to the release of a document this morning by the Minister for Civil Aviation and the Minister for Education and Science. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the collaboration between the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Department of Civil Aviation on the development of a sophisticated aircraft landing system embraces any attempt to allow planes to land or take off on runways that are at present established, so that we will not have to go through the process of increasing the length of runways?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This is quite a remarkable programme that has been developed. It flows out of a number of programmes in this country that are the product of the expertise in 2- places. One is the Division of Radio Physics of the Commonwealth ., Scientific, and. Industrial Research Organisation which comprises a quite remarkable body of men, some of whose discoveries are of world significance. The other is the technical research group in the Department of Civil Aviation. These 2 bodies have collaborated on a number of projects to improve landing systems that have been operating in this country. Some of these improvements have already been established. Some of them have been made available quite freely without royalty to other operators around the world. One of them is the T-VASIS system. There has been special work going on for some time to try to eliminate anomalies in radar screens. That is taking place at Fleurs in New South Wales. It is being done by our own Department in conjunction with the School of Electrical Engineering and Astronomy of the University of Sydney and the CSIRO.

The latest development in which the Minister for Education and Science and myself and our Departments are involved is the development with radio physics of a more intensified system of landing aids based on microwaves, which is more precise, more refined and much more definite. This could bc successful and, if it is successful, it will make the operation of flying just that much more precise and that much safer at the higher speeds at which aircraft are flying. I think one could only say that we have very great hopes that we will succeed. If we do succeed we will have no problems with having to change runway lengths or systems or anything of that kind. We will just work at a higher or more precise level of signal that we have now. If we succeed we will again take the view that international aviation should benefit from the work of Australians.

page 2427

QUESTION

BULK POSTAGE RATES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether he has seen a report from the Australian Monthly Newspapers and Periodicals Association in which it is claimed that the 140 per cent increase in bulk postage rates within 12 months has had an .extremely adverse effect , M.-., the publishers of periodicals and a direct effect on paper manufacturers and suppliers and associated industries? Is the Minister able to give any information on the claim in the report, that the substantial increases in bulk postage rates actually work against the objectives of the Postmaster-General’s Department in increasing the rates, by advising whether the volume of bulk postage mail has fallen in the past 12 months?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 have not seen the report to which the honourable senator refers and therefore I am unable to state whether the report is accurate. I undertake to refer the question to the Postmaster-General for his consideration; but, having regard to the fact that the main purpose of raising postal rates last year was, consistent with the Government’s concept of running the Department as a business enterprise, to ensure that there was an increase in revenue, I imagine that from the experience of recent months we will be able to ascertain whether that objective has been achieved. I would have thought that the real objective was to increase revenue as distinct from the usage of the mails.

page 2427

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Is he aware that amendments to the Acts dealing with Aborigines and

Torres Strait Islanders were introduced earlier this year, purporting to give greater authority to Aboriginal councils operating on reserves and missions in Queensland? Will the Minister conduct an urgent investigation to ascertain whether some of these powers have been withdrawn since the return of the Liberal-Country Party Government in Queensland last Saturday?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As I have said regarding all questions asked by the honourable senator in this area, I shall refer the questions to the Minister for his comments and reply. But this is a question which 1 am sure has absolutely no foundation in the sense that only a period of 5 days has elapsed since the Queensland election and the question imputes, on the part of a government which has been returned, action which no responsible government in this country would undertake. To that extent I can only categorise the question and the imputation it contains as completely irresponsible.

page 2428

QUESTION

ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANIES

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Acting Leader of the Government a question which I asked him a few days ago. Does he recall that in this chamber for more than 2 years there has been pressure from the Opposition for Commonwealth legislation to regulate accident insurance companies and to protect, the policy holders of those companies? Does he recall that an urgency motion was passed in this chamber last year requesting such action and that the Prime Minister himself said that he was anxious that legislation be brought in? Is the Acting Leader of the Government aware that one of his Liberal colleagues in New South Wales, on the same day as I asked why legislation had not been introduced, bitterly criticised the Federal Government for not having introduced legislation? Can he tell us now why the legislation which is necessary to protect the people of Australia has not been introduced?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I assume that the question was asked in that form to highlight and to point up the inadequacy of our Standing Orders.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Leader of the Opposition asked me this question 2 days ago. Of course, I am not aware of all the points he mentions. 1 asked that the question be put on the notice paper and said that I would get the information for the honourable senator. I am not in control of the information that comes back to me, but the information will be given to the honourable senator as soon as I get it.

page 2428

QUESTION

ANALGESICS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Health whether he agrees with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia that the wider distribution of minor analgesics - aspirin-type medicines - through supermarkets from next month constitutes a risk to public health? Is it a fact that (a) a number of popular brands of aspirin products have been available in supermarkets for some years and (b) the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse recommended against the sale of aspirin products being restricted to chemist shops only?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– lt is a fact that wider distribution of certain analgesics is proposed and ). believe that some of the chain stores are selling them whereas previously they were not. I should mention in passing that the competition in this area which has been engendered in recent months has meant substantial reductions in the sale price of these analgesics, not only by the chain stores but also by many chemists who appreciate the situation in which they are placed. However, I must say that at present there are no restrictions on the sale of these analgesics and there never have been such restrictions. I understand that the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Abuse did not recommend the imposition of restrictions. However, it did say that there was a risk of impulse buying which ought not to be encouraged and that that risk was heightened if the analgesics were publicly displayed in a way that would cause a person going through the store to pick them up on the basis that they were available and the price was right. I am quite sure that the National Health and Medical Research Council will have this problem under review at its periodic meetings.

page 2428

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry: Did the Prime

Minister as long ago as October of last year announce that the Government would be 1 referring to the Tariff Board for consideration the question of the need for protection of the Australian film and television industries? As 8 months have passed since that statement was made and as the Australian film and television industries are facing tremendous difficulties in competing with overseas interests, will the Government either request the Tariff Board to commence a hearing as a matter of urgency or refer the matter to the Special Advisory Authority for temporary relief pending the outcome of the Tariff Board hearing?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Honourable senators know that the Tariff Board has a tremendous volume of work. They will also be aware from previous announcements that we are taking steps to expand the Tariff Board. Indeed, on the notice paper today is a Bill that deals with the expansion of the Tariff Board. The delay of 8 months referred to by the honourable senator is something I would expect in the circumstances. If there is a case for the Special Advisory Authority to deal with the matter rather than the Tariff Board, that is not only a decision for the Government to make but also for the industry to request. If the honourable senator will inform me when the industry so requests assistance, I will transmit the request to the responsible Minister.

page 2429

QUESTION

BRISBANE AIRPORT

Senator MILLINER:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation suplementary to my earlier question. Did the Minister in his reply to me earlier this morning indicate a possibility that discussions between his Department and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Qrganisation could mean that it would be unnecessary to extend the length of existing runways? If so, will he now consider suspending the extension of the runways at Brisbane Airport because that work is causing a lot of inconvenience to people residing in the area?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No. I think the honourable senator should understand me i clearly. In my earlier reply I was referring ito existing aircraft using existing runways in existing places. There is no expectation that the new landing aid - if and when it is developed - will allow any change in that position. That ought to be made perfectly clear. The Brisbane airport situation depends in the end on new airport construction being placed further to the north east. That work ought to make Brisbane airport one of Australia’s most favoured airports in regard to location and good neighbourly qualities.

page 2429

QUESTION

EXCHANGE OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister confirm recent reports that Canada and Australia have agreed on an exchange programme for civil servants who are regarded as having executive potential? If so, can he give further details of the operation of the scheme?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– No, I cannot give that information at present but I shall seek it for the honourable senator. Rather than have the honourable senator place his question on the notice paper, I will send the information to him in the form of a letter.

page 2429

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Earlier this week, I asked the Minister a question regarding a reported water explosion in the Geehi aqueduct of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. I now ask: Has the Minister checked with the authorities and has he any information on the matter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I did check with the responsible Minister, not with the authorities. It is the job of the Minister to check with the authorities. I have not received an answer to the present time. I think that it is unlikely that I will get an answer prior to the lifting of the Senate. On the other hand, I am informed by a letter this morning that I am Acting Minister for National Development. So, perhaps we might be able to expedite the matter.

page 2429

QUESTION

ACCEPTANCE OF FOREIGN DECORATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– How in this year of 1972 does the Minister representing the Minister for Foriegn Affairs reconcile the implications of the Statute of

Westminster with the report that the question of an Australian serviceman accepting a foreign decoration has to be referred to London for determination?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I would respond to that question by saying that the anomaly deserves consideration.

page 2430

QUESTION

BANGLADESH

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Minister for Air will recall that a week or so ago I asked about the possibility of making available to Bangladesh several DC3 aircraft not currently being used by the Royal Australian Air Force. I ask the Minister: What action has been taken? What information has he been able to secure?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– As I indicated in the latter part of my answer last week, this is a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not know whether the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs has any information but I understand that the 4 DC3 aircraft of which the honourable senator speaks have been made available to the Department of Supply for disposal. I will put the remainder of his question on notice and, when the answer conies to hand, T will give it to the honourable senator.

page 2430

QUESTION

BANK INTEREST RATES

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Why has no action yet been taken by the Government to exercise some authority over the inflationary influence of high bank interest rates? Is the Government not concerned with the spiralling prices of houses and the great, burden that high interest rates place on young people setting up a home?

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Cotton, does that come within your ministerial responsibility?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– ] am acting for the Treasurer - or I was until a few moments ago. I suggest to the honourable senator that this is a detailed question calling for a precise answer. I do not wish to engage in a discussion on the relativities of interest rates. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice.

page 2430

ENGLISH DIVORCE REFORM ACT 1969

Ministerial Statement

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I table the report by the honourable Mr Justice Norman Jenkyn on the operation of the English Divorce Reform Act 1969 and I seek leave to make a statement in connection therewith.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Poyser:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 granted leave before you spoke, senator. Leave is granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I have tabled the report made to me by the honourable Mr Justice Jenkyn of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on the operation of the English Divorce Reform Act of 1969. Honourable senators will recall that during the debate on the Matrimonial Causes Bill 1971 some interest was shown in the possibility of breakdown of marriage being made a ground of divorce in Australia. As honourable senators probably know, irretrievable breakdown of ‘ marriage is now a ground of divorce in England. Indeed, it is the sole ground since the Divorce Reform Act came into operation on 1st January 1971. However, whilst it is the sole ground, a court may not hold that a marriage has broken down irretrievably unless the petitioner satisfies the court of one or more of the 5 sets of facts, including adultery and desertion, stipulated in the Act. The English Act is therefore different from the Canadian and Californian Acts providing for breakdown of marriage.

Mr Justice Jenkyn is a judge who sits regularly in the matrimonial causes jurisdiction in New South Wales. When it became know that he was to visit England last year arrangements were made by my predecessor for the judge to spend some time observing the operations of the Divorce Reform Act. Mr Justice Jenkyn listened to cases in the new Family Division of the High Court of Justice and he discussed the operation of the new Act with the President of the Family Division and his brother judges and also the Registrar of the Court. On his return to Australia Mr Justice Jenkyn made his report to me. I regard it as a very useful document. It is a document that I feel would assist persons who wish to engage in public debate on the merits of the English Act. I am sure the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs will find it of great assistance in its consideration of grounds of divorce in Australia. The tabling of the report will enable it to be available to other honourable senators who are not on this Committee but are interested in this important subject.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, in view of the importance of this report and the fact that it falls squarely within the terms of a matter which has been referred by the Senate to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I suggest that it may not be inappropriate for that Committee to be asked to look at this report. Would it not be commonsense to refer the report to it immediately?

Senator Greenwood:

– Perhaps I might respond to what has been suggested. 1 agree this is a report which ought to be looked at by the Senate Standing Committee and it will be looked at. I do not think it is an appropriate matter for a motion. I have received written communications from the Committee asking for the assistance of my Department. This report is part of the material provided for its assistance. My purpose in tabling the report is to give it publicity and to enable those who are interested to have the benefit of the information, which 1 think is a useful step to have taken.

page 2431

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. SCIENCE AND THE ARTS

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– by leave - Mr President, before the autumn session of this Parliament closes I wish briefly to advise the Senate of the progress which one of its standing committees is making in its current inquiry. I refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts and its reference from the Senate to inquire into all aspects of broadcasting and television, including the Australian content of television programmes. Honourable senators will recall that this Committee concluded its previous assignment dealing with the Commonwealth role in teacher education and put down its report in the Senate on the first day of this session. Immediately this was done the Committee took preliminary steps to commence its current inquiry which relates to broadcasting and television. Honourable senators will agree that this reference is a very wide one. The Committee took time to examine the various forms and styles which the investigation might take. It examined relevant Acts of Parliament and made inquiries of the agencies and authorities involved. An exercise of particular value was a study visit to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in Melbourne. These studies suggested guidelines for the Committee to follow in calling for evidence.

The inquiry was advertised and, by way of response, over 100 submissions from a wide range of interests have now been received. On 4th May the Committee commenced its public hearings in Sydney. It was a 2-day hearing with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board as the only witness. Since then additional hearings have been conducted which featured representatives of the Australian Pos» Office. Immediately this parliamentary session concludes the Committee will meet representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the commercial broadcasting and television interests. Arrangements are in hand for a series of hearings in the recess during which a number of witnesses from a variety of appropriate interests will meet the Committee. lt may be of interest to observe that the present inquiry is the first of its kind since the Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by the then Senator Gibson inquired into the whole field of broadcasting in 1942. There have been other inquiries into specific and limited areas connected with the media but the size of the present inquiry will also provide for a study of the interdependence between the various facets and spheres within the total subject. This will mean that some considerable time must elapse before a final report is made.

However, the Committee expects to table an interim report during the Budget session of the Parliament. The fact that it will be an interim report only tends to highlight one of the major problems confronting Senate committees. This relates to the size and scope of the references banded to committees by the Senate. It may be that it would be beneficial if references were kept within limits upon which reports could be made within a reasonable period. An extensive reference such as the one in which we are now engaged could be divided into segments and taken one at a time. The Committee has renewed its aim to listen to various opinions and to bring out every aspect and viewpoint on the subject referred to it. It hopes to make eventually a well considered and useful report to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - The Senate is indebted to Senator Davidson for the report which he has made. He has made some observations as to what should be done by the Senate in regard to references to committees, particularly when they are large references. I remind the Senate that paragraph (12) of the charter relating to standing committees which was adopted by resolution of the Senate on 11th June 1970 states:

A Standing Committee shall have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit, and is expected to make regular reports as to the progress of the proceedings of the Committee.

I think that several matters follow for our concern and observation. One matter is that the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts is making a report as to the progress of the Committee. We are indebted to Senator Davidson for doing that. Unless I am mistaken, other standing committees in general have not observed the instruction of the Senate which is contained in that charter. I think that the expectation of the Senate that standing committees make regular reports as to their progress has in general not been observed as it has been by the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. Mr President, I ask that you, through your appropriate agencies, draw to the attention of the committees that expectation of the Senate.

The next matter is that Senator Davidson has adverted to the large references and to the fact that it might be better if the committees were able to report on particular aspects of references. As I read it, that is exactly what was contemplated by the Senator in that charter. If a large reference was made to a committee there was no reason at all why the committee might not divide the matter up as it thought appropriate and make a report to the Senate on some aspect as it thought fit, not only as to what it has done but also as to what recommendations it made in regard to a particular aspect. There is no requirement that in making a report the committee has to wait until it has covered the whole of the subject matter. Indeed, with a reference such as ‘all aspects of broadcasting and television,’ I think it would be understood that the subject is so vast that the reference would continue with the committee and the only intelligible way to deal with the matter would be for the committee to report on aspects from time to time and to do its best without endeavouring to find perfection in a field as large as that.

Senator Rae:

– Mr President, I seek leave to move the adjournment of the discussion on this matter so that I may make some remarks in relation to it at a later stage. I am trying to provide an opportunity for some further remarks to be made, but not this morning.

Senator Murphy:

– We could do it on any Thursday morning.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think there is a little more than that in the back of Senator Rae’s mind, if I understand subjectively what he is referring to. Senator Rae, at any time during the balance of the day you may ask leave to make some observations if you wish to.

Senator Rae:

– Thank you.

The PRESIDENT:

– Undoubtedly, the Acting Leader of the Government will take note of what you have said when he comes to arrange the business.

page 2432

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business?

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

– I move:

That Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1, be postponed until after the consideration of Government business.

If honourable senators look at the front page of the notice paper they will see the Business of the Senate, Orders of the Day. All I am asking is that Order of the Day

No. 1, which normally would be due for consideration now, be postponed until after Government Business is considered. In other words, I am wiping off page 1 of the notice paper for the time being and going on with Government Business.

Senator Murphy:

– The sensible course is probably to move that it be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– With the concurrence of the Senate, I will amend my motion to read:

That Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No, 1, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I move:

That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2433

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 May (vide page 190S), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time, and on Senator Douglas McClelland’s amendment (vide page 2399).

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I will be very brief in concluding my remarks on this Bill. I remind honourable senators that the subject matter of the debate is the proposed action to require certain warnings to be given on television and radio broadcasting, in some such form as ‘medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard’, at the same time as advertisements for cigarettes are broadcast. 1 commented yesterday before the debate was adjourned that it appeared to me that the step contemplated was singling out one section of the media to bear the cost of a socially desirable programme. The views of some of this small section of the community which has been singled out to bear the cost have been well expressed in a letter which I received from the manager of a relatively small radio station. The letter says:

As I mentioned to you earlier this month, along with 116 other radio station Managers in Australia, I am extremely alarmed at the government’s intention to enact legislation to force radio and television commercials for cigarettes, to carry a health warning.

The main concern is the principle involved, the principle which we believe will seriously damage our right to free speech. We believe it wrong to attack a product which your government believes to be a health hazard, through its advertising, whilst it is still quite legal to manufacture and sell the product without any restriction. We appreciate the reason for your concern for the health of the young people in the community, but even after this legislation comes into effect, it will still be possible to purchase cigarettes in milk bars, supermarkets and school shops, as it has always been. 1 appreciate that the general public will not be greatly concerned about cigarette advertising. Habitual smokers will still be able to buy cigarettes and non-smokers probably would not even notice the withdrawal of the advertising, and if they do they probably would not care too much.

The loss of revenue from advertising, which will result, is not our main concern, though it will turn a number of smaller stations from barely profitable operations into loss operations, and I do not like the thought of losing this revenue, but our main concern is, as I mentioned, the principle involved. If the officers of the Health Department are so convinced that cigarette smoking is dangerous, then why do not they have the courage to ban the manufacture and sale of cigarettes? The announcement was made without any prior consultation with our industry representatives, and our subsequent representations to the minister appear to have been completely ignored.

It is, I believe, a generally held view in our industry that this would be a far fairer, and more effective way of solving the problem. T do not believe that this legislation will achieve anything more than a temporary pacification of a small pressure group. I understand that in the United States where cigarette advertising is completely banned, manufacturers have found other (but more expensive) means of attracting attention to their products, with the result that cigarette sales are reported to be up by 17 per cent.

This is all rather ironical when you consider that this same Health Department has asked the mass media in Australia to help them (voluntarily) with the increasing problems of drug abuse in Australia. I quote the Deputy Director General of Health, Dr L. J. Wienholt- ‘We have failed to stop it and we need your help’, and ‘we plead with you to help us before it is too late’. The result of this plea has been the setting up of various State Media Advisory Committees on Drug Education, representative of all mass media. I have been elected to be the Tasmanian radio representative on this committee, and the principal aim of this committee will be given our complete support. 1 believe a very important principle is at stake, because if this legislation goes through, then the way will be clear for the government to enact similar legislation in respect of any product, any minority group might consider to be a health hazard in some form or other. It may sound ridiculous but it would be possible to present a convincing argument, supporting the banning of electricity as a health hazard in homes. Further to that, if this legislation is passed, then the group who consider that dairy products cause heart disease could ask for similar legislation, and so on for cars, to which many deaths among young people can be attributed, to alcohol, which, with some people, can lead to alcoholism which is a health hazard. The future possibilities can make the mind boggle. . . .

That letter sets out some of the thoughts of the operators in this section of the community which has been singled out to bear the cost, by way of less of revenue, on behalf of the community. I simply make these remarks in order that further consideration can be given by the Government to the operation of this ban so that if it is considered that the ban is not succeeding in its objective perhaps the position can be rectified before too much damage is done to the individuals who have to bear the cost on behalf of the community. I do not support the amendment moved by. the Opposition. The complete banning of all cigarette and tobacco advertising has not been shown to be justified.’ If’ one is in doubt about whether it is justified to require the health warning to be given in this way, which amounts to a near ban on television and radio advertising, how much greater doubt would one have as to the advisability of a complete ban of all advertising?

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I had not intended to speak in this debate and would not have done so had it not been for some things which were said last night by Senator Carrick. In the course of his speech on this Bill he said:

Do they propose -

Referring to the Parliamentary Labor Party - in caucus to impose a total ban on their Party members who publicly and with utter irresponsibility, as members of the Australian Labor Party, advocate the legalisation of marihuana?

He then referred to: . . a very vocal and uncontradicted section of the Opposition, being what I would call wantonly irresponsible, advocates to the public and particularly to the young people that they should go ahead and smoke marihuana.

Later he said:

I ask whether there have been numerous statements by Dr Cass and other members of the Labor Party advocating the legalisation of marihuana. Is the Labor Party, consistent with its policy, willing tonight to reject those statements and will the Labor Party senators condemn Dr Cass?

He asks further:

Is .it not a fact that Dr Cass and Senator Wheeldon, have, unimpeded, advocated the smoking of marihuana and that no member of the Labor Party has condemned such advocacy as being antipathetic to the policy which the Opposition now puts forward?

Mistakenly I would have expected better from Senator Carrick than what he said last night. I would not have thought this was the sort of depth to which he would descend in political debate. I can speak for myself and, I believe, for Dr Cass in saying that neither of us has ever advocated the smoking of marihuana to anybody and certainly not, as Senator Carrick said, particularly to young people. What Dr Cass and 1 have both said is that penal provisions should not be imposed on people who use marihuana. This is totally different from saying that one is advocating the commission of- an action. I am not in favour of penal provisions being imposed on people who are members of the Liberal Party but that does not mean that I am advocating that people should join the Liberal Party. This distortion is part of a thoroughly dishonest campaign which will be carried out during the forthcoming election campaign. I am disappointed that Senator Carrick has lent his name to it.

I thought he would have understood that amongst a number of people who are concerned about the problem of drug addiction there is genuine disagreement about whether the imposition of penal provisions and criminal sanctions is the way to deal with the problem of drugs. I should have thought that this was generally accepted. Certainly it was accepted as far as the members of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug abuse were concerned - Senator Marriott and the other members of the Committee - and certainly this sort of comment, this sort of distortion, was not made by any members of the Committee in the debate. It was recognised that there was room for genuine disagreement on whether the legalisation of some of the drugs or the continuance of criminal sanctions was the proper way to deal with the problem. I do not believe that the way to deal with this problem is to say quite dishonestly that someone has advocated the smoking of marihuana when what he has said is that it should not be illegal. I notice that the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) is shaking his head, but clearly Senator Carrick said:

Is it not a fact that Dr Cass and Senator Wheeldon have, unimpeded, advocated the smoking of marihuana . . .

Senator Greenwood:

– But you have denied that. I thought Senator Carrick was posing it on the basis of what has happened.

Senator WHEELDON:

– No, he was not asking a question. It might have been posed interrogatively, but certainly the clear statement by Senator Carrick was that we had advocated the smoking of marihuana. The honourable senator said: . . a very vocal and uncontradicted section of the Opposition, being what I would call wantonly irresponsible, advocates to the public and particularly to the young people that they should go ahead and smoke marihuana.

I have never heard Dr Cass or any other member of the Australian Labor Party advocate to anybody, nor have 1 advocated, that they should go ahead and smoke marihuana. If I were asked I would advocate to young people or to anybody else that they should not smoke marihuana, in the same way as I would advocate that they should not drink alcohol. Because one says that something should not be illegal one should not be accused of advocating that it is a course that should be followed.

I warn Senator Carrick that if he wants to run an election campaign by making accusations of this kind we will be ready for him. I believe that a sufficient number of people in this country will not allow themselves to be misled by this kind of personal attack on the integrity of people who have tried to make a contribution by taking a stand which happens to be unpopular. It is an unpopular stand. I believe that the people of Australia deserve better from people like Senator Carrick than a suggestion that they should join an hysterical claque. He seeks to stir up emotion on completely erroneous grounds against people who. knowing that they will be unpopular, honestly have tried to make a contribution on an issue. They know, as Dr Cass especially does, that they could be placing their political careers in jeopardy through taking up a position which, although it is unpopular, they believe to be in the best interests of the country.

I believe that the matter of marihuana was raised by Senator Carrick, not because he wanted to make any useful contribution to the debate but because he wanted to smear some members of the Labor Party. However, as it has been raised, the only other comment I make is that a number of people would find it strange to hear so much talk about liberty and what an infringement on liberty it is to place inhibitions on the advertising of one drug - nicotine - which is known to be dangerous and at the same time hear the contention that there should be a total prohibition, including the imposition of penal sanctions, on the possession of marihuana - not because marituana has been proved to be dangerous but because it has not been proved not to be dangerous. This is an inconsistency which I think would occur to a number of people. I do not intend to labour the point. I would not have come into the debate if it had not been for what Senator Carrick said yesterday.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I ask for leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– I say at the outset that in no circumstances will I ever wittingly seek to smear any member of this Parliament. I say that emphatically. I suggest that no-one can point to my having done so in the year thai. I have been in the Senate. I direct my remarks now to what was said by Senator Wheeldon. As 1 understand what the honourable senator has said this morning, the stance that Dr Cass and he take on marihuana is that there should be no penalties against its use, that no-one should be penalised for using it and, therefore, that it should be legal. In that sense I understand him to mean that they are advocating the legalising of the use of marihuana and to that extent, I meant that they were advocating marihuana. If there are any other overtones or if I have in any way misrepresented the honourable senator I withdraw such remarks.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– From time to time we hear the argument that the withdrawal of cigarette advertising will not have an effect. We have had indications of this from other countries where the advertising of cigarettes has been banned and we have been told that there has been no indication that the ban has been effective. Anybody who understands advertising or publicity will appreciate that it takes some time for advertising to affect the usage of a product but that also it takes some time to effect a stoppage. I believe that a ban on the advertising of a product such as cigarettes must have some effect in the long run. It amazes me to hear people say that increased advertising or the cessation of advertising will have no effect. This argument implies that cigarette manufacturers are just wasting their money by advertising their product.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No-one from this side of the chamber has said that.

Senator WOOD:

– No, I am not suggesting that it has been said in the Parliament, but from time to time is has been said by people. The purpose of advertising a product is to sell more of that product. It is a new line of thinking that advertising does not increase sales. I am convinced that over the years people have become more aware of advertising and that cigarette advertisements have created in the minds of people a desire to smoke. The manner in which some of these beautiful advertisements are presented has created in the minds of many people, especially young people, at which age most people begin smoking, the impression that smoking is a prestige symbol or that one achieves some status from smoking. I remember that as a young chap people tried to encourage me to smoke by saying: If you do not smoke you will never be a man - you will be something odd’, or by making remarks of that kind. Advertising does implant in the minds of young people the idea that smoking is a status symbol.

Just as I am convinced that advertising will encourage people to smoke, I am satisfied that a stoppage of cigarette advertising over a long period will have a beneficial effect. There is no question that we have clear evidence to show that smoking is a very dangerous habit. Whatever we can do to stop people smoking will be of great advantage to their general health. People who smoke like to think that they will never suffer from it. More than once I have talked to people about smoking and have heard them say: ‘When my time comes I will be waiting and there will be no worry about it.’ They are brave words when a person is in good health, but when those people have realised what has happened to them as a result of smoking they have been very miserable. I believe that if we in this Parliament can do anything to reduce smoking or to stop people from smoking we will be doing something of a worthwhile nature so far as their health is concerned. Although I was not in the chamber at the time, I understand that Senator Georges said that there were other things, such as alcohol, which presented a much greater risk. I agree with him. It is my view that parliaments have not faced up to their responsibilities in respect of many things which are used freely by people. So very often they are used as a status symbol. We know that when people go to parties they believe that they must do this, that or the other or feel out of it, but people should be made to realise that they must show strength. The less that we peddle various products by creating in people’s minds a need to smoke or drink alcohol the better it will be for the human race.

Senator Gair:

– The Lord changed water into wine.

Senator WOOD:

– I am not getting into biblical days or biblical ways. Our exPremier of Queensland has probably had more to do with these quotations than I have. I will leave that to him because probably he knows much more about that aspect. Looking at the Bill and the amendment of the Australian Labor Party I feel that probably something stronger should have been done in regard to stopping smoking. The amendment moved on behalf of the Labor Party fits in more to my way of thinking so far as the stopping of smoking is concerned. We should not do this in a weak way; if we do it we must do it in a strong way. To me the Opposition’s amendment seems to tackle the need in a much stronger way than we on the Government side are tackling it. In these circumstances I approve very strongly a move to stop the advertising of this product. I believe that although the banning of advertising may not have an immediate effect, over a period it will have some effect. So I support the pur- pose of the Bill and in particular I will support the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply - 1 rise to close the debate and to reply to the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition. The point should be recognised that the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that where there is advertising on television or radio of cigarette products there shall be a warning which should be heard - and also seen in the case of television - at the conclusion of each such advertisement. The advertisement is specified in the legislation and it shall read:

Medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard.

That announcement is to be clearly enunciated over a minimum period of 3 seconds. lt is to be delivered at the level of sound normally used by the station for spoken announcements and it is to avoid any element of ridicule, irony or humour.

As 1 said in regard to television, the visual announcement will be shown on the screen during the period of the spoken announcement. This is one of the 3 steps that the Government announced a short time ago it proposed to take in this area. The first step was the requiring of this announcement to be made after each advertisement. The second step was to legislate within the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory to require health warning labels on cigarette packets. The third step was to conduct, through the Commonwealth Department of Health in association with the States, an education programme aimed at informing the public of the dangers to health of cigarette smoking. The Commonwealth will provide $300,000 a year for 3 years commencing on 1st July for this purpose. It is a constructive programme and the emphasis is upon informing people so that people themselves will be able to assess the risks and take the action which responsibility suggests they should take. I suggest to the Chamber that this ought to be one of the objectives of all legislation - to create in the minds of people whom it affects a sense of obligation to take heed for their own health, their own safety, their own future, their own security and their own advancement and not to leave it to government to impose by laws, certain prohibitions.

I think the debate on this subject proceeds on certain misconceptions and certain non sequiturs whereby people have sought to argue that a certain situation must lead to the complete banning of cigarette advertising on radio and television. What is the basic situation in regard to the connection between smoking and health? I do not think we can say other than that there is evidence linking smoking with disease. Studies which have been conducted over the past 20 years have confirmed the association of cigarette smoking with lung cancer. All responsible medical opinion in the world accepts that there is this association. In general it has been clearly demonstrated that cigarette smokers have a higher mortality rate than non-smokers and that this rate increases with greater cigarette consumption. There have been laboratory experiments which have shown that tobacco smoke contains carcinogenic substances. In addition recent experiments have demonstrated that smoking will cause cancer of the lung in dogs. Such experiments together with statistical studies form the major evidence linking smoking with lung cancer and other diseases of humans. Clinical evidence that cigarette smoking causes disease in humans could be obtained only by controlled human experiments on a vast scale; but, of course medical ethics would not permit such experiments, nor indeed would any rational society countenance this type of experiment. But this connection has been established.

The highest authority to which one could go in this area would be the Assembly of the World Health Organisation which in 1971 in a resolution on the health consequences of smoking expressed in a preamble the following words:

The relationship of cigarette smoking with pulmonary and cardiovascular disease, including lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease, chronic bronchitis and emphysema is accepted beyond doubt by all major medical organisations with public health responsibilities.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that the association having been demonstrated, it is not - and this is demonstrable - every person who smokes who will inevitably experience lung cancer or heart disease. But the risk is there, and the more one smokes cigarettes the greater the risk. But it is essentially a risk situation, and no-one who smokes cigarettes ought to deny that that risk exists. Having said that, does the existence of a risk lead to the necessity to take the drastic steps which, for example, the Opposition and my friend Senator Wood would seek to take - that is to ban all cigarette advertising on radio and television? After all - and I pose this question for honourable senators to consider - if it is a matter of risk, and the consequences of risk, that people are concerned with, surely the risk which comes from travelling in motor cars, or driving motor cars, and the likelihood of death arising from such a situation, is to be compared at least with the situation of death from lung” cancer; bronchitis, heart disease, emphysema, asthma and so on which may have some connection with cigarette smoking. One’ would not come to the stage, I imagine, of saying that all advertising of motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts is to be prohibited.

In terms of logic - and I am putting this forward in terms of logic - the argument that one should ban all cigarette advertising on radio and television does not flow as a consequence from the mere fact that there is a risk which is shown to exist. The Government recognises that fact. Whilst not seeking in any way to diminish the fact that there is this risk to those who smoke cigarettes, let us get our figures right in this regard. For example, in the case of lung cancer there have been more than 30 statistical studies which have shown that the risk of cancer of the lung ncreases directly in relation to the number of cigarettes smoked. In Australia 3,244 persons died from lung cancer in 1970, and on the estimate of the Royal College of Physicians in London 90 per cent of deaths from lung cancer may be attributable to cigarette smoking. Likewise, surveys have shown that cigarette smokers are more prone to develop both acute and chronic bronchitis than either non-smokers or cigar or pipe smokers. The latter disease - that is, chronic bronchitis - will often lead to emphysema, a chronic degenerative condition of the lungs which prevents an adequate exchange of air by the lungs. In 1970 in Australia the number of deaths from chronic bronchitis and emphysema was 2,981. Again on the estimate of the Royal College of Physicians, 75 per cent of the deaths from chronic bronchitis may be attributed to cigarette smoking.

But let us put the figures in perspective because the total numbers of deaths in Australia in 1970 is shown as 113,048. Deaths from the 2 diseases which I have mentioned are approximately 6,000 of which not all, on the statistical evidence, may be attributed to cigarette smoking. I have quoted those figures to indicate that something less than 5 per cent, it seems to me, of all deaths could be attributed to cigarette smoking. 1 have not worked out the percentages.

Senator Poyser:

– What about heart disease? You mentioned only lung cancer.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate the point. 1 did not give all the figures which J have in front of me and which I intended to give. Studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease is greater in cigarette smokers than in nonsmokers. There were 33,939 deaths in Australia from ischaemic heart disease in 1970 and, again on the estimate of the Royal College of Physicians, 25 per cent of those deaths may be attributed to cigarette smoking. That means that something like 10 per cent of all deaths may be attributable to these causes. In saying that I am not seeking to qualify the opinion of the medical experts and the studies which have indicated that there is a very real association between cigarette smoking and health. J am saying that, in terms of total deaths, they are figures which cannot be ignored. 1 feel that it is relevant to look at the circumstances and to consider the steps which people with various points of view would have taken in order to emphasise the nature of the risk. The Government’s view is that it is essentially a matter of education and essentially a matter of bringing to people’s attention the risks that they run. I do not believe that the approach of the Labor Party, which has, as one of its 2 limbs, the complete banning of cigarette and radio advertising, will achieve the results for which it is contending, and for which results the Government is contending, as effectively as the Government’s programme in this area. It must be recognised that advertising on radio and television has been banned in Great Britain since about 1965. For example, the Royal College of Physicians, in its 1971 report, said:

That a simple ban of cigarette advertising would be ineffective is also indicated by the example of countries such as Russia and Italy where there is no advertising of cigarettes and where consumption has steadily risen.

My experience, in the short time that I was Minister for Health, led me to believe that in those countries in which there was a ban on television or radio advertising there had been no appreciable drop in consumption and there had been, in some cases, a continuing increase in the rate of consumption. The position in Russia and Italy is, in itself, significant. With no advertising, the rate of consumption is increasing. I seem to recall that” yesterday Senator Carrick made a point which I thought had equal validity. If one considers the tremendously high consumption of liquor in the USSR where, again, there is no advertising - Russia has almost the highest rate in the world, I think Senator Carrick said - one sees that the fact that advertising is banned does not mean that the result for which we are striving will be achieved.

Is it fair to ban advertising? If the sale of the product is legal there is an unfairness in not allowing a person who is entitled to sell the product to advertise what he has to sell. I do not understand the Opposition to be arguing that it would ban the sale, production or distribution of these products. I understand it to say that it would seek to ban the advertising of them. It is a matter of assessing the risk so as to determine what action ought to be taken so that people may avoid that risk. I think that is the way in which the matter should be looked at. All honourable senators know - I know from my own young children - how strongly an objection to smoking cigarettes is inculcated in the primary schools. Yet there is a stage at which, as the young people grow, they seem to lose this rooted objection to cigarette smoking and they are prepared to engage in it. If we knew why this change seemed to occur generally we would be a long way towards really meeting the heart of the problem. My state of knowledge is such that I believe that the best way to solve the problem is continually to bring before people the consequences that they may experience if they continue with cigarette smoking. Provided we can do that in an effective way, I believe that we are doing the most in our society that we can do.

So we have an education campaign. We have had it for quite some time, but it is being stepped up enormously. Warnings are being put on cigarette packs not because the person who intends to buy the ciagarette pack will see the warning and decide not to buy it but because, if the warnings are on the cigarette packs, they are seen when they are being used or discarded. It is part of the general social consciousness which becomes more apparent. I think it is a fair thing that if television and radio advertising has an impact there should be a warning which gives, the other side of the question so that people may consider it. I think there is a lot of merit in the argument that the warning should include advertising in the Press, the magazines and the glossy advertisements on paper, but I think all honourable senators appreciate that the Commonwealth has not the power to legislate in that area in the same way that it can legislate in relation to television and radio. It is an area in which the States, if they are so minded, can legislate. It may be that one day they will.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why not have the tar content of cigarettes included in advertising on radio and television?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– That is not proposed at present. That is something which could come in future. I doubt its effectiveness in communicating to people the risk of which they ought to be informed. People know about tar content, but they really do not appreciate what tar content involves. They sense that if there is a high tar content that is a bad thing. To be given a figure which states a tar content, without knowing whether it is high or low, is not to be given very much information. The real point in sending out the message is to bring home the fact that there is a risk to health and that people ought to be aware of it. That is the theme which I believe is implicit in this Bill and to that extent the Bill is desirable.

There are 2 short matters which I raise in conclusion. The first is that, over the years, there has been a great deal of criticism of the so-called voluntary code.It was a code agreed upon by the manufacturers, the radio and television stations and the Government and was designed mainly to shift the emphasis in advertising. I have looked, as we all have, at the advertising of cigarettes and I think that, generally there has been an observance of the terms of the code. There has been a shift in emphasis and I think that what the cigarette distributors have said has been borne out by the facts. They have sought to advertise amongst themselves with respect to brands and if one examines the changes which have occurred in the sales of various types of cigarettes one sees that there has been a quite remarkable fluctuation. I would have thought that the type of fluctuation which has occurred is directly related to the quality of the advertising. One cannot assess whether or not that advertising does influence people to smoke who otherwise would not be influenced. However, if that influence exists, I think that this type of announcement which is to be made will bring to the people immediately they sense that they might be influenced, the fact that there is a risk. That is the hope, and I think it is on that sort of basis that we all believe that advertising and announcements can operate.

The second pointI make is related to Senator Rae’s comments. There is unquestionably a problem which radio stations, particularly in country areas, recognise. They feel that there will be a dropping off in their revenue. Time alone will tell whether that will be the case. Time alone will tell whether there will not be something which will take the place of cigarette advertising if it does drop off, and time alone will tell whether or not the radio stations are sufficiently enterprising to be able to meet the situation which arises. We are faced with a problem which has a widespread recognition and Government would be failing if it did not acknowledge that this problem existed and that it was expected that Government should do something in respect of it.

In all the circumstances, I think that the support for the Bill which has been evidenced in the chamber is a recognition that it is a step in the right direction. As I have said, the Government will oppose the amendment which has been moved by Senator Douglas McClelland on behalf of the Opposition. I do not believe that the banning of advertising is either fair or likely to achieve the result which is intended. It would be a step which would deny or defy the evidence of what has occurred in overseas countries where the ban has been imposed. Therefore, the Government will oppose the amendment.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 27

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

In proposed section 100a (1.) leave out “Medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard.”’, insert ‘“The National Health and Medical Research Council warns that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health.” ‘.

I wish to speak briefly to the amendment. The simple fact is that we of the Labor movement believe that the legislation introduced in another place on 10th May last contained a much stronger warning than that which now appears in this legislation. The warning that appeared in the Bill when it was originally introduced in the House of Representatives was in the exact terms to the amendment I have just moved. The Opposition’s amendment is to the effect that the warning should read: The National Health and Medical Research Council warns that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health’. I mentioned a number of things about this matter during the course of my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, including the intention of the legislation when it was introduced in the House of Representatives. During the Committee stage of debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives the Government circulated an amendment to clause 3 of the Bill. It proposed an amendment to the effect that the warning should read: ‘The Australian Government warns that smoking is a health hazard’. After that proposed amendment had been circulated, a back bench supporter of the Government moved for the insertion of the wording that is in the Bill at the present time, namely, that medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard.

Senator Poyser:

– Completely innocuous.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

We believe that that warning is nothing less than a watering down of the original provision. Indeed, our argument is supported by the President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Macdonald, who as recently as last Monday, 29th May, said that the AMA had recently set up a committee in Victoria to study proposals to increase the number of non-smokers, that the committee had drawn to his attention the watering down of the proposed health warning, and that he had replied: T agree with the committee that the change is to be deplored’. Although this legislation relates to cigarette and cigarette tobacco advertising the warning as it now appears states that smoking is a health hazard. As 1 mentioned in my speech last night, we will now have the situation where advertisements relating to cigarettes and cigarette tobacco will have to be followed by a warning but advertisements relating to cigars and pipes - surely they involve smoking - will not have to be followed by a warning.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They have just shifted the evil around.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right. As Senator Poyser interjected earlier, the Opposition regards the warning now in the Bill as being completely innocuous. It may not be accepted that the wording of the warning in the legislation has been watered down, but il must be accepted that the warning has been watered down insofar as its time duration is concerned. The time occupied by the warning has been reduced from 5 seconds to 3 seconds. I submit that the length of time has been reduced only because the length of the warning has been reduced.

I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily on this matter, but there is also the question of terminology insofar as the use of the words ‘dangerous’ and ‘hazard’ is concerned. In a Press statement he issued on 23rd April, the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) used the word ‘dangers’ and not ‘hazards’. He said that there was a need for a positive warning about the dangers of cigarette smoking. We believe that all the evidence shows that cigarette and tobacco smoking is dangerous to health. The National Health and Medical Research Council has expressed that attitude. We believe that by backing up the warning with a stated and authenticated medical organisation it will give the proposed warning much more weight. That is the reason we have moved this amendment. We hope that the amendment will be carried because we believe it is in the interests of the Australian people that it be carried.

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

– It is a coincidence - a happy coincidence for me - that on 1st June of this year I should rise to speak briefly on warning people of the health hazards of cigarette smoking. I say that because today

I am celebrating my first year, after 30-odd years of smoking, of not having smoked a cigarette and I have enjoyed the best health I have had since I enlisted in the Second World War. So I can say that anything that will help to educate people, young and old, to give up the habit of smoking will have my earnest support and co-operation. Briefly I say that it is my sincerest opinion that if the Government had followed the advice and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse in respect to advertising and gone ahead with an education policy, much more good would have been flowing to the community than will flow from this legislation. In the belief, and only because I have that belief, that this legislation may - but I doubt it - help the young people I will be supporting it. But I cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Douglas McClelland.

Senator Georges:

– Why?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– We are told that it is aimed at young people. If there is anything the young people of today dislike it is big brother, authority, government, bosses. If any party is awake to that it should be the Australian Labor Party because it is always urging the young people to demonstrate against authority, government and big brother. Except for some members of the national Parliament, some medical authorities and some Ministers in the State governments, very few people in Australia in reality know what is the National Health and Medical Research Council. But the very words used indicate that it is a government instrumentality, the establishment, saying that smoking is a health hazard.

The young people of today have more faith in and are more liable to follow the advice of their general practitioner or their medical authority. I do not know whether any good will flow from this legislation, but if it does I believe that more good will flow from it if the legislation is left as proposed, namely, that medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard. This takes away any suggestion of bosses and the establishment and brings young people face to face with their doctors. I believe that there would be a greater improvement if the word ‘profession’ was used instead of the word authorities’. The medical profession is a profession which is honoured and its advice is followed by everyone. But I do not believe it would be right for the national Parliament to insert in the Bill at this stage ‘the medical profession’ because the profession as a whole cannot really say this and will not say it as too many of its members smoke.

I would very much like to talk longer on the subject of the advertising and drugs but time is short and 1 am speaking only to an amendment. 1 have risen purely because I believe I am right in what I have said. I believe that is the only good that will flow from this legislation, which is an attempt by the Government to take the advice of the medical profession to try to help the people of Australia give away or cut down their smoking of a drug that is harmful to health.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Could I make the point that Senator Marriott for 18 months heard evidence that revealed the dangers of cigarette smoking. I am referring to the evidence that was produced before the Senate Select Committee on Drug’ Trafficking and Drug Abuse, of which he was chairman. That evidence was what actually frightened him - no less than that - into a position where he decided that he would give up cigarette smoking. Because of that evidence he became aware that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health - not hazardous, but dangerous to health. He became aware of the dangers of cigarette smoking and he made a personal decision not to smoke. All that we are suggesting is that the message which Senator Marriott received as a result of this evidence is the message which should be given carefully and clearly to everyone who smokes cigarettes, whether he be young or old. If a message saying that cigatette smoking is dangerous to health is flashed across a television screen, the person who reaches for his cigarette packet because he sees a cigarette advertisement at that moment on television will think again. The weakening and watering down of the warning, which took place in the House of Representatives ought not to be tolerated here. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health, and the Minister himself, by the details and figures that he has given, supports this claim. It is dangerous to health - not hazardous to health. ‘Hazardous’ is merely an extension of ‘cautious’. Our amendments states that the warning should read:

The National Health and Medical Research Council warns that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health.

Perhaps we could substitute the words medical authorities’ for the words National Health and Medical Research Council’, but to my mind the most important consideration is whether we should use the word ‘hazardous’ or ‘dangerous’. On the evidence that has been placed before the Senate during the past day, I think the word should be ‘dangerous’. I appeal to honourable senators, especially to the independent senators, to consider that at this moment they have the chance of putting an effective warning against cigarette smoking on television advertising. If honourable senators support what the Government has proposed they will be supporting an ineffective warning compared to what Senator Douglas’ McClelland has proposed. It may be many months or even years1 before- we’ contemplate” issuing a more ‘serious warning. In the meantime’, many young people and many older people will be encouraged not only to start but also to continue smoking cigarettes.

Let me make the point clear: Cigarette smoking is addictive. Once started, in spite of the will of people, cigarette smoking has the capacity to drive them to further smoking. Any person who smokes cigarettes can tell you exactly how difficult it is to give up smoking. 1 feel that this question ought to be considered seriously. I stress again that at this moment we have the opportunity of insisting on a reasonable warning being given against cigarette smoking. I appeal to honourable senators to support the amendment rather than the Government’s proposition.

Senator MARRIOTT (Tasmania) - Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation. Senator Georges has unwittingly misrepresented the facts. This time last year I was in hospital preparing to undergo ear surgery. My doctor would not operate because of the state of my health, caused, he said, through excessive smoking. I gave up smoking for that reason. I felt so well after a week, and then I remembered the evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. 1 have kept off smoking. My medical authority caused me to give up smoking.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I think the Government has included in the Bill a weak and watered down version of what the National Health and Medical Research Council wanted. Those of us in public life should know the right words to use in speeches. There is no question that the more simple the words used the more easily the meaning is conveyed to someone else. We have heard people making speeches and when they have sat down, what have we said to ourselves? We have said: ‘He is a spinner of words. What did he say?’. We cannot remember what he said because he just spun words. On the other hand we hear a speaker who gives a speech in simple terms and, because of its simplicity, it is remembered; the message is conveyed to us. From our point of view, as a Government, if we think that something is a danger to the health of the people, it is our duty to convey the message to the people in as simple terms as possible. I think that the amendment moved by Senator Douglas McClelland proposes a more effective warning than that put forward by the Government. What does it say? It says that the National Health and Medical Research Council warns that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health.

Senator Marriott:

– Who are they?

Senator WOOD:

– Senator Marriott asks Who are they?’. ‘They’ are the National Health and Medical Research Council. I do not think the views expressed by Senator Marriott will be conveyed to the average person who reads the warnings. He feels that reference to the National Health and Medical Research Council would make people think of big brother or the Government, which people would resent. I believe that we should use the simple terms National Health and Medical Research Council’. The reference to ‘health’ and medical’ will convey to the average person that somebody of authority is speaking. I do not think the message can be conveyed to the people in any other way. The National Health and Medical Research Council is a body which really knows what it is talking about. To put it in plain terms that cigarette smoking is dangerous is much simpler and much easier to understand than to say that smoking is hazardous. Everybody knows what a hazard is but of course everybody is not educated to the same standard and everybody does not think the same. Therefore it is necessary to make these terms as simple as possible. I think that to say in a positive, direct way that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health will convey a lot more meaning to people than to use the phrase which the Government has proposed. If we are trying to convey something to the people, let us have it in terms and phraseology which they will easily understand. Because of that I propose to support the amendment moved by Senator Douglas McClelland on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral (12.23 · LP

– This is a matter upon which people will have different views. It is to be expected that they will have different views. One could discuss the matter at great length. Some people might have their views changed; they might recognise the weight in another point of view but, nevertheless, find that there is some compensating reason why they feel it should not change their minds. It is all very much a subjective matter as to what are the best words to use to convey the impact. The Government started off with the expression which the Labor Party now wants to put back in, namely ‘The National Health and Medical Research Council warns that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health’. The Government eventually discarded those words for shorter words which it felt were more emphatic - ‘Medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard’.

In the circumstances people can have their choice. I suppose there are only 3 reasonable alternatives which you could have to impress the authority with which the announcment is made. You could have the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Government, or medical authorities. The Government’s thinking, on reflection and after there had been opportunity for discussion within the Government, was that the National Health and Medical Research Council, eminent and distinguished as it is, is not an organisation which is known, I would have thought, to most Australians.

Most of them might ask, if they were confronted with an announcement mentioning the National Health and Medical Research Council, what is that body. They would think it would be a prestigious body. There is no question about that. They would imagine it was highly staffed with good doctors. There is no question about that. But it is still not a body that is known. If the word ‘Government’ were used half the community, or almost half the community, would say that nothing that the Government does is any good anyway. That might have an impact to make it not the best form of words to use.

Therefore, the Government suggests the term ‘medical authorities’. That is really the basis of our case against cigarette smoking. It is what medical authorities throughout the world have indicated and we think, therefore, that these are the best words to use. Whether we use the warning Smoking is a health hazard’ or ‘Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health’, medical authorities throughout the world have different slants on this question and place their emphases in different ways. The impact of the words ‘Smoking is a health hazard’ is just as effective as that of ‘Cigarette smoking is a danger to health’, and probably just as accurate. But, as I have said, it is a matter of choice for honourable senators. They can play around with these words and alter them to meet the wishes of what might be a temporary majority in this chamber. We should have regard to the fact that whatever form of words is used the impact must be made, and the shorter the form, the more succinct the expression and the greater the emphasis is likely to be.

A second amendment is involved in the notices which have been circulated by the Opposition. If the amendment before the Committee is carried, the words proposed could not be stated in 3 seconds - it would take 5 seconds. The original proposal in the Bill was altered from 5 seconds to 3 seconds because the new form of words was shorter. I think the 2 proposals are inextricably mixed and I seek leave to have both of the amendments considered and voted on in the one debate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I discussed this matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) after I had moved the amendment and it is agreed that the 2 amendments be taken together. Perhaps in addition to the amendment that I have moved I should formally move the second amendment. Accordingly 1 move:

In proposed section 100a (4.) (a), leave out three’, insert ‘five’.

Senator NEGUS:
Western Australia

– I might be out of order, but I am opposed to both of the proposed warnings because during my campaign on death taxes I found that the shorter the wording put on the screen, the better the impact.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What would you suggest, instead?

Senator NEGUS:

– I would suggest that on the screen appear the warning “cigarette smoking is dangerous to health’ or, alternatively, ‘If you want to die smoke cigarettes’ and nothing else. I am in an unusual position because many years ago I had a very dangerous medical condition and I was told by my doctor, who was a specialist on the subject, to smoke because it would help my condition. When my wife was alive she told me many times that she had seen films of what smoking does to people’s lungs. I also know that people can smoke without doing the drawback and this would not affect their lungs. I know that in the past many other things have been blamed for causing cancer. I think the first thing to be blamed was canned food but now we all eat canned food as though there is nothing wrong with it. But I really feel - if I had time I would move an amendment - that the warning should not contain any reference to health authorities and that if the simple statement Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health’ appeared on the screen then people would have time to read it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At this stage the Opposition realises that if a division were taken it would lose the division. It appears to us that only members of the Labor Party and Senator Wood have indicated that they would be prepared to support our amendments.

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2446

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 May (vide page 1904), on motion by Senator Wright:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– This very important Bill relates to the setting up of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and is supported and welcomed by the Opposition. In brief, in 1970 the Government introduced a Bill for the establishment of an Australian Institute of Marine Science as a first step towards correcting deficiencies in our work in marine science. That Act provided that there should be an institute known as the Australian Institute of Marine Science and it should be located in the vicinity of Townsville. One cannot under-estimate or overemphasise the importance of the establishment of this Marine Institute, especially since it will develop skills in marine biology and stimulate research into marine biology and the marine ecology which is desperately needed in this country. It will upgrade the level of these studies and it is hoped that, provided the Government makes money available it will quickly reach a sufficiently high standard to achieve an international reputation.

The location of the Institute has been in question. Some criticisms have been made that the marine environment of Townsville has been subjected to some metal pollution. If this is so, I trust that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will be able to advise what steps have been taken to correct this situation and to prevent the metal pollution of an area which is not only vital to the proposed Marine Institute but also vital to the Great Barrier Reef which lies off-shore from the site of the proposed Marine Institute. 1 have spoken previously of the dangers of nickel contamination, especially in the marine environment because there it escalates at a great rate. Marine metal pollution is not limited to the immediate area. Because of the type of environment, the pollution can spread up and down the whole of the province of the Great Barrier Reef and to areas outside it. Reference have been made here before to mercury and nickel pollution and other forms of metal pollution in the marine environment. It has been said that the escalation rapidly compounds itself and the major fish of the Reef can be the most affected. The fishing industry of the north could be seriously limited. The work of the Institute will be limited unless metal pollution in the region is controlled in some way.

It is tragic, and I must highlight it, that the work of the Institute will be affected by the severe devastation caused to the reefs near Townsville by the crown of thorns starfish. It is a great pity that the area from Cooktown almost as far as Bowen has been savagely devasted by the crown of thorns. The ability of the Institute to carry out research in that area will be limited by the fact that the reefs have been considerably damaged and the fish and marine organisms within that area have been greatly affected. However, on the credit side it may mean that the Institute can carry out substantial investigation into this important problem which faces the Great Barrier Reef. It cannot be overestimated, in spite of conflicting reports from scientists.

The threat to the Great Barrier Reef by the crown of thorns has been established as a major one. It is hoped that the Institute will be given first priority, or a priority that will enable it to spend money and to exercise its skill and research in finding the base cause of the epidemic. Those of us who fear for the future of the Great Barrier Reef are caught in the conflict between the scientists who say that it is a cyclic epidemic and the scientists who say that it is man made. The scientists who say that it is cyclic say ‘Let it take its course’, but they do not say whether the cycle will last for 10, 15, 100, 200 or even 500 years.

If it is a man made epidemic, man must undertake immediate and strong control measures. It is hoped that the Institute will take immediate action to determine and define the cause so that the necessary measures against the crown of thorns can be taken. I emphasise this matter because I believe that the establishment of the Institute is of great importance in view of this major threat. I encourage honourable senators who have not acquainted themselves with the crown of thorns problem to read the latest book on the starfish plague, a documentary titled ‘Crown of Thorns - The Death of The Great Barrier Reef?’, written by Theo W. Brown in association with Keith Willey, lt is not freely available at present, but it has been reviewed. Honourable senators who are concerned about the future of the Reef and the threat to it posed by the crown of thorns ought to read the book.

For far too long the true threat has been underestimated, and perhaps deliberately so. Perhaps the problem has been deliberately underestimated by the Queensland Government which was responsible for the suppression of the first report in 1966 which gave the initial warning of the threat. The appalling situation is that the report was not published and the findings were not made publicly available, with the result that the Reef was subjected to considerable devastation without any action being taken. The establishment of the Institute will add to the small amount of money that has been made available for research, provided that in the programme of the Institute priority is given to this research work. 1 strongly recommend to the Government that the matter be brought: before the people who are responsible for the setting up of the Institute.

In Queensland, because of the reluctance of the Government to take immediate action, members of the public have become involved. They have set up, through various means, the ‘Save the Reef Committee’. This Committee has begun training scuba divers in the skills required to participate in research programmes and control measures which the Government or the Institute may set up. These divers will take some time to train. They will be put through an internationally recognised programme so that divers, in numbers, will be available on a voluntary basis to assist in research programmes. The scheme has been rubbished out of hand by the Queensland Premier who has no real conception of the needs of the area. I trust that the Commonwealth Government will not adopt a similar attitude. In addition to the establishment of the ‘Save the Reef Committee’ in Brisbane, a similar committee has been established in New South Wales and a further committee is to be established-

Senator Maunsell:

– They are established everywhere except in the area of the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator GEORGES:

– For the information of Senator Maunsell I point out that a further committee is to be established in Rockhampton on 14th June. If he cares to attend the meeting on that date and to participate, he will be welcomed. In his area the resort managers have appealed to the Government to stop research into the crown of thorns because they feel that any public announcement of the position may in some way limit their return through a downgrading of the area. That attitude ought not to be taken. The devastation is there and it has to be corrected. I have referred to the establishment of volunteer groups. Unless there is great public involvement supporting government action, the future of the Reef may be in some danger. If these organisations are to train divers, the assistance of the divers should be accepted by governments and the Institute because, sooner or later, divers in numbers will be needed to carry out surveillance programmes and control measures. Eventually, it may be necessary for the Federal Government to support these people in their fund raising efforts by subsidising them dollar for dollar in the same way as surf life saving groups are subsidised up and down the coast. To employ people in numbers to carry out the necessary research and to provide remuneration for them would involve tremendous expense which the Government possibly would not be able to meet and from which responsibility the Government would be inclined to withdraw.

Let me make another point as to why it is so necessary that this Institute should not only be established but also be financed properly. The amount of money which is being spent on coral reef research now is not as great as we had hoped last year that it would be. Honourable senators will recall that the American authorities announced that they were going to spend $4.5m on research into the crownof.thorns starfish problem in areas which came under their responsibility. Unfortunately, that research has not been funded. That amount of money is not available

The only amount of money which has been made available is local money from local governments. The Commonwealth proposal provides some money. I say that it is not sufficient, but I am hoping that the proposed Marine Institute will take up the slack.

An amount of money has been provided by the British authorities for research in the Red Sea. I make this point: I trust that the Institute will quickly establish liaison with other similar institute and marine groups in the Pacific area and other overseas areas. Dr Rhodes who leads the British expedition to the Red Sea has made the comment that it has been difficult to set up any lines of communication with Australian scientists. I trust that we will emphasise to those who are setting up this Institute that it is necessary to liaise with other authorities and with other researchers carrying out similar programmes so that efforts may be coordinated and expenditures may be reduced.

While in Honolulu recently I participated in a 3-way conversation, conducted by satellite, on the crown-of-thorns problem. There is a programme called the Peace-Sat. Programme’ which I recommend to those who will set up the Australian Institute. It involves the establishment of ground stations in various places in the Pacific. Groups of scientists can be linked via the satellite for discussion periods of from one hour to 2 hours. I suggest that the Institute consider setting up the first ground station in the South Pacific area in Australia. It could be done through this Peace-Sat. Programme. That first ground station ought to be established at Townsville in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Marine Science so that conversations, discussions and seminars can be carried out through the satellite programme. In this way marine scientists in Fiji, Honolulu and New Zealand and other places would be able to talk to scientists at our new Marine Institute.

Unless this Institute is properly funded and unless it receives continuing support it cannot take its place as an international institute. One questions the amount of money which has been made available. I take it the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) will assure us in some way that this money is merely initial expenditure and that it will not be completely used in the provision of buildings but will be an amount which will increase continually to provide funds with which to enlist from various parts of the world first class scientists in support of the programme which is to be carried out.

The Great Barrier Reef is unique and deserves to have associated with it a marine institute of international standing. 1 trust that the programme that the Government has initiated will lead to this development and will do so quickly, otherwise the value and beauty of the Great Barrier Reef, a vast complex extending for more than 1,500 miles almost from New Guinea down the eastern coast of Queensland, may be affected greatly. The pressures to exploit the reef for purposes other than research are so great that we may find that, before the Marine Institute has a chance to develop, the Barrier Reef may be so affected that the work of the Marine Institute also will be affected.

It is a great pity - I think that my colleague, Senator Keeffe, will take this matter up - that the Commonwealth has not established its right over the territorial shelf and accepted full responsibility in this respect. One could be critical of the Government for allowing its internal divisions to affect the consideration of a Bill which, if passed, would have established conclusively that the responsibility for the whole of the continental shelf from the low water mark to its outer limits is that of the Commonwealth Government. The Government must stop its bickering and internal fighting. It must bring on debate on this Bill and have a decision taken. The provisions of that Bill should be tested constitutionally. The sooner that these things are done, the better. I do not think that the future of the Great Barrier Reef should be at the mercy of the internal divisions of the Liberal Party. I hope that the Bill which will take the initiative in this matter will be brought before the Parliament for debate as soon as possible. There are other matters with which I wished to deal. But this is the last day of this session and our opportunity to speak at length on important matters such as this is constricted.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I am glad to see that my friend from Queensland, Senator Georges, is wholeheartedly behind the Australian Institute of Marine Science

Bill 1972. This Bill has as its purpose the establishment of the Institute of Marine Science at Townsville in Queensland. I point out that the Australian continent has a coastline of 12,000 miles. The sea is of immense importance to us in very many ways. The position of Australia is unique in that it is the only country on earth which occupies the whole of a continent completely surrounded by the sea. This makes the sea even more important to Australia.

In his second reading speech, when speaking on the establishment of this Institute of Marine Science, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) referred to the term ‘marine science’ in this way: li covers a vast field ranging from biological studies in the littoral zone through to the deep waters beyond the continental shelf; from physical studies of the bays and estuarine waters to the deep ocean and the sea floor.

There is a great deal that we do not know about marine research. One vast field open for study is that of ocean temperatures. These Vary greatly at different depths and different areas and are very much affected by tides and currents. There is a vast amount that we still do not know about the marine life around our shores and the-

Senator Keeffe:

– There is a vast amount that you do not know about politics too.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I suggest that Senator Keeffe will be able to make his own speech later on. There is a great deal that we do not know about the food on which fish and other marine creatures feed. We do not know what future effects may arise from any upset in the balance of nature that we may cause. An important implication of the establishment of this Institute is that it will research the possibility of food from marine sources being used to feed future generations of the human race. It may be that when we reach the limit of production on the land the sea will be able to provide a considerable quantity of food for the survival of mankind.

Another point made by the Minister in his second reading speech concerns the provision of a boat for the Institute. The Minister referred to a boat of approximately 80 feet in length and said that the Government was considering the acquisi tion of a boat of 120 feet in length. I think it would be a pity to impair the research undertaken by this Institute by equipping it with a smaller boat. 1 think the boat should be as big as this Government can afford and we should give all the help that we can to the Institute.

Senator Wood:

– A small boat may be more useful in getting into and out of reef inlets.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It may be more useful in some places but it would have to be seaworthy and be able to stand up to pretty rough weather. There has been some criticism of the selection of Townsville as the site for this Institute because of the possibility of pollution of the water by the nickel refinery. The selection of Townsville as the site was, I am told, influenced by many other matters than the availability of seawater close at hand. If an aquarium has to be established there is no absolute necessity for it to be at the site of the Institute at Cape Pallarenda, near Townsville. The selection of Townsville as the site was influenced by the need to have the land base close to a big centre of population where all essential services and facilities were available and to make it possible for the Institute to work in conjunction or co-operation with the James Cook University. There are many good reasons why we should endorse the selection of Townsville as the site for the Institute. lt was pointed out in the Minister’s second reading speech and in the debate in the other place that the possible pollution of the water would not present a problem to the establishment of an aquarium because, as I said, it could be built further away. Senator Georges referred to the crown of thorns starfish. There is considerable difference of opinion in regard to recent attacks on the Reef alleged to have been made by the crown of thorns starfish.

Senator Keeffe:

– What do you mean by alleged’?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I am making this speech. Recently a man in Cairns wanted to obtain a few crown of thorns starfish for scientific research. He sent parties out to the Reef but they could not find any starfish. Another point I would like to make is that it has been suggested by some people that devastation of the coral could be caused by cyclones. This, no doubt, will be the subject of investigation. However I would like to point out one significant fact that has not been mentioned so far, and that is that the Torres Strait Islanders who have been in that area for many centuries had a word for the crown of thorns starfish, although their language is not a written language. So the starfish is not a newcomer to the Reef.

Senator Keeffe:

– What is the word?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– As near as we can make it, the word is spelt ……—–, It is interesting to note that the crown of thorns starfish was known to be in the Reef area prior to European settlement.

Senator Georges:

– But in these numbers? That is the point.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I think it must have been there in considerable numbers for the Islanders to have a name for it. It has also been said that this is nature’s way of maintaining the balance of nature. This would be a subject for investigation. Coral spreads very rapidly if it is left alone in its natural environment.

Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Before the luncheon suspension I was talking about the crown of thorns and the growth of coral. Much investigation has to be carried on in this area. Some people say that the coral is kept under control and prevented from spreading everywhere by the crown of thorns, but there are cycles of destruction and regrowth. A cycle takes place over a long period, but the investigation has to look into this question. This is the purpose of setting up the institute. A great deal has to be learnt in this field as well as many other fields. While I am on the subject of coral, 1 would like to mention that our neighbour, New Caledonia, has the second largest coral reef area in the world; it is second only to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. At Noumea in New Caledonia there is a very interesting museum displaying species of coral which I have never seen before. This coral has ben extracted from very deep areas of the ocean and it cannot be exposed to light for very long periods. As I have said, a great deal has to be learnt about these areas of our marine life.

This proposed institute will be able to receive, under the provisions of the Act, endowment payments. People will be able to leave legacies to the institute, and this will help to strengthen the institute and enable it to do much more research in the future. In his second reading speech the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said:

Our fisheries are growing in importance and are attracting international interests.

Many vessels which service the fish cannery at Pago Pago in American Samoa are fishing in the South Pacific area. I have been told that some of these vessels come into Queensland waters in the Gulf of Carpentaria and take away our tuna for canning at Pago Pago. I believe that as this institute of marine science is established we could develop along these lines. When we learn the answers to many of the current problems we will be in a position to expand greatly not only our knowledge of the marine life but also our commercial interests.

Through this research we can learn also what quantities of the various marine creatures we can take safely from the ocean. In our lifetime we have seen the decimation of the whale population. Whales are not peculiar to Australia in any sense. We have seen most of the whaling stations of the world close. Supposedly there was an international agreement in relation to the killing of whales. Apparently that agreement was not observed and the whale population has almost been decimated. We do not want that to happen to any of the species of fish which are found in the waters close to Australia. When we obtain the necessary knowledge as a result of the research carried out by the proposed Institute we will be able to ensure that it will not happen. I believe there should be liaison between this institute and other similar institutions in various parts of the world. There could be an exchange of information which would be to the benefit of mankind in the long run.

Senator Milliner:

– Can you get a director for that?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I do not see any reason why we should not.

Senator Milliner:

– In Australia?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I do not see any reason why we cannot. This Bill provides the framework on which can be built a research institute which will take its place among the great marine research institutes of the world. I commend the Bill to the Senate and support it wholeheartedly.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– At the outset I want to say that the person seen leaving Lake Burley Griffin with a snorkel during the lunch break was not Senator Lawrie who claims that there are no starfish in the Lake. As my colleague Senator Georges said, we are not opposing the Bill but we want to take this opportunity of pointing out that the Government ought to take certain measures to safeguard $8m of the taxpayers’ money. It is appropriate that I rebut some of the statements made before the luncheon suspension by Senator Lawrie and, to a lesser degree, by Senator Maunsell by way of interjection to the effect that there are no crown of thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef, or, if there are, they are only a phenomenon and will not do any harm. Lel me quote from a recent issue of a pamphlet produced by the Save the Reef Committee. I suggest that Country Party senators take proper note of this publication, which reads:

The Crown of Thorns starfish infestation appears to have commenced on the Great Barrier Reef on inner platform reefs off Cooktown, Port Douglas, Cairns and Innisfail during the earl)’ 1960s, and to have spread to many outer reefs off these centres and to inner reefs off Tully, Ingham and Townsville during the latter half of the decade.

General public attention was drawn 10 the problem when a private diver working off Green Island collected 27,000 Crown of Thorns starfish in one two-acre area in 1965-66.

Towards the later 1960s most of the reefs off Townsville were carrying enormous numbers of starfish, with many juveniles, and the plague appeared to br spreading southward.

Ii appears that the 270 reefs in the 300 miles between Cooktown and Bowen are affected by the starfish plague. About 150 of the 270 reefs have been visited since 1966 and about 60 per cent were found to carry Crown of Thorns starfish in numbers deemed sufficiently large to be capable of causing extensive damage to the corals of the reefs involved. The very high population of starfish on some reefs have been determined, and in .some cases recorded on film.

That is an authoritative document produced by the Save the Reef Committee. I would suggest with all due respect that because Senator Lawrie cannot find starfish in the bores on his grazing property outside Rockhampton it does not mean that they are not eating the reef off the coast adjacent to his property.

Let us look at the original reason for establishing a marine institute. The proposal was announced first in October 1969 - perhaps honourable senators will recall that this was just prior to the last Federal general election - as a political gimmick. It has been revived just prior to another Federal election almost 3 years later. The announcement in October 1969 was made by the then Prime Minister. I cannot recall who was Prime Minister that long ago: we have had quite a few changes in that office since then. The Prime Minister at that time may have been John Gorton. The announcement was made as a political gimmick.

There was a great upheaval on 16th April 1970 - a year later - when, I think, the current Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), who was then in a different role, wearing another hat, decided to introduce a Bill called the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1.970. When that Bill was introduced members of the Government parties made very loud noises about how it was necessary to resolve this situation before we got involved in other situations. We heard brave words from the former Prime Minister, who was aided and abetted by a couple of colleagues, that if necessary they would cross the floor to ensure that this law was brought into being at an early date. However, a short time ago we saw the former Prime Minister back down and even Mr Buff disowned him because he ran away from the issue and discredited himself and no longer had public credibility, because when the Prime Minister decided to swing the axe he backed off. That is where the position stands at the moment. The Budget session is rushing towards us, but in the Budget session it is possible that we may get an opportunity only to discuss this issue. We will certainly never be allowed to take a vote on the matter because it is not politically proper. I refer again to the introduction of this Bill as a political gimmick. In the first place, the idea was established as part of Liberal Party propaganda. The matter lay around with few moves being taken. In a moment I will quote from the report of the Interim Council. The matter was left to lie without a great deal of activity until the Government, which is again approaching political annihilation in another Federal election, increased the original vote of $3m to $8m.

An Institute of this type ought to have been established 20 years ago. It should not be made a political plaything of the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government every time there is an impending election. Should this country be unfortunate enough to see the present Government returned to office in October or November this year, 1 could almost bet my last dollar, without any increase in Parliamentary salary, that the question of the Institute of Marine Science will again go into limbo and be raised only at the next Senate election. I hope that the Government’s decision to proceed with the matter at this stage contains some element of responsibility. Arguments have been advanced on whether the Institute of Marine Science ought to have been established at Sydney, Heron Island or at Townsville. In my view, it ought to be established at Townsville, not because that is my base but because I think it is ideally situated for the establishment of such an institute.

But we have to take the matter a little further. We know that processing work of the Greenvale nickel mine will be carried out just a few miles north of Cape Pallarenda. That is a little over 6 miles north of Townsville. This has long been the site of a quarantine station. It is a long time since it was used for that purpose. Over the last few years it has been used as an Army hospital. A large area was fenced off so that the general public could not see what activities took place there. On 24th December 1971 cyclone Althea altered this position because it blew down all the fences. The jetty running from the old quarantine station is completely wrecked. On a recent survey I found what appeared to be sewage pipes running from the hospital straight into the open sea. This is an indication of how much care the Commonwealth had taken about pollution at this point of time. When I mentioned the matter to a Liberal Party member of another place he said: ‘Strath, I did not know that was happening. I must look into it’. So far as I know he is still looking into it. I hope that he does not get his head caught in the sewer pipe.

When the Greenvale refinery is established there will be obvious dangers and difficulties, because only minute quantities of chemicals have to escape into the open sea to completely upset the ecology. I would suggest that if this company is to proceed along these lines it ought to be responsible at a Commonwealth level. It is no use saying to the State Government that it should see the waters are kept clean. It will not do so. We have only to look at the case of the Herbert River. The State Government is not game to buck the mining companies which are operating further up the river. The areas around the mouth and the lower reaches of the river are rotten with pollution. Very little marine life will live in those waters. Some primitive forms of life may be found but certainly marine life as we know it, except in times of fresh, does not exist there any more. What has the State Government done about this? It has gone into its foxhole and made no attempt to force the mining companies to eliminate pollution. I say that - I am certain I will never be contradicted - the State Government does not care what is polluted as long as it is able to get the minerals out and help overseas combines to dig holes in this country.

The original Interim Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science was composed of the following people: Dr M. F. C. Day, F.A.A., Member of the Executive, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, who was the chairman; Professor C. Burdon-Jones, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University of north Queensland. Professor Burdon-Jones has been a pioneer in this work in the north. He is a highly trained scientist well capable of knowing the problems associated with the establishment of this Institute. I trust that the Government, in its political hurry to have this Institute established for the purpose of saving the seat of the incumbent member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett), has sought some advice from Professor Burdon-Jones. The other members were: Dr N. H. Fisher, Director, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics; Professor Dorothy Hill, C.B.E., F.A.A., F.R.S., Research Professor of Geology, University of Queensland; Mr W. Ives, Secretary, Department of Primary Industry; Dr D. F. McMichael, Director, National Parks and Wildlife Service, New South Wales; Professor R. J. Walsh, O.B.E., F.A.A., Professor of Human Genetics, University of New South Wales (nominated by the Australian Academy of Science). The Interim Council was assisted by Mr G. R.

Williams, secretary, and Mr W. Hartley, O’.B.E. lt is significant that my honourable opponent from the Country Party, Senator Lawrie, did not quote some of the proposals that have been made. I would have been interested to hear him quote one or two sections from the report instead of reading from the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (MiMalcolm Fraser). 1 will quote the proposals on page 6 of the report of the Interim Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science:

The Institute should be based at Cape Pallarenda near Townsville and a building complex of about 60.000 sq ft provided.

The capital costs of establishing the Institute aic estimated at $3,900,000, spread over the five years 1971-72 to 1975-76. The annual running costs would rise during this period from $67,000 to $1,171,000, and reach $1,300,000 on completion of the establishment phase in 1976-77.*

During the establishment phase of the Institute it should progressively acquire two research ships, one of about 80 ft and one of about 120 ft; initially ships should be obtained on charter or by some similar arrangement.

I was rather amused at the suggestion of my Country Party colleague that if the Government could afford a big boat it ought to buy one. The recommendation of the Interim Council is that 2 vessels ought to be purchased. Why cannot we do this? Is it because after the election, if the Government is successful, it will cut down the vote and take away money from the Institute? The proposals continue:

At the end of the establishment phase the Institute should have a total staff of about 130 Including about 24 research scientists. The Director should be appointed at the earliest possible date-

We tried to coax out of the Minister a while ago when the Director would be appointed and who was to be the Director. He played coy. I do not think that anybody has told him yet. Perhaps it was not thought wise to do so. I return to the recommendations:

The Director should be appointed at the earliest possible date so that he may assist in planning the Institute and in the organisation of research. It ls most important that the salary of the Director be fixed at a level’ which will attract a scientist of international eminence.

The appointing of the First Director should be the major thing that this Government now undertakes. If Senator Lawrie wants to nominate for the position he is perfectly free to do so.

Senator Maunsell:

– You pass the Bill and we will.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 do not know whether the honourable senator would be able to handle the position. But Senator Lawrie may be able to handle it because of his ability to don a wet suit and swim in Lake Burley Griffin. The proposals continue:

The research activities of the Institute should be directed initially to studies of the scientific problems of the Great Barrier Reef, the Coral Sea, and the coast, and coastal water of north Queensland.

I interpose there to say that Queensland is the last remaining State of Australia where a major marine survey has not been carried out, particularly in relation to fishing resources. I hope that the establishment of the Institute will contribute in some small way to a matter that the Government has neglected in the past. The proposals continue:

An Australian marine science council should be established to be the governing body of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, but also with broad functions and responsibilities for the coordination and development of marine science in Australia.

I wish to quote now from the Platform, Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor Party. They read:

Science must not be regarded as a compartment, separate from other aspects of life. It is a fountainhead of human progress, the source from which technological and social changes spring, and lt affects all aspects of life.

Australia desperately needs national scientific policies which will embrace not only planning for scientific research and development, but also enable the results of scientific research and development in Australia, and elsewhere, to be applied in every aspect of Australia’s industries and in its culture.

So we have an interim report. Because the Government has no policy it is necessary for the Interim Council to make a recommendation of this nature. But the Labor Party has this matter written into its own policy. The final paragraph in the recommendations states:

A Marine Research Fund should be established, under the control of the Australian Marine Science Council, to promote the development of marine science at universities, museums and other approved institutions.

The figures I have quoted as set out in the recommendations contained in the pamphlet are dated January 1971, a year and 4 months ago. With the escalating costs and the high inflationary trends this country is unfortunately experiencing because of misgovernment and mismanagement by the Government, this figure probably would have risen now by up to 30 per cent. So the decision to make available $8m over a period of time does not take into account that this amount will be stripped away because of these factors.

I shall quote - J think this is all bound up with the halting progress that is made through these decisions - a statement on the Australian environment, Commonwealth policy and achievements, issued on 24th May 1972 by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities (Mr Howson) or, as some nasty people call him, the Minister for Odds and Ends. lt shows what the Government thinks of the environment. The Government lumps it in with half a dozen other things and hopes that it will go away and it will not have to face up to its responsibility. This is what the Australian Labor Pary thinks of the importance of the environment: In its policy it proposes:

A Minister with direct responsibility for science and technology.

It goes on to list the duties, with a standing parliamentary committee to look at environmental matters all the time. This bears out what I said earlier - that this Government has taken the opportunity to establish this Institute merely as a political gimmick. I hope that from here on the Government will get away from that idea. Let us listen to this gem from the Minister’s statement when he quotes Mr Galbraith as saying:

The greater the wealth the greater will be the dirt.

Is that not what the Labor Party has been saying? It does not matter how minerals are taken out of the ground, it does not matter what is being exploited: nothing at all is done about getting rid of the waste, and if forests die in the process-

Senator Mulvihill:

– Where there is muck there is brass.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is another good quote. My colleague Senator Mulvihill says that where there is muck there is brass. Let us look at it this way: This Government has exploited the resources of this country, and its record in this regard has been particularly bad in the last 6 years. It has been ably assisted, of course, by State Governments such as the Queensland Government, which does not care what it despoils as long as it can make millions for itself. I wonder whether in their defence of the crown of thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef my Country Party colleagues were not subconsciously protecting the Premier of Queensland, who is dying to get his oily little hands on the Great Barrier Reef, to exploit it and to bring up the millions of barrels of oil that are undoubtedly in the depths around the Great Barrier Reef He does not care what happens to the Reef. But there will come a time, if that reef is ruined, when tides may sweep in over the low coastal lands and the environment will be wrecked further. I suggest that before people start defending what has been done they have another look at the matter.

I must quote a couple of other points frOm the policy of the Australian Government on the ‘ environment. It contains quotes from the recommendations of the Senate select committee. An honourable senator on the other side this morning was advocating the abolition of Senate select and standing committees because he said they took up too much of his holiday time. In other words he said: ‘They are taking up all of my recesses. That was the time when I used to be able to indulge in a little bit of rest/

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who was that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– He was an honourable senator from the Liberal Party.

Senator Wilkinson:

– He was at one time the President of that Party in New South Wales.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think he was at one time. Senator Carrick is his name, from memory.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Keeffe, I would like you to come back to the Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am being helped by a few people on both sides at the moment. I will certainly return to the argument.

The PRESIDENT:

– Digressions are reasonable but not total digressions.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Most of them are intelligent. The statement by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts set out 2 recommendations by the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Senator Gair, who is interjecting sounds like a starfish. These recommendations were made following much painstaking research by the Committee. The first recommendation is that there ought to be a national policy. The Committee stated:

Australia should adopt a National approach to the management of its water resources which sets out acceptable standards, co-ordinates the aims and aspirations of State and local government authorities, and creates the machinery to achieve them in balance with other national goals such as those for growth and development.

But further on the Minister states:

The Government acknowledges the attitude of the States, as expressed in the Australian Water Resources Council, that while they would welcome increased Commonwealth activity in liaison, information, research and other services, they could not accept the concept’ of a Commonwealth agency having the responsibilities described for a National Water Commission in Recommendation 2.

Recommendation 2 states:

The Government should lake urgent steps to establish a National Water Commission.

Hie functions of the Commission should include -

i he formulation of a national policy on water resources management;

an assessment of water resources and quality;

programming for the conservation and orderly development of water resources. lt should also be the administering authority for water resources within the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction.

Some of those matters will come under the control of an institute such as the one we are talking about establishing today. So let us not play politics with such an institute. Let us make it something to which everybody in the world can look in terms of research. Senator Maunsell will probably be one of the first specimens that is dissected at the Institute if he does not stop interjecting. I am not sure whether he has any marine elements in his biological makeup. If we are to set up this Institute we ought to do it properly, and it ought to be divorced from politics altogether.

Senator Gair:

– Scaley-

Senator KEEFFE:

– Sometimes people call Senator Gair the turtle. The Institute will be doing research into that creature too. Results of research carried out at the

Institute ought to be available to similar institutions throughout the world regardless of the country in which they are situated or the government of that country. It ought to be a place of such high repute that people studying marine sciences will come to Australia to Cape Pallarenda to be able to enlarge their knowledge, carry out proper research and make a worthwhile contribution to this country. 1 hope that the passage of this Bill will be the first step in the proper establishment of a proper institute and that it will continue to progress from there and not have its growth stunted by lack of funds from this Government.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I am pleased to support this Bill. Unlike Senator Keeffe, I, am very happy to see that the Australian Institute of Marine Science is to be established in Townsville. Senator Keeffe spent the whole of his time rubbishing the project and everything aso.ciated with it. I believe there is a necessity for an institute to study all aspects of life in the sea. Other benefits and by-products will come from such an institute. There is also a need to protect areas of scenic beauty such as our Great Barrier Reef. When we develop the Reef for our own nation and our own people, particularly ils oil resources, we have to bear in mind the effects that an oil spillage or any other pollution may have on this area. We also need a better knowledge of the sea and how to use all the resources of the sea effectively.

I am very pleased that this institute is being set up at Townsville for the simple reason that Townsville, as has been pointed out before, is a fairly large city which is situated pretty well near the centre of the Great Barrier Reef. With the university there, the necessary research can be undertaken in conjunction with the personnel who will be appointed to staff this institute. All sorts of arguments have been put up. Senator Keeffe immediately rubbished this proposal. He said that because the Greenvale smelter will be operating, the water will be polluted in that area and that prevention measures will not be effective. There is no reason in the world why acquariums have to be set up right at the mouth of the Herbert River or wherever the Greenvale plant is to be established.

Aquariums can be set up anywhere, wherever they are required. A lot of private museums are in that area now and no doubt they will be of great assistance to the Institute. I particularly refer to Green Island and Magnetic Island. New resorts are being established further up the main part of the Reef north of Cairns, and we will see excellent resorts on places such as Lizard Island. When that development takes place there will be an excellent area where research can be carried out.

It is necessary to carry out research on pests like the crown of thorns starfish. Senator Keeffe is like a lot of others - Senator Georges is another - who have been knocking the Queensland tourist industry for years. It is interesting to note that most of the Barrier Reef happens to be in 2 electorates held by the Labor Party, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Pulton) and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). One only has to listen to what they say about the knockers of the tourist industry in their area, and Senator Keeffe would well know that he is not very welcome in either of those 2 electorates because he has been knocking the tourist industry there.

One of the reasons for setting up the Institute of Marine Science is to track the migratory habits of the crown of thorns and other pests. If Senator Keeffe is allowed by the honourable member for Leichhardt to go into that area he will be able to visit the Reef north of Queensland where it has been rejuvenated. The crown of thorns starfish were plentiful there years ago but there has been a regrowth and the coral is better than it ever was. That is the opinion of people who have lived there for years and often go out to the Reef.

Senator Georges:

– State your authority for that.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– You have had your say.

Senator Georges:

– State your authority when you make a sweeping statement like that.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Go and talk to the people at the resorts, the people who own Green Island and Marineland, and the people who own the underwater observatory. They have been on the Reef for years.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to a point of order Mr President. I suggest that the honourable senator address the Chair instead of Senator Georges.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the point of order. Senator Maunsell has been intimidated by Senator Georges. If Senator Georges cannot restrain himself from time to time because of the excitement of events in which he finds himself involved, perhaps he would do me the honour of asking a question if he wishes to attract the attention of the honourable senator who is speaking. The civilities and comity of the Senate are such that an honourable senator on his feet who hears a reasonable question asked by an honourable senator on the other side or on his own side of the chamber generally answers it. 1 do not think that a constant barrage of interjections is suitable to the decorum of the Senate or the ease and well being of the President.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I was explaining to the Senate that the Institute is being set up so that we can investigate the habits of these pests. We know that some resorts have been devastated, particularly by the crown of thorns. We know that if we are to build up a tourist industry in north Queensland, particularly on the Barrier Reef, we must carry out a great deal of research into these things. It is all right for people to say that they know that these things are a pest and that this, that and the other should be done. They say that machinery should be established to get rid of these pests but I point out that the Reef is 1,500 miles long and God knows how many miles wide and, it would be impossible to meet the cost of destroying a pest in such a big area.

People interested in the tourist industry in Queensland have not been highlighting all of these things. I refer to the people who own Green Island and the Hayles organisation who protect those sections of the Reef to which they take tourists. During the tourist season they daily take a thousand tourists out to the Reef. They have been able to look after the Reef and show tourists various types of coral. Those people are not highlighting the points, as a lot of other people have been doing here, that the whole of the Barrier Reef has been destroyed by the crown of thorns and that it is a waste of time for anyone from overseas or the southern States to go there. We have to stop people saying that there is no coral left.

Many people have the interests of north Queensland and the Barrier Reef at heart. We should set up something along the lines suggested in this Bill and use our resources. The so-called Save the Barrier Reef Committee is only a political band wagon. Senator Georges can go to the area if he wishes and if he is so interested in looking after the Reef he and his supporters can contribute to the endowment scheme that is associated with it.

Senator Georges:

– How did they protect Green Island?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I visited Green Island 3 weeks ago. People in the tourist industry there still take people to the various little reefs that they took them to 6 years ago. Those reefs are in good order today.

Senator Georges:

– How did they protect the Reef in the first place? Do you know the answer?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– As I explained to you earlier, the crown of thorns went through there but the people looked after their particular section of the Reef. There is only a certain section of the Reef that people like to look at anyway. There is another interesting point which 1 suppose is associated with the setting up of the Institute. Senator Keeffe mentioned the Greenvale smelter and said that because of the ore to be treated there the waters will be polluted anyway. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they talk to the people who are setting up the Greenvale plant and get hold of a copy of the agreement that the Greenvale organisation has with the State Government. They will see what measures have been taken to ensure that there will not be the pollution that they would like to see. Those honourable senators who have been to New Caledonia and Noumea know what pollution is like there as a result of nickel mining ventures. It is interesting to note that the treatment plant at Townsville will be of the low heat type. It will be more like a water sluicing plant and therefore there will be little, if any, air pollution from dust raised at this plant. Also, there are hundreds of acres of land there on which spoil and waste material from the treatment plant will be spread. This will rejuvenate the land which is now mainly swamp. No pollution is expected from this plant.

Senator Keeffe:

– Are you sure?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I am telling you to read the contract and relevant Bill before criticising in this place anything that the Queensland Government or anyone else does. The people of Queensland are well aware of the identity of the knockers who are trying to knock any development in north Queensland. J will not detain the Senate any longer, Mr President. I understand that there are other speakers and we are all endeavouring to complete the business before us. I repeat that the Institute represents a great advance for Queensland and I am pleased to see that it is being built at Townsville. I support the Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– At this late stage of the sitting of the Senate in this sessional period it is not my intention to speak at length. The Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill is most important for Queensland and Australia. Although the Institute of Marine Science will be established on the far north coast of Queensland it will not be an institute which will be confined purely to an examination of the marine life in that area. But that will be one of its prime concerns because of the richness of that life and its variety and because of oceanographic and other features. This Institute will be available for marine research for the whole of Australia. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) in his second reading speech drew attention to the fact that marine scientists may resort there in general for investigations and to conduct research. Therefore this is a matter of national import. We in Queensland are naturally pleased and proud that the Institute has been set up in our State. Northern Queensland is particularly complimented that the Institute has been set up in that part of the Commonwealth. At this time, in general terms, Australia is carrying out the very important job of making an assessment of its national resources.

In this chamber various committees have been established to investigate many aspects of Australian political and administrative life. These committees are moving in the direction of establishing what is required by Australia for Australians at this period of our history. Committees are examining our social services programme, our financial programme, our financial structures, our legal and constitutional relations, domestic law and matters of that character. Now we have a committee which is examining the ownership of Australian resources. The Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill in establishing an organisation such as this Institute of Marine Science is a Bil] which again tends in the same direction. It is to establish an body which will examine the marine resources of Australia and, more particularly, this part of Australia. If we propose to plan the future of this Commonwealth as it should be planned for the next 100 years it is important that al this stage an assessment be made over all aspects of Australian life. 1 welcome this Bill, apart from its intrinsic and individual merits, as a Bill in consonance with the new national approach and the approach taken in this chamber.

I point out that the ambit of the operations of the Institute will not only be confined to the littoral waters, the bays and estuaries, but also will reach out to examine the deep waters which lie off our coast, the fish in those waters, the flow of the currents and the tides and all those things which have an effect upon marine life and which also have a profound effect upon Australian commerce and, to some extent, its relations with other countries. We know that Austrafia has not been particularly alert in mobilising the marine resources which lie around this vast continental shelf. We know that other nations have been more alert to the possibilities and potentials here. At times we have had trouble in policing areas which are within our constitutional jurisdiction. Yet it has been rather difficult to justify some of our actions in the light of our own disinterest in these very rich resources with which others are more acquainted than we are ourselves. An Institute such as this will in part, set about to remedy the situation and give Australians an awareness of this new area of riches which surrounds the continent. We are indebted to the Interim Council which made the necessary preliminary investigations on which the legislation is founded. I am somewhat at a loss in relation to a statement contained in the

Minister’s second reading speech. Perhaps he would be good enough to give his attention to this matter for a moment. Apparently there are still matters which require investigation and recommendation. The Minister, in his second reading speech stated:

The Bill does not of course deal with the equipment which will be essential to the work of the Institute. The nature of that equipment is a matter for discussion and decision by the Council and the Director of the Institute;

In the Minister’s second reading speech the word ‘Council’ is used in 2 ways. There is to be the permanently established, final Council which will control the Institute and there is the Interim Council.

Senator Keeffe:

– Some of that is included in the recommendations of the Interim Council.

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes. I was just wondering whether it is the Interim Council which is to go into the matter of equipment or whether it will be left to the Marine Council when it finally operates. If it is the former - the Interim Council - as far as I can see it is functus officio. Therefore 1 imagine that its ability to do this work has ceased and that it will go out of operation. Therefore it cannot be entrusted with the work which the Council is to do. When the Minister replies in this debate he might be kind enough to inform me of the actual position. I am delighted to see that the Institute is to co-ordinate and expand the activities of many other bodies both public and private which already operate in this field. I have had the opportunity of being at Mourilyan Harbour and seeing the investigations being carried out into the starfish and the Great Barrier Reef by dedicated marine biologists who are doing a magnificent job. But it is a job which is being done in isolation. There is nothing more difficult for an academic than to feel that he is working in intellectual isolation. But now with this Institute which is being created, a unit such as that at Mourilyan Harbour and interested private organisations will have an intellectual academic home at the James Cook University to which they can resort as one family investigating these important matters.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Commonwealth Fisheries and Extension Services Division, no doubt the Queensland

Fisheries Branch and appropriate departments in that State and, perhaps, departments in other States will contribute to and work in co-operation with the new Institute. I imagine that it has a magnificient future and opportunity to do a worthwhile job for Australia in the discovery, expansion and protection of our marine resources. I do not wish to protract this debate. I welcome the advent of this Bill. The amount of money provided is a very substantial sum. I am sure that the Institute will prove a worthwhile national investment. The Bill is welcomed enthusiastically by the people of Queensland. It will be particularly welcomed by the people of northern Queensland because, quite apart from the unit itself, it will stimulate the interest of the Australian people in northern Queensland which, geographically, is somewhat remote and where, sometimes, there is a feeling of isolation. I think that the advertence to the peed for an Institute such as this is probably some years belated. The Council has done a magnificent job. On behalf of the Australian Democratic Labour Party I express our indebtedness to the distinguished members of the Interim Council who made the necessary preliminary investigations. I am sure that they will be gratified that, substantially, their findings and recommendations are being carried into legislative effect by this Bill. I do hope that the Institute will nourish. I am sure that it will prove of immense value to Australia.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I express my approval of the Bill which is before the Senate for the establishment of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I feel that there is a real opportunity for this Institute to do very good work, particularly in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is a feature which is not only of value to Queensland but also is possibly the greatest international tourist drawcard this country has. I think it is something about which we should know more and of which we should be very proud. There has been a lot of talk - which really does not stand close investigation - about the Great Barrier Reef. A lot is said about pollution, about drilling on the Reef and about how dangerous these things are. But what we have to keep in mind is: What is the Great Barrier Reef? It extends almost from the coast of Papua New Guinea to midway between Mackay and Rockhampton. The actual Great Barrier Reef terminates at Swain Reef which is midway between Mackay and Rockhampton. The tourist resort of Heron Island and the associated neighbouring islands are spoken of as the Great Barrier Reef. There is even the Great Barrier Reef research station there which receives Government subsidies. But that island and the adjacent islands belong to 2 separate and distinct groups known as the Bunker and Capricorn groups.

My own idea of why it is called the Great Barrier Reef is that it is in barrier type formation. When we speak of it freely and easily as the Barrier Reef we are speaking of it wrongly. That is the type of reef. The reef which we are discussing is the Great Barrier Reef - the world’s greatest coral reef: In Noumea and other places one can hear people speak of the barrier reef but they mean the barrier-type reef which bounds their islands and their areas. Therefore, if we want to be specific we should refer to this reef of ours as the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is comprised of 3 different types of islands. The first is what is known as the atoll. It is an island which is not completely covered by sand. It has a lagoon in the centre. To my knowledge there is only one along the whole length of the reef, and that is Lady Elliott Island. The second type of island is one where the sand has swirled around and eventually a solid mass of sand has been built up. Heron Island, and Green Island off Cairns, are what we call coral islands. Bushy Island off Mackay is a similar type of island. The third type is what is known as the mainland island, and this is mostly where the tourist resorts are. It is felt, because these islands are mostly mountainous, that at one time they were part of the mainland, that the mainland became submerged and that these are the mountain tops or hill tops protruding above the water. That is how they became elevated types of islands.

The main part of the reef is a barrierlike structure further out again. Generally at high tide the main structure of the reef is covered over. The beauty of the reef is not always just on the top. With the lovely inlets of coral ravines and gorges, where the coral almost overlaps, and with the fish life it is a most entrancing place. If one waits for the tide to go off the main structure of the reef and one walks upon it it may be a bit disappointing because the live pieces of coral are just here and there. But there are lovely lagoons still remaining after the tide has gone out. Viewed from midway across and looking obliquely across it, the reef is like one of nature’s glorious flower gardens with all the different coloured pieces of coral edging onto each other. The reef extends a very great distance across, perhaps 40 miles or more. There are rivulets or inlets running through quite a number of these structures. The main structure is not always one solid mass. If one stands on it one will find a scries of waves breaking over it here and there. That is because a number of reefs fit into each other to make up the whole barrierlike structure.

I have been associated with the reef development for many years, lt is over 40 years since I first started to push for the development of the Great Barrier Reef as a tourist rendezvous for Australians and overseas people. In those days the tourist industry was laughed at and sneered at by many people. I helped to pioneer the development of the Great Barrier Reef as a tourist area. I am pleased to say that today the area I sponsored - the Whitsunday Islands and adjacent area - is the major tourist rendezvous of the Great Barrier Reef for Australian and overseas people. Whatever has been done to the present, we have really only scratched the surface compared with what the future holds for these areas. I would like to have seen this institute established a bit closer to those resort areas. Anyhow, it is being stationed in Queensland and I think it will serve a very great purpose.

The matter of pollution of the area has been referred to. We must keep in mind how far the reef goes out. As the reef comes down the coast it goes further out to sea. Some people will say: lt is closer here and it is further out somewhere else, and where it is closer is the best place to go. That is not usually the case. Just as in life and in other things, the hardest things to attain are often the best. So if one has to go further sometimes, it might be better. The further the reef swings out from the coast the less it is affected by the silt, mud and pollution of the coast. Therefore, out hi those areas very often one finds the best types of coral. When I first went out to the main structure of the reef after having established the island resorts, I felt that there was something further that we could find. I did a survey trip out to Tern, Red Bill and Bushy Islands which are directly off Mackay. Of all the areas of coral reef that 1 had seen they easily stood out as the best. The magnificent lagoons are formed because the current stops the sand from completely filling in. Standing on the rocks of Tern Island and looking at the coral lagoons in that area I felt that its beauty was so wonderful that I would never forget it. As we went across from the flat bottomed dinghy at low tide we saw the spit of sand coming out, and acres and acres of beautifully coloured coral. This indicated to me very clearly that the further out one goes for corals the better they are. I have seen none that can compare with the ones I saw at Tern, Red Bill and Bushy Islands - particularly at Tern Island.

Nature builds these marvellous things but nature also destroys. Some years later, after a very heavy fall of rain - we had 44 inches of rain in 3 days in Mackay - I took the late Director-General of the Queensland Government Tourist Bureau, Mr Alf Cole, a very fine personality who did much for the tourist industry, out to view this beautiful coral. But what had happened? Nature built this magnificent area of coral which was the best I had ever seen. When we went out it appeared just like a heap of stones. As nature had built so had nature destroyed. Because the tide was down for so many hours each day and because so much fresh water had fallen on the coral the reefs were destroyed completely. I have not had the opportunity to go out since, but I have spoken to a person who goes out in that area. He informed me recently that the coral had grown again and that it was, in his terms, better than ever. So nature does rebuild.

We have had trouble with the crown of thorns starfish. In certain areas of the reef there has been devastation. One of my colleagues from Townsville - Senator Maunsell or Senator Lawrie - said that the reef further north has grown again. Probably the devastation by the crown of thorns starfish has passed for some time and the same rejuvenation has gone on in that area as has taken place at Tern, Red Bill and Bushy Islands. There again nature, through one of the forms of marine life which it has created, has destroyed its own natural beauty. As far as my area is concerned - the Whitsunday islands and the Cumberland group - so far the crown of thorns does not seem to be making any inroads. We do not know why plagues such as the crown of thorns and various others take place. It is possible that the Marine Science Institute will tell us the story behind it. As Senator Georges said, it could be a cycle that has taken place or it could be some special epidemic. I was interested to read that a plague of starfish has affected not only the Australian Great Barrier Reef but also other reefs near Fiji and places further north. It could be some epidemic in the life of the reef or it could be something else. Let us hope that these are the things that the Marine Science Institue will find out for us. If it is necessary and if any control can be exercised, the Institute should develop it. Whilst we might be upset about some development and some adverse action of nature in the form of destruction, we have to remember that nature not only builds and destroys but also rebuilds.

In regard to pollution of the area, the better and more colourful reefs are mostly further out. We get very worried about certain possibilities. For instance, drilling for oil on the Reef has been talked about and there has been a great clamour about the great danger in it. But in many years of drilling there have been very few blowouts at sea. There was one at Santa Barbara and one somewhere else. These things can happen. But the greatest danger to the Great Barrier Reef from oil pollution is posed not by drilling on the Reef, should it take place, but by the tankers that ply up and down the channels of the Reef area. They go up and down those channels day in day out, week in week out, year in year out. If one of those tankers struck a rock it could do much more damage to the Reef than could the drilling for oil about which so many people are so greatly concerned. We have to keep in mind the relative risks and values of the different operations in which we engage. Despite the fears held about drilling for oil on the Reef, a far greater danger is posed by the ships plying up and down the passages, such as the Whitsunday Passage and the passages further north, where if a ship went on the rocks it could do a great deal of damage. Not so many years ago in the English Channel a ship ran aground and broke up, and as a consequence there was oil pollution on the beaches. The greatest danger of damage is posed by the size of tankers and the amount of oil they can carry.

Senator Georges:

– But it is an extra risk, is it not?

Senator WOOD:

– Yes. We have to keep a balance in our minds between the risks and the gains. I have always been a very keen conservationist. In fact, long before people who are now talking about the preservation of the Reef began doing so, I was one of the people who talked to the Queensland Lands Department and helped in the agitation that took place for the preservation of the islands in order to make them national resorts. As a consequence, most of them now are national resorts. When certain people moved, I supported them in various ways. In my district of Mackay, through my own agitation the Eungella National Park - 120,000 acres of the most beautiful rain forest or tropical jungle that one can see - was set aside as a national park so that present and future generations might see the glorious beauty of that country. I do not decry people who are keen on conservation, because I am a preservationist myself. But we have to strike a balance between what we can extract for our use and what we can preserve for our use. If we do that, we will achieve some sense in the matter.

The Great Barrier Reef is the greatest tourist attraction we have in Australia. Senator Gair, as a former Premier of Queensland, will know of my association with the Great Barrier Reef development over many years because he was in the Queensland Parliament for quite a long time when I was engaged in this work. I am very keen that we should do everything possible to find out everything - the whys and the wherefores - about the Great Barrier Reef, in relation to not only the coral but also the life in it and the possibilities for it. An institute such as this could very well give us the answer to the question: How should we go about keeping this wonderful heritage which we in Queensland, in particular, have and in which Australians generally can share? So, with those words, 1 commend the Bill now before the Senate and sincerely hope that the establishment of the Institute will bring to each and every one of us the fulfilment of the dearest hopes of those of us who have a true love of this country and the great assets we have, such as the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I will not detain the Senate long because this Bill has been canvassed quite extensively. As a Queenslander I am proud that the Australian Institute of Marine Science laboratory is to be built in Townsville; but as an Australian I am even more proud that legislation of this nature is being introduced into the national Parliament. lt is a fine tribute to Australia that we are doing something of this nature to assist not only ourselves but also marine scientists throughout the world. That is my contribution on that aspect of the legislation.

There are one or two points in the second reading speech of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), which require some examination. In the first place the Interim Council reported in July 1971 and made some fairly substantial recommendations. In particular, it recommended that early consideration be given to the appointment of a Director. I read now from the second reading speech of the Minister, as recorded on page 1903 of Hansard of 23rd May 1972. The Minister said:

I turn now to the duties and responsibilities of the Director of the Institute. In order to develop the Institute into a first class research institution, the first important task of the Council will be to seek, on a world-wide basis, applications for the position of Director and to select an individual of high scientific stature.

The Minister will recall that I discussed this point quite extensively in Estimates Committee C and asked whether we could not rind in Australia someone who would be able to do this job. I come back now to the report of the Interim Council which said in July 1971 that as an early requirement, we .should seek the services of someone to fill the position of Director. I take the point up with the Minister and say that had the Interim Council’s recommendation been acted upon al that time it would have given us some start on the whole project. It may have given us the opportunity to select the best Australian available for this position and to send him overseas to study some of the requirements of the position of Director. In that direction the Government has failed to lake sufficient notice of the Interim Council’s report.

I note that this project will cost $8m over 5 years. That is not a particularly substantial amount of money. I inject into the discussion the amount that has been spend on the Vietnam war - $465m - so that we may realise what a costly exercise the war in Vietnam has been. Had we not been engaged in that turmoil we most certainly would have been able to build substantially more research laboratories than we are building at the present time.

Senator Georges:

– -$435m.

Senator MILLINER:

– The amount was $465m. 1 close on the note on which I commenced: I am proud that this Bill has been introduced into the national Parliament. I hope that the venture will be successful and to the advantage of all mankind.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - In closing the debate on this Bill I must acknowledge the stimulation of interest apparent from the fact that no fewer than 7 honourable senators have addressed themselves to the Bill, and in terms of real earnestness. I was attracted particularly by the speech made by Senator Wood who showed his close association wilh the Reef which, quite appropriately, he insists on calling the Great Barrier Reef. We must not get the impression from the concentration upon all the great wonders and riches of the Great Barrier Reef that the Australian Institute of Marine Science is devoted exclusively to the interests and problems of the Reef. It is in a universal sense an institute of marine science. However, its siting near Townsville is an indication of the emphasis that the Government places upon the Reef as an object of the Institute’s interest.

Reference has been made to the plan by which the Government should pursue marine science. In this respect, those listening casually to the remarks from some of the less responsible contributors to the debate would gain the impression that the Government’s approach to this subject has been without plan. I remind the Senate that the Reef has received consistent and continuous attention from the Commonwealth Government in co-operation with the Government of Queensland. I remind honourable senators that when the crown of thorns starfish was so prominently occupying the news, the Government appointed an extremely distinguished committee of scientists to make an investigation. That committee reported to the Government as long ago as March 1971. Lest anybody should place imp) ici I reliance upon the figures that have been quoted during this debate today I inform the Senate that the committee, with all its knowledge, referred in paragraph 4.6 of its report to the extreme doubt as to the reliance that could bc placed upon any of the statistical figures that had been given.

Senator Georges:

– That report was subsequently severely criticised.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The honourable senator will benefit if he will allow me to make a point or two, give consideration to what I say and keep a rein on his tongue. The report went on to say that the position might be summarised by stating that the difficulties of sampling during surveys meant that the available methods of estimating population densities of the crown of thorns were rather crude. That is a word that I think Senator Georges would understand. As 1 have said, that report was made in March 1971.

That committee recommended research. The Government established a programme of research which is being implemented throughout the year at a cost of $70,000. Following the establishment of that programme, as the Senate will be aware the Government took measures to tighten our laws relating to pollution of the sea. I remind the Senate that the Government then established a royal commission to determine measures for the preservation of the Reef. It is to be regretted that the royal commission has not yet completed its work. The most significant development in the Government’s programme has been the constitution of the Interim Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science which, under the Bill that we are now considering, will be superseded by a permanent Council.

In response to the honourable senator who found some difficulty in identifying the Council referred to in the second reading speech let me state that the Interim Council’s work was fulfilled once it had made recommendations to the Government as to a plan by which the permanent Institute should be established. When we talk of the Council making recommendations as to the establishment of the Institute we refer to the permanent Council which is being established under this Bill.

Although the Great Barrier Reef is one of the prime objects of the Institute’s attention, it is not the only area Or object which will engage the Institute’s attention in the discharge of its functions. In that respect I take some interest in reminding the Senate of the terms of clause 6 of the Bill which states:

The Institute is not limited, in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, to Australia and the territorial waters of Australia and this Act applies both within and outside Australia and extends to all the Territories of the Commonwealth not forming part of the Commonwealth. 1 come next to the references that were made, I thought quite appropriately, to the need for the Institute to associate its work with other institutions. No-one would conceive of an institute of this character isolating itself within itself. Those who have any concern for the matter will find in clause 9 of the Bill that the functions of the Institute are:

to arrange for the carrying out of research in marine science by any other institution or person;

to co-operate wilh other institutions and persons in carrying out research in marine science;

To dispel any idea that the Institute will keep information to itself I point out that (d) states: to provide any other institution or person with facilities for carrying out research in marine science or otherwise assist any other institution or person in carrying out research in marine science;

We should be reminded that during the last 2 or 3 years specific agreement has been reached with the American authorities for the interchange of scientific knowledge. I have no doubt that full cooperation will be forthcoming from scientists not only in America but also in Great Britain.

I refer next to the cost of buildings which was mentioned by an honourable senator during the debate. I remind the Senate that it is stated that the appropriation for the Institute over the next 5 years is expected to be $8m. Of that amount about $5. 5m will be available for capital costs in the initial period of establishment. The exact amount will be determined by decisions still to be made about the types of vessels to be provided and their equipment. Recurrent costs over the same period are expected to absorb $2. 7m. When the Institute has been finally established it is expected that the annual running cost will be about $1.35m. I am pleased at this very forward, penetrating and impressive contribution that the Government is making to the development not only of the Great Barrier Reef, which is one of our most precious national assets, but also of our much more extensive national asset, the coastline of our continent.

I am very pleased at the reception that this proposal has received. We should also take great pleasure in finding that the Parliament is now giving full authority for the permanent Council to go ahead with the work that is specified in the Bill. The last thing I wish to say is that the Bill provides that one of the duties of the Council will be to make recommendations to the Government as to the appointment of the Director. As I said in the second reading speech, the appointment of a scientist of pre-eminence as Director will be a great factor in the success or otherwise of this Institute. Therefore it would be putting the cart before the horse to suggest that we should have proceeded to the appointment of a Director ere this. The Council will be constituted. Its knowledge will provide for us a recommendation for a Director and the Director will be the key figure in the successful establishment of this Institute. I submit the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The question is that this Bill stand as printed. Those of that opinion say aye, those against no, I think the ayes have it.

Senator Georges:

– Wait a moment, I was on my feet. I wish to speak.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You were rather slow.

Senator Georges:

– Slow? - I was standing on my feet. Am I supposed to attract your attention by calling across the chamber?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I now call Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. I did not wish to be discourteous. However, I believe I must add a comment to the reply which was made by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) when he introduced the recent report of the committee appointed by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments on the problem of the crown of thorns starfish. Let me make the point that although we are not quite certain what has caused the crown of thorns infestation and we are not quite certain whether it is a man-made epidemic or a cyclic epidemic, it would be to the disadvantage of us all and to the disadvantage of the future of the Great Barrier Reef if we were deliberately to play down the level of this threat. One of the unfortunate parts of the recent recommendation is that it did play down the threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Since the report has been tabled comments have been made and I direct the attention of honourable senators to them. The report effectively stopped and in other ways affected the plans of various organisations which desire to do something immediately about the crown of thorns threat. Mr Walt Deas, who is a very distinguished underwater photographer and researcher said:

I personally do not agree with the joint CommonwealthQueensland report. With many months of working up on the Reef during the past 2 years, one soon finds out-

Senator Wright:

– I rise on a point of order. I have no objection to the honourable senator briefly making a rejoinder on a report which has been referred to. But this report is not the subject of the Committee’s consideration. The Committee’s consideration is directed to the terms of the Bill. I ask that the honourable senator keep within the relevance of the matter before us.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I uphold the objection. The honourable senator is required in the Committee stage of the Bill to address himself to the terms of the clauses of the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. I wish to be brief and there are only a few more lines which I wish to read. In effect the material was introduced by the Minister in his second reading speech.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are not now discussing the Minister’s second reading speech.

Senator GEORGES:

- Mr Chairman, if I cannot make these remarks during the Committee stage I will have to speak at the third reading stage. I do not desire to do this. Therefore, if you would give me just a few moments I will merely read what I desire to read. Mr Deas said:

With many months of working up on the Reef during the past 2 years, one soon finds out that various reefs have had extensive damage caused by the Starfish.

I would also like to place on record very quickly the following extract from Mr Deas’ article. It states:

The latest report by Professor A. K. 0’Gower Professor of Zoology, University of NSW, Miss Isobel Bennett, Sydney University and Dr D. F. McMichael, Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Services of NSW states that systematic sampling by Dr Endean is ‘adequate . . .

This was even though the committee refused to accept his evidence as valid. The article to which I am referring further said:

The findings of the Commonwealth/Qld Committee ‘was based on its interpretation of the evidence presented to it and not upon its own inadequate sampling.’ These 3 Australian scientists all specialists in marine life have rejected the findings of the above Committee which declared the Crown of Thorns Starfish was not a serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef.

I introduce this as a rebuttal of what the Minister has said and I ask the Senate to take note of it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2465

PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May (vide page 1970), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– This is a Bill which seeks the approval of Parliament for the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings by Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Bill has only 9 clauses but a wealth of information is contained in schedules and schedules to schedules. In order to get the best interpretation of what is involved in this Bill I think we can refer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). The Minister pointed out that there were 2 major matters under consideration. The first one was a guarantee by the Commonwealth of $8.4m which would be borrowed by the Administration of Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the second was a guarantee of a credit that would be given to Papua New Guinea by the International Development Association which is an affiliate of the International Bank.

We find that the purposes of the Bill are set out more clearly in the Minister’s second reading speech than they are in the schedule of the Bill. The first section proposes a guarantee by the Commonwealth of $8.4m. It states: lt includes the provision of about 13,500 lines of local automatic exhange equipment, including the replacement of 3,300 lines of existing equipment; the associated distribution plant and subscribers equipment; about 650 additional long distance circuits on existing routes; the installation of telex exchanges with a total capacity of about 600 lines and the provision of about 500 teleprinters.

I was interested in that part of the Minister’s speech because it dealt with telephone equipment. It brought to mind the fact that some years ago a measure was introduced to provide funds for the installation of telephone equipment. I refer to the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act of 1968. The schedule to the Act shows that a loan of $7m was guaranteed. It was to provide approximately 10,000 lines of local automatic exchange equipment with associated buildings, etc., an ultra-high frequency radio long distance system connecting Port Moresby, Lae, Madan, Goroka and Mount Hagen and very high frequency and high frequency radio long distance links which would connect 26 more remote exchanges.

I refer now to the Papua New Guinea report for 1970-71. It has just been dis.tribured to honourable senators and, I would take it, to members of the other place as well. On pages 121 and 122 there is set out the work that was to be done as a result of the loan in 1968. It lists the exchange equipment. It was: A new 1,000 line automatic exchange at Arawa, a new 530 line automatic exchange at Panguna, 1 new 200 line automatic exchange in the industrial area of Bougainville, a 400 line automatic exchange at Kieta, a 1,000 line exchange at Goroka, a 1,000 line automatic exchange at Mount Hagen, a 600 line automatic exchange at Wewak, a 400 line automatic exchange at Waigani and a 1,000 line automatic exchange extension at Boroko. In addition the allocation of funds was to be used to install a number of telephone channels; I will not go through all of them. The number to be provided in the scheme was 756. That was quite a large installation. The concluding note on page 121 states:

Note - All the above items are part of the World Bank Section of the Department’s programme and, as such, are scheduled to be completed in the 1971-72 financial year.

So I take it that these items are almost at the point of completion. I referred to the exchange items, the automatic equipment and the extra 650 long distance circuits mentioned in the Minister’s speech. If we look at the present Bill we see that, although the Government has not very much say about what Papua New Guinea is doing, it is installing a very sophisticated communication system in Papua New Guinea. I would say that the system is probably in advance of much of the equipment that Australia has. The equipment referred to in the present Bill will be in addition to the equipment that was to be installed as a result of the 1968 Bill.

I wonder to what extent the equipment which is being installed in such considerable measure is being maintained correctly.

This is one of the major problems to be faced when sophisticated equipment is introduced into a country which has not been trained in the proper use of it and has not the large number of technicians and engineering staff required to maintain that equipment. I remember particularly the case a few years ago when Carrier channel equipment was installed in Pakistan by America, on loan. A senior PostmasterGeneral’s Department technician was sent there to instruct the people there on the use and maintenance of that equipment. The Carrier equipment which had been installed had 15 telephone circuits on one pair of wires. The technician found that, instead of repairing a fault which occurred on one channel, they switched that channel off. So after a few months of operation they were back to their original open wire circuit and none of the channels was working. This surprising thing could happen in a country which has sophisticated equipment and not the ability to maintain it properly.

I am not saying that there are not qualified people in Papua New Guinea who could maintain the equipment, but the installation of equipment of the type that is envisaged at present will require quite a lot of trained personnel. At page 122 of the Papua New Guinea report the number of trainee enrolments as at 30th June 1971 are set out. The number is tremendous! It is: Technicians, 1st year, 16; 2nd year, 4; 3rd year, 13; 4th year, 7; 5th year, 4. How on earth they can maintain and keep in good order a very large installation such as that envisaged in the Bill is beyond me. I speak as a person experienced in this field. We have no way of preventing the expenditure, and I do not think we should, but I am drawing attention to the difficulties that might be faced in a country such as this when there is to be such a large installation.

The Commonwealth will guarantee a credit of $7.7m for improvements to the ports of Port Moresby, Lae and Kieta and the construction of a new small port at Alotau. I found it difficult to discover any mention of this expenditure in the Bill. I looked through the Bill. I looked to see whether it was a carry over from the 1970 Bill, which dealt only with the provision of roads. I looked at the schedule to that Bill to find om what was involved. Roads were being constructed in Papua New Guinea then. Quite an extensive network of roads was under construction, including new ones. The amount provided under the Bill was $US9m. But the Bill contained nothing about an extension of ports. As I have given the details of the 1968 Bill in which there was nothing about ports I wonder whether the improvements to ports and the construction of a new port are actually under consideration in this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me on that because J cannot find any reference to it. My remarks are a criticism only of an attitude that might be adopted on occasion. 1 mentioned what happened in Pakistan. I know that for a fact. It could happen in this case as a result of the expenditure of the loan from the International Bank, lt is a situation that ought to be watched. We are guaranteeing the loan. For that reason, I think we have some responsibility. We are guarantors and therefore 1 think we have some responsibility.

While I am on my feet, I express appreciation of the interest rate that will be charged. I think that the low interest rate for what is just a holding credit is very satisfactory, Then there will be a rate of about 7 per cent to pay when the money is used if called upon by the administration of Papua New Guinea. I think this is to be commended. 1 so commend it. The Opposition is not opposing this Bill. With those points that I have made, we will give the Bill a speedy passage.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - I thank the honourable senator for his observations and note that the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. I had proposed to take some time on this matter but as 1 think there is quite a lot of work ahead of the Senate yet I do not think that it is justified. I think that Senator Wilkinson and other honourable senators will know that this is a second loan from the International Bank. It is fundamentally a telecommunications loan although there are some port associations. The first loan has been mentioned in the second reading speech and the present loan specifically covers most of the foreign exchange cost of a second project which is designed to expand and utilise the facilities provided in the first project by the extension of telephone facilities and the installation of modern telex facilities. Work on the project will commence fairly soon. Telecommunications, both rapid and reliable are quite essential in Papua New Guinea. Honourable senators who have been to Papua New Guinea understand the remoteness of the Territory and its inaccessibility. This is one of the reasons why civil aviation has been so important to communications in New Guinea. It is one of the reasons why telecommunications are so important and need to be safe and reliable.

I shall not seek to add to what the honourable senator said about some of the partners involved. However, I want to make one or two observations because 1 thought that some of the things that he said were worthy of being directed back to the responsible department. He was quite correct when he said that this is sophisticated equipment, lt was equally correct for him to say that it is very important for this kind of equipment to have good service, good maintenance and great care. This, normally, is associated with what, might be called a ‘higher level of technical competence’ than, perhaps, one might find in an emerging territory. 1 think we would have to accept the proposition that the Bank has been wise - and so has the Administration - to seek to develop a fast, safe, reliable telecommunications network in this emerging country with which we ourselves have so much to do. This is such a country that one has to have communications. I regard the air links as something to which it has been necesary to attend. The honourable senator’s observations about training and the need for good maintenance and the difficulties connected with this sophisticated equipment were very true. They also apply in the aviation field. I am informed that the posts and telegraph people have had advice from international consultants and have resorted to overseas recruitment including staff from the Australian Post Office in order to ensure that maintenance schedules are properly carried out. The Posts and Telegraphs Department and the World Bank are aware of the difficulties involved in maintenance and the Department is planning further training facilities. The type of equipment to be used has been specifically selected so as to require the minimum amount of skilled maintenance although, without doubt, some will be necessary.

Senator Wilkinson has referred to the ports that arc specified and I shall not go over that matter again. I think that his observation is adequately answered by the comment that the credit will be guaranteed by the Commonwealth under section 75a of the Papua New Guinea Act 1949-71. The form of guarantee required from the Commonwealth by the International Development Association for credit to Papua New Guinea does not require specific legislation. This subject has been covered so honourable senators will be aware of what is involved. I think that Senator Wilkinson’s comments on the interest rates were perfectly correct. It is an appropriate rate. 1 think this is a sensible thing to have done. I will see that the observations that Senator Wilkinson made as a person with his own skills in this field of telephone maintenance are directed to the responsible people in the administration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2468

TARIFF BOARD BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May (vide page 1972), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Bill before the Senate proposes to amend the Tariff Board Act to give effect to a recommendation that 2 additional members be appointed to the Tariff Board and that the restrictions that previously applied to public servant members be increased. There is an assurance that not only will the appointment of the additional members assist materially in speeding up the progressive review of the tariff but also that the inquiries will be full and thorough and that every opportunity will be given, as in the past, to manufacturers te put their case. The Opposition does not oppose this measure and we give it a speedy passage.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - I thank the honourable senator for his observations and I note that the Opposition does not intend to oppose this Bill. It is an important Bill which will provide the Tariff Board with the facility to complete its work more quickly. All honourable senators who are interested in tariffs would, I think, be in agreement with that principle. We have spoken in earlier years about the need for such improvements and now that these improvements have been introduced, I am glad that they have been welcomed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2468

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May (vide page 1973), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– This Bill is designed to amend section 36 of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 for the purpose of adding an additional $10,000 to the appropriation of this Committee so that it can properly carry out its functions. The Opposition has no intention of opposing this measure. As everybody knows, the Public Works Committee performs the extremely valuable task of examining those Commonwealth works costing in excess of S0.75m that are to be carried out by the Department of Works at the behest of other Commonwealth departments.

It is interesting to note that in the 1960s only 3 or 4 references were made to this Committee annually. The average in recent years has been about 22 references a year. An examination I have made of the programme before the Committee indicates that the number of references this year will be well above the latter figure. The references that are before the Committee at present and that are likely to be before the Committee by the end of the current calendar year are such that it is quite obvious that there should be an increase in the standing appropriation in the Public Works Committee Act for expenses from $20,000 to $30,000. It is important that the Committee be able to examine adequately and properly the work that it has before it. That often entails not only meeting in the national capital but also travelling from State to State and place to place to examine projects and hear evidence in public from persons who support or oppose certain projects or want them altered. For that reason, the Opposition does not oppose this measure.

But 1 do find it necessary - I shall be as brief as possible - to raise some matters associated with the work of the Committee in relation to an examination it made of the proposed naval base, HMAS ‘Stirling’, on Garden Island in Western Australia. The Committee as would be known because its report on this project has been tabled in the Senate, visited Western Australia and took evidence for 4 days in Perth on what turned out to be one of the most interesting references it has had for some time. The public interest in this reference was substantial. The vast majority of the evidence heard by the Committee came from members of the public who desired to have access to Garden Island for the purpose of boating and other forms of recreation. lt appeared prior to that public hearing that the Department of the Navy desired the whole of Garden Island to be closed to public access at all levels. In early evidence the Committee was able to obtain an indication from the Department of the Navy and the Department of Works that some 350 acres would be made available to the people of Perth for public access and recreational purposes. Following evidence from many interested organisations and individuals that spanned a period of 4 days, including 3 night sessions - the Committee sat for many hours in relation to this matter - the Navy finally indicated at that public hearings - I stress the word public’ hearing - that it would approve of public access to 1,250 acres of this very lovely and unusual island. Some members of the Committee indicated that they would have preferred to see a larger area made available, but I felt that we had probably gained as much as we could hope to get from the Navy in this regard.

The Committee returned to Canberra for the purpose of hearing additional evidence from another organisation and of finalising its report. That to my mind seemed to be the final offer from the Navy. But on 18th April the Committee received further correspondence from the Department of the Navy indicating that it would be possible - I must emphasise that this matter was still the subject of consideration by the Committee - for an area of up to 1,800 acres to be made available to the public of Western Australia. This, as 1 indicated earlier, was a top public issue in Western Australia, so much so that many people became interested in giving evidence to the Committee. We, as a committee, were considering all the submissions that had been put before us in an endeavour to ascertain what we believed it would be possible to recommend in our report as an area for public service, and also taking into consideration the needs and the security of the Department of the Navy and the safety of persons who may desire to use the island, because associated with this programme was the establishment of an armaments depot for the storage of very high explosive war weapons.

While this matter was under consideration we found that the information contained in the letter, which was in our hands and which was dealt with by the Committee sitting in private, was the subject of a Press release by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr McMahon, on 5th May last in Perth. So important was this Press release that it was the top front page story in the ‘West Australian’ of that date. It indicated that the information our Committee had received by letter from the Department of the Navy was the decision of the Government. The decision had been made before our report had been submitted to this Parliament; indeed, the matter was under active consideration. It was a matter of beating the gun. This caused great concern to the Committee, so much so that it was discussed by the Committee. I do not propose to go into details of those discussions other than I think it is fairly accurate to state that the Committee was concerned that such a matter should be the subject of a Press release and could embarrass the Committee in making its final decision. Because of the time factor I do not propose to quote from the official report, but I shall read from the official text of the statement made by the Prime Minister. In answer to a question in relation to this matter the Prime Minister said:

We had the Commonwealth Public Works Committee examining the problem, and they will shortly be submitting a report to us. And 1 also got the Minister for the Navy . . . and we have decided in the last few days, without actually moving to a final decision, to increase the size of the coastline that could be used, from 7 to 10 miles out of the total 14 miles. And we’ve also decided -

I emphasise those words - to increase the acreage that could bc used by civilians under the control of the Navy from 1,250 acres to 1,800 acres.

The Committee was then in the position that if it had decided to make a different recommendation in relation to this matter it would have been seriously embarrassed by the pre-empting of our report by the utterances of the Prime Minister. I take the point that if a letter that conies before the Committee in private, as this letter did, had been released by me to the Leader of my Party in order to jump the gun for political purposes in Western Australia, I would have been in serious breach of the Public Works Committee Act, and action under the Act could well have been taken against me.

I emphasise at this stage that the Public Works Committee is a committee which works extremely well outside the political field; it works in the interests of formulating recommendations and getting answers on matters it must investigate. The question of scoring political points off each other has never occurred, to my knowledge. It certainly has not reared its head at any level during the period of time that I have been a member of the Committee, and I hope it remains that way because the issues that we are examining are extremely important to this nation. The big works programmes that are to be carried out are extremely important to the development of the Northern Territory, in particular, and, to a lesser extent, to the Territory of Papua New Guinea.

I now turn to what happened following the reference to this matter in another place by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). A question was asked of the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) by Mr Hamer on 25th May 1972. In his reply the Minister stated:

This decision was conveyed immediately to the Public Works Committee which, it so happens, without our knowledge was then sitting in private. The information was expected and anticipated by the Public Works Committee, as indicated in its report which is before the House.

By no stretch of the imagination was this report or this letter anticipated or expected. As I said earlier in my remarks, it is true that as a Committee we indicated to the Department of the Navy that we would like to see further areas made available but, as a member of the Committee, I neither expected nor anticipated any further submissions from the Department of the Navy regarding this matter. Time will not permit me to develop my argument as I would like, but the Minister indicated in his answer that the information given was information which the public had a perfect right to know. I state, quite clearly and emphatically, that if this is the position with correspondence that goes to a committee which has to report to this Parliament and a committee member is free to give that information to his leader to enable him to go to a State and get political capital from it, as was obtained on this occasion, the whole system of committee confidence will break down completely. A precedent not only was established but also was condoned by the Minister for the Navy in his reply.

Senator McLaren:

– The same thing happened last week.

Senator POYSER:

– That is another matter which the honourable senator may refer to in the time at his disposal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! I have allowed the honourable senator to continue speaking without intervening, but the Bill has a limited purpose and the matter which the honourable senator has traversed is not related to the subject matter of the Bill. I trust that he will not pursue it further.

Senator POYSER:

– I thought that as this Bill amended the appropriation for the Committee some reference to the work of the Committee and the reasons why additional money was necessary would be justified. However I do not desire to pursue this any further other than to put the record straight and to indicate my concern that a precedent can be established in this manner whereby members of a committee will be able to pre-release information or use it themselves for their own political gain.

I hope that what happened on this occasion, if it was an accident, will not occur again. 1 certainly do not appreciate the Minister for the Navy condoning it in the manner in which he has done. Although it could have been completely accidental I have a suspicious mind and have been in politics a long time and I can see the advantage that there was to the Prime Minister in being able to make this public announcement in the manner in which he did. I would like to have made further references to the statement made by the Minister for the Navy last night in relation to the comments made by the honourable member for Hughes in another place, but I bow to your previous ruling in relation to this matter as it may conflict with the Bill before us. I leave the matter at that but indicate that 1 will take the opportunity at a future date to refer to this matter. I believe that the work of the Public Works Committee, because of the heavy programme before it, is such that we may have to re-examine the situation in relation to the sittings of the Committee.

Perhaps we will have to investigate the appointment of a second Public Works Committee so that the work to be placed before the Public Works Committee can be thoroughly processed. The programme of the Committee is such that it will be necessary for it to sit through the recess - of course, that is natural for any committee - but it would also appear that the Committee will be sitting on each Monday and Friday of the spring parliamentary session, and almost every week during the recess. That is a very heavy programme. Very important works will be under examination. The Committee will be travelling many thousands of miles around Australia, and in this recess into Papua New Guinea. The Minister could profitably examine whether this is an extraordinary work load or whether the pattern is likely to continue at its present high level. If it is likely to continue a second joint Public Works Committee could well be established to examine properly all the major works to be carried out by the Commonwealth in the future. We do not oppose the Bill and we wish it a speedy passage.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– The Bill before the House seeks to amend only one section of the Act, but it is a very important section because through it finance is provided for the working of the Public Works Committee. When I was a member of the Committee I found its work very interesting, but like Senator Poyser I have wondered when its work load will be eased. The great bulk of its work is in the Northern Territory, and by the terms of the Public Works Committee Act every work site that is referred to the Committee has to be inspected. In addition the hearings of the Committee involve constant travel. One can therefore appreciate why a 50 per cent increase in the amount to be allocated to the Committee is required. The Public Works Committee is very fortunate in its operations in having a very competent staff. The staff is sworn to secrecy on confidential matters, as are the members of the Committee. That is because of the very nature of the work of the Committee. In my experience quite frequently the Secretary of the Committee would place before members confidential information particularly as to costs. It would be dangerous if that information was released before the tenders for the works were called. This is a large part of the responsibility that committees of this nature have to carry. As you know from your experience on the Committee, Mr Deputy President, there is very little security in this place for confidential documents.

I was in Perth during the recent visit of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I not only saw the Press report but I also heard the Prime Minister make on television his statement about public access to the land concerned. 1 want to say quite frankly that for some time prior to the hearing of the Committee in Perth I had been assisting the Western Australian organisation known as Environment 2,000 in the preparation of the case it would put to the Public Works Committee for extra public access to Garden Island. It came as quite a shock to me to learn that the Prime Minister would be making a statement on a matter that was admitted by him still to be subject to the consideration of the Committee. The Prime Minister did say that the matter was before the Public Works Committee and that he expected that the report of the

Committee on this reference would be presented to the Parliament in a very short time. So, it is quite clear that the whole subject matter was under consideration. The Prime Minister’s visit to Western Australia for 4 days was advertised as being for the purpose of commencing the campaign there for the forthcoming elections. That was advertised throughout Western Australia. Therefore, it cannot be taken that this was other than a political move.

I leave the matter there. 1 have sat here throughout the period that Mr McMahon has been Prime Minister of Australia. I have watched the mistakes that he has made over the years. But he is an experienced politician. He has been a member of this Parliament since 1949. He would appreciate, I would think, the confidential nature of information that is provided to committees - not only the Public Works Committee but also other committees. I hope that, as a result of what happened in another place in the course of consideration of this measure and what has happened here today, the Prime Minister will be a little more careful, when he is making public statements, to ensure that he does not breach the confidences that are within the terms of reference of committees.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - This is a small Bill which is designed to amend the Public Works Committee Act to provide for an increase in the standing appropriation in that Act to cover the expanding expenses of the Public Works Committee. I take the occasion to say how much I, as Minister for Works, appreciate the reliability and expedition with which the Public Works Committee performs its function. I believe that it has a most important practical job to do. Its examination of the major works projects in the Government’s programme is of great assistance to the Government. In the 4 years I have been Minister for Works the relationship between the Public Works Committee and the Minister has been most cordial. On any matter on which I think the Committee would wish to express a view, I consult with it.

But I am bound to say that I think that the whole of the reference made today is completely misconceived. I believe that there is not the slightest basis for any complaint wilh regard to what has been done in this respect. Let me lay the foundation of fact with regard to this matter. The project was to be sited on Garden Island, Western Australia. It was a project for a naval base. Garden Island consists of 2,900-odd acres. One of the questions incidental to the Committee’s inquiry was as to how much of that area could remain, notwithstanding the establishment of the naval base, available for access by the public. As Senator Poyser has suggested, in its submission the Department of the Navy commenced by proposing a small area. During the public hearings, the Department of the Navy assented to a view that that area could be increased to 1,250 acres. Then the Department of the Navy, following discussions - I think quite rightly - took into consideration whether that area could be extended. If the Naval Board decided that the area could be extended, there was nothing to preclude any proper agency of the Government announcing to the public a decision of the Government in that respect. It would still remain open for the Committee to require evidence on the subject and to express the view that that area was either too much or too little. There is nothing whatever which prevents the Government from making decisions as to the cost or nature of the project or the area that the establishment will occupy. The fact that the public has the right to be given this information by the Government is written quite plainly into the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act. The mere fact that a witness gives evidence subsequently of a Government decision does not mean that the Government decision is the exclusive property of the Committee. Section 23 (1.) of the Act provides:

Subject to this section, the Committee shall take all evidence in public.

That acknowledges the right of the public as well as of the Committee to have access to all of the evidence given to the Committee. The only limitation upon this is contained in sub-section (2.) which reads:

Where, in the opinion of the Committee, any evidence which is proposed to be given before, or the whole or part of a document produced or proposed to be produced in evidence to, the Committee relates to a secret or confidential matter, the Committee may, and at the request-

Not of the Chairman of the Committee - of the witness giving the evidence . . . shall - take the evidence in private;

In Perth all the evidence relating to the Garden Island project, as to the area which the public should be permitted to have access to, was taken in public, and quite properly so. The Government exposed itself before the Committee to criticism on a matter which the public had a most understandable right to know about. The Committee concluded its hearings in Perth, during which all the evidence was taken in public, and the Navy a few days later through its Secretary wrote a letter to the Committee advising that the Navy had agreed to extend the area. Who could claim that any Committee could ever form a reasonable opinion that that was a secret or a confidential matter? If the Secretary of the Navy had put in his letter - which he did not - the words ‘I want you to treat this evidence as being evidence in private’ or ‘this is a secret or a confidential matter’ I could understand the Committee exploding at the very thought that the public was being denied knowledge of a fact in which it had a very earnest interest. So the mistake in this matter was made by the Committee. It had no authority under the Act to receive that letter in private. Even if it did, having regard to the public discussion on previous evidence on this subject, it would have been wrong to exercise any authority if it had decided to receive it in private. Whether or not it should have been received in private, we know from the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee, as recorded in the Hansard of the House of Representatives, that the Committee never discussed this, and quite properly refrained from so doing. I would think that the Committee would assume that any evidence on extend ing the area should be given in public as was the evidence that had been given when more limited areas were being discussed.

Section 23 of the Act makes it clear that all evidence on these matters, except matters of a secret or a confidential nature, are to be given in public. The section goes on to provide for the situation in which a witness may request evidence to be given in private. Sub-section (5.) of section 23 states:

Where evidence is taken by the Committee in private or otherwise than at the request of a witness-

And that was the case in this instance because there was no request from the witness - a person . . shall not, without the authority of the Committee under the next succeeding subsection, disclose the evidence to the public.

But the overriding provision in that regard is that there is nothing in this section which prohibits the disclosure or publication of evidence that has already been lawfully published. This emphasises the contention I make that if the Government today decides that the area shall be 1,800 acres it has a right and a duty to publish that information to the public. The Act contains an express provision which states:

Nothing in this section prohibits -

the disclosure or publication of evidence that has already been lawfully published; or

the disclosure or publication by a person of a matter of which he has become aware otherwise than by reason, directly or indirectly, of the giving of evidence before the Committee.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) became aware of this decision when the Naval Board, through the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay), communicated the decision to him. He did not become aware of it by reason of his having any knowledge of evidence that was given to the Committee. He had knowledge of it as an independent, positive decision of the Government. I slate this with some degree of definiteness because, in pursuance of that cordiality which is entering into the relationship between the Minister and the Committee, I want to be quite candid and frank. I want to put on the line and on the record the interpretation that I have of the situation, namely, that the overriding consideration with regard to this Committee is that all matters, except those that are in their nature secret and confidential, shall be given in evidence in public. The Committee has no right to take any evidence which is not confidential in character otherwise than in public.

The other sections of the Act which I have mentioned make it abundantly clear that if a witness discloses information to the public before he gives evidence before the Committee he commits no offence. If the information has been lawfully published before he goes before the Committee there is an express provision in the Act which says that the disclosure of that information is not a contravention of the section, and this is made quite clear by the other section which states that the disclosure by a person of a matter of which he has become aware, other than by reason of being privy to the evidence, is not prohibited. That is the difference between the Prime Minister’s publication of this fact with which we are concerned here and the situation put by Senator Poyser. We would all deprecate the situation where a member of the Committee, or an officer, or a witness who heard the evidence and became aware of a fact that was treated by the Committee as secret and confidential - in other words, he became privy to that confidentiality or secrecy - then retailed it to his political party, to the Minister or to somebody who could take some advantage of it. We would deprecate that situation most strongly. But that is not the situation in this case. This type of case is expressly preserved and provided for in the sections that I have mentioned. I ask the Senate to have that position established and to accept the increased appropriation for which the Bill provides to enable this Committee to continue the sterling work that it does.

The only other point on which I wish to comment is Senator Cant’s reference to the increasing burden being placed on the Committee. 1 have never understood the Committee to complain of that and 1 do not understand any honourable senator here today to complain of it. 1 listened to Senator Poyser’s reference to this matter and I can assure him that I am available for consultations with the Committee on any suggestion that may be made for duplicating the Committee or limiting the number of matters that are required by law to go before the Committee. I shall facilitate any suggestions which will enable honourable senators and honourable members to discharge this important duty - a duty which, when discharged, is so helpful to the Government - by making to the Government any recommendations which are really practicable and wise. 1 trust that in this respect we can provide the extra $10,000 to cover the Committee’s expenses from year to year as the Bill provides.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– In acknowledging the report of the Committee, 1 draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that Senator Wilkinson has occupied the chair as the Temporary Chairman for the first time.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2474

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May (vide page 1973), on motion by Senator Wright: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1972 provides for amendments and some alterations to the schedules of the principal Act. It also makes provision for McGregor College, Toowoomba, which was not previously dealt with in the Act. These are matters of a machinery nature. The Opposition is not opposed to them; in fact, it supports them. We do not wish to prolong the proceedings of the Senate by entering into any debate on these matters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2474

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Leader of the Opposition) (4.44) - 1 ask leave to move a motion concerning the order of business so that we may know what we are to do.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MURPHY:

-I move:

That Government business after order of the day No. 10 be postponed to the first day of the next sittings.

I move that motion in contemplation of the fact that the rest of the business also would carry over to the first day of the next sittings. Important matters remain to be discussed. One Bill that it is intended to discuss is the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill. An important question has been raised in relation to this Bill and a proposed amendment has been circulated this afternoon. There is no possibility of my Party being able to examine the implications of that amendment and no possibility ofthe Opposition coming to a decision on this very important matter.

The next matter is the Industrial Research and Development Grants Bill 1972. That is a major Bill dealing with a 5 year scheme for payments to industry. It came into the Senate yesterday, and it is a Bill in relation to which it is impossible for anyone to prepare a proper speech. 1 see that my name is listed as one who is to speak to this Bill. The third matter, the Salaries (Statutory Offices) Adjustment Bill 1972. is also an extremely important matter with implicationsflowing across the whole board. That Bill came into this place yesterday.

It does not seem to us to be reasonable that these matters should have to be considered as they would be if we deal with them today. Sometime the lesson will be learned by the Government that measures of a major nature ought to be brought in well before the end of the sessional period. If this lesson is not brought home in any other way it will have to be brought home by consideration of the matters remaining on the notice paper at the end of the sessional period being deferred. Bills ought to be introduced in ample time for them to receive a reasonable consideration. The Senate is not being treated as it ought to be treated, and I ask the Senate to agree to the proposition that we stand these matters over to the first day of the next period of sittings.

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

– Of course I would have to oppose this motion. I realise that the session has been a long one and has been a heavy one this last week. We have endeavoured to meet the situation by sitting longer hours and by sitting an extra week, but the Government wants its legislation to go through. I would hope that we could end this sitting by getting through the legislation we desire to have passed. I will oppose the motion, and we will be at the will of the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– in reply - I think I have expressed what I conceive to be the will of the majority of the people in the Senate. Therefore I ask them to vote accordingly.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2475

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 May (vide page 2072). on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This is a machinery measure which provides for the validation of customs collections up to 30th June. The Opposition supports the Bill.

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

– in reply - I have nothing to add to those observations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2476

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25th May (vide page 2072), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– The purpose of the Gold Mining Industry Assistance Bill is to increase the amount of bounty paid to the large producers of gold - it does not concern the small producers - and to increase the amount of the premium price which may be retained by the industry from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. This measure shall operate from 1st January 1972. Because of the way in which the gold mining industry was running down, the question of assistance by way of an increase in bounty has been before this Government constantly since 1968. The Government has resisted an increase in the bounty on every occasion until December last year when it indicated that it would increase the amount of bounty from $8 to $12 an ounce. I do not want to say a great deal on this Bill. Those who wish to understand anything about the way in which the bounty is paid in the industry should have a look at the speech made on 23rd May in another place by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) where he sets out the way in which the bounty is paid in association with the retention of a percentage of the premium price. The Minister for Supply and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Garland) in reply tried to make political issues out of the matter. I believe that the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) was overseas at the time. The Minister stated:

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who just spoke in the debate, put his finger on the point of the speech made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) when he said that this is a matter which affects the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. ] listened to a very party-political speech from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. It was no surprise to learn from him that he did not think that the Government had done enough. That is always his cry. Indeed, with respect, it is always the cry of all members of the Opposition. I have never heard the honourable member for Kalgoorlie praise or approve of anything that the Government has done.

We have never opposed anything which the Government has wanted to do to assist the gold mining industry. On every occasion we have criticised the Government for not giving sufficient assistance and for unduly delaying assistance. At the present time in Kalgoorlie the price of gold has gone up to $58.35 an ounce.

Senator Wood:

– It went up to $60 an ounce in Zurich.

Senator CANT:

– It was $58.35 an ounce this morning. That is a high premium over the standard price of SUS38 an ounce. This measure will give the industry some life. Of course, it will apply only to those mines that are presently in operation. The price is not stable enough to allow new mines to be opened. In order to develop a new mine one would have to have a guaranteed price for something like 20 years, having regard to the fluctuations of the stock market. Nevertheless, the subsidy has engendered sufficient confidence in the Lake View and Star gold mine in Kalgoorlie and in the Norseman gold mine at Norseman to recommence development operations. But this Government took a decision some time ago to apply the bounty for only another 3 years on the assumption that the gold mining industry would phase out. That was the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) at the time - that the gold mining industry would be allowed to phase out and the nickel industry would be allowed to phase in and therefore the employment of workers in the mining industry would be continuous. But this has not happened. The workers in the industry saw that the gold mining industry was phasing out but that the nickel mining industry was not taking over, and they left the industry and sought employment elsewhere.

Now that Lake View and Star and Central Norseman mines want to increase their activity they are unable to obtain skilled miners to be able to do it. That is what the delay in the payment of the bounty has done for the gold mining industry. Because of a shortage of skilled miners the mines will be very lucky if they can increase their activities. I do not want the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland) or anybody else to tell me that the Broken Hill South mine will be closing down and they will be able to obtain miners from there. You just cannot pick up people from one centre and take them to another. They are not snails; they cannot carry their houses on their backs. It is not easy to shift communities from one place to another.

The Minister, in reply to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in another place, Mr Collard, accused him of playing party politics. Let me say this to the Minister: He is the only Liberal Party member of Parliament from Western Australia. Because of that he has been elevated to a position of importance. This is a classic example of the application of Peter’s principle. Since Mr Collard entered Parliament in 1961 the gold mining industry has been running down. The $35 an ounce was insufficient for the industry to be able to carry on. A bounty had been paid under the Chifley Government in order to assist the industry to keep going. It was incumbent upon Mr Collard constantly to press the Government for assistance for this industry and constantly to press the Government to keep the industry in operation so that the 25,000 people in Kalgoorlie would not be dispersed throughout Western Australia and probably throughout Australia, applying pressure on all the social services such as power, roads, houses, water supply and sewerage. All of these things happen when towns are allowed to close down and people have to go elsewhere to seek employment.

It is wrong for the Minister - who has probably never been to Kalgoorlie, who has certainly never been underground in Kalgoorlie and who has certainly never associated wilh the miners in Kalgoorlie - to turn around and say to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, whose responsibility it is to see that the mine is kept in operation, that he was making a party political speech. If anybody has made a party political speech it was Mr Garland in his reply to Mr Collard.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I shall be very brief. Like Senator Cant I have an interest in the mining industry and have had all my life. My interest has been in silver and lead and his has been in gold. I have been to Kalgoorlie and it reminded me of the centre part of the Broken Hill lode when it was closing down. It was a sight 1 would sooner not have seen because it was an industry on the wane. I am delighted that because of this measure and the change in the free market price of gold there is a possibility that the Kalgoorlie Golden Mile will come again. If that happens I will be very pleased. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Senator Cant does not want me to refer to Broken Hill South. That mine went for 88 years and involves an experienced group of hard rock miners working in difficult ground and under difficult conditions. If Senator Cant knows of a chance of any of them finding employment in due course on the Golden Mile I am sure they would be pleased to hear of this through the Barrier Industrial Council.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2477

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 3) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 2236), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Conscious of the time, I will endeavour to compress the views of the Opposition. In essence this Bill provides, subject to Australia’s enacting reciprocal agreements with other countries, for the portability of age, invalid and widows’ pensions after the recipient has been in Australia for 20 years. I move:

Ac end of motion add: ‘But the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should provide for the continuation of the payment of age pensions after a period of 10 years residence in Australia and irrespective of any agreement between Australia and the current place of residence’. 1 propose simply to submit a series of quick points which in the opinion of the Opposition justify support of the amendment.

The Government could have followed a different course. It could have utilised section 137 of the Social Services Act and avoided any legislation. The United States of America, which is a new world country like Australia in the sense that it has not had on it the pressures that Europe has had. went it alone and provided coverage for people overseas whether American or non-American citizens. The Opposition says that this could have been done by Australia. Under the United States scheme less than .08 per cent of the total United States annual social services payment is involved. Whatever system we use to enact this, it will affect only people who are subject to a means test. It will be not for someone in a high income bracket, but only for those battlers who have worked arduously for years in the Australian work force. In respect of fringe benefits, if we adopt a 10-year limitation much of the cost of free travel and hospital treatment would not be carried by the Australian economy. There is a very strong precedent for our attitude. At the 1959 Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party Mr Clyde Cameron pioneered the idea that migrants who had resided in Australia for 10 years should be eligible for the age pension, subject to all other requirements being met. lt is history that in 1961-62 Si’ Robert Menzies adopted that suggestion.

In summing up I think 1 should say that the entire ethnic group Press agrees that the improvements which are proposed should be made. Speaking from what is perhaps a selfish Australian standpoint, the system of reciprocal agreements would be ideal if the Government were prepared to enter into similar rranngements with respect to health services. Unfortunately, as honourable senators are well aware, that cannot be done because to a large extent in Australia our health benefits scheme is orientated towards private enterprise. The Minister has said that in order to achieve reciprocity with other nations it has been necessary to shop around, lt is dubious whether it is possible to arrange reciprocity with every nation. 1 have a copy of the minutes of a European conference on immigration held in central Europe in April and attended by christian socialists, social democrats and communist trade unionists. What they want is far more than we are prepared to offer. So it will be difficult to bring some governments to the conference table and to reach agreement. Even if we are able to make reciprocal arrangements with a majority of nations, a sizable group of people will be left outside the agreements if the Government is prepared to have the system operate only in nations which have reciprocal agreements with Australia. I have expressed the salient views held by the Opposition. Our views are echoed not only by the major trade unions with ethnic groups but also by all the foreign language newspapers. I. leave the amendment to be judged on its merits.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government understands that the Opposition will support the Bill. I know that it is the wish of the Senate that I should be brief. So, in opposing the amendment the Government says simply that it is proposed by this Bill that pensioners may remain eligible for a pension when they leave Australia, but only in those cases where there is a reciprocal agreement with the country to which the pensioner goes to reside. We want to avoid a situation in which people come to Australia and after 10 years residence, having acquired a pension, go back to their country of origin. That could happen. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has described that as amounting to a plundering of the Australian Treasury. We feel that it is possible to make agreements so that there is reciprocity. That is the objective that we have in mind. It is unreasonable to suppose that agreements cannot be arrived at.

The Minister is pursuing his inquiries. He has made contact already with representatives of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Yugoslavia. He will be pursuing discussions with representatives of those countries. We already have reciprocal agreements with Britain and New Zealand and, naturally, this proposal has been referred to the High Commissioners of those countries. Also Mr Wentworth has contacted representatives of Canada, Switzerland and Israel and has spoken with their high commissioners or ambassadors. Rcently he had discussions with the Ambassador of the United States of America. This matter is being pursued diligently even though the Bill has not yet been passed. Having regard to the ground of principle, which I think is a valid ground of principle, and the fact that we have an indefatigable Minister for Social Services, I am sure that he will use his utmost endeavours to ensure that we have these agreements. The Government opposes the Opposition’s amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I called for a division on the amendment. I was trying to establish the majority view of the Senate. I wanted a division, if that was the wish also of other honourable senators. I did not know whether they wanted a division. I wanted to get the consensus of the Senate as to what the vote would be.

Hie TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wilkinson) - Order! I regret that I did not hear any request for a division. I was waiting to see whether there was a request for a division. I did not hear one so I did not ask for the bells to be rung.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It was partly my fault.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have decided on the amendment. I called for a decision of the Senate on the question that the Bill be read a second time. This question was passed.

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

page 2479

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30th May (vice page 2237), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967- 71 for a further 12 months. The basis for the legislation is in the acceptance of the scheme for permanent employment developed from the national conferences which produced the 1967 national stevedoring industry report of April of that year. All the parties applauded the report and the idea of the conference and the national agreement. This is a subject which no doubt not only members of the Opposition but also some supporters of the Government would have liked to discuss probably at very great length. In view of the situation in which we are placed I do not intend to cover much of the area except to say, of course, that the Opposition is very much concerned, not only about the statement of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) in his second reading speech, but also in relation to the Governments’ overactive role in relation to the activities of trade unions. I refer here to its legislative restrictions and more recently the tough line taken by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in regard to the waterfront agreement, his Department’s intervention before the commission and its attitude generally towards this type of agreement.

As you know, Mr President, the Senate has discussed at length over recent days, in debates on the Public Service Arbitration Bill and the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the Government’s attitude in industrial matters, and I do not wish to restate what has been said. I conclude my comments on the Bill before us by posing a question to the Minister about which he has been pre-warned and which concerns the situation in respect of Darwin. I ask the Minister whether the Minister for Labour and National Service gave consideration to the authority performing the functions of allocation of labour in the Port of Darwin that will now be handled by the employers with a State government instrumentality as agent? If such consideration was given and the proposal was rejected, what were the grounds of such rejection? Is this a move towards the complete phasing out of the authority and its functions? With those comments the Labor Party does not oppose the proposition.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise only to refute the abrupt statements made by Senator Bishop, and I quite understand the honourable senator’s need to be abrupt in the cause of brevity. The waterside workers, having achieved the status of a statutory monopoly, are now endeavouring to achieve the status of complete exemption from ordinary arbitration procedures.

Senator Georges:

– It is too late to buy a fight.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I do not wish to buy a fight. I have no thought of that. Any protest that the law should not apply to waterside workers falls in vain upon me. Honourable senators should remember that for the year ended 30th June 1971, despite a decline in weekly hours of work from 37.4 to 33.9, the average weekly earnings at permanent ports increased from $81.65 to $91.85. I will provide Senator Bishop with an immediate written answer to the question that he asked.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I shall be brief. I refer to 2 paragraphs of the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for 1970-71 The report states:

Waterside workers at Australian ports handled 46.56 million tons of cargo during 1970-71. This was an increase of 4.37 million tons (10.4 per cent) compared with the previous year. The increase in the total cargo handled was due largely to an increase of over 3 million tons in exports of bulk grain.

Cargo handled at permanently manned terminals increased by 3.43 millions tons (66.4 per cent). Non-bulk cargo handled at other berths decreased by 1.94 million tons (10.1 per cent). The proportion of all non-bulk cargo handled at terminals increased from 21.1 per cent of the total in 1969-70 to 33.1 per cent in 1970-71.

A marked increase in the number of voyages, and cargo carried, by cellular container and rollon/rolloff vessels was accompanied by a corresponding decline in conventional vessel trade.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2480

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) agreed to:

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

page 2480

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a day and an hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I put the motion I seek the indulgence of the Senate to make a brief observation, which is this: As President, I wish to thank honourable senators for their senatorial behaviour and for the comity with which they have conducted the business of the nation during this period of this session. I am very grateful for this, except for one slight incident which I know we will all expunge from our minds.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2480

ADJOURNMENT

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

– I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr President, may I at this juncture reciprocate your remarks and thank the Senate for giving me the support that it has over the period that I have been Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr President, members of the Opposition also agree with the sentiments that have been expressed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.26 p.m. to a day and hour to be fixed by Mr President.

page 2481

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were given:

page 2481

METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

(Question No. 1846)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Are certain manufacturers who are transfering to metric measures using this as an excuse to reduce quantities and increase prices?
  2. Does the Government approve of such methods of adding to the cost of living; if not, what action does the Government intend to take to eliminate such practices at a time of high inflation and severe economic depression?

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided an answer to the question. As it covers 2 pages, I ask for leave, Mr President, to incorporate the answer in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT- Order! Is leave granted?

Opposition senators - No!

The PRESIDENT- There being an objection, leave is not granted.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The attention of the Government has been drawn to the activities of Sunburst Foods Pty Ltd in changing the container for their orange juice from i gallon to 2 litres without a proportionate price reduction. This action may have been justified, since the company states that it has maintained its price at 99c for½ gallon since 1968 in spite of several increases in material costs. It should also be stated that the new container is clearly marked 2 litres (3.5 pints). However, it is unfortunate that the company appeared to use the conversion of its pack to a metric size to conceal an effective price increase.
  2. The Government foresaw that this type of practice might occur. In his second reading speech on the Metric Conversion Bill, Mr Bowen stated, inter alia -

It (the Metric Conversion Board) will be required to advise on the need for legislation to give effect to conversion, to report attempts to take unfair advantage of the public in the course of conversion and to perform various other functions appropriate to conversion.’

  1. The Metric Conversion Board has established close liaison with trade associations and will draw their attention to such practices. In general such associations are sensitive to reactions of this nature and are anxious to avoid criticism. The Board has already issued a circular letter to over one hundred relevant associations advising them of the Board’s responsibility and seeking their co-operation to ensure that conversion is not made the occasion for unjustified price increases or other unfair practices. The Commonwealth itself has no power to intervene in this matter other than in the ACT and the NT.
  2. The Conversion Board has designed a cost comparator which was described in the December issue of the Metric Conversion Board Newsletter, copies of which are available in the Parliamentary Library. It is not intended that the Board itself issue the comparator, but rather that commercial sponsors should produce it and distribute it free of charge. The Board intends also to issue price comparison charts for display in shops and to publish an article in one of its future newsletters on the matter.
  3. The Conversion Board will watch for such practices and refer them to the appropriate authority in the State concerned. This authority, in a particular State, may be the Price Control Authority, the Consumer’s Protection Association or the Department of Weights and Measures.
  4. The ultimate safeguard against attempts to increase prices is a perceptive and discriminating public. For this reason the Conversion Board has explored several avenues as described above to educate and advise the public. It is significant that the case described above was criticised in the press last December.

page 2481

COMMUNAL TELEVISION AERIALS

(Question No. 2002)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many communal television aerials are there in Australia.
  2. What is involved in obtaining approval for the construction of communal television aerials in high density areas.
  3. How long does it normally take from the time of lodgment of an application until approval is given.

Senator GREENWOOD- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Eight permits have been granted for community television aerial systems.
  2. The Broadcasting and Television Act 1942- 1971 provides that the Minister may, on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, grant a permit for the operation of a community television aerial system. The Act provides that a permit shall not be granted unless in the opinion of the Board satisfactory reception is not being obtained in the area and that satisfactory reception could be obtained by the means to be authorised by the permit.

Although the Act provides that permits may be granted in respect of areas both within and beyond the normal range of television stations the only permits granted to the present have been for areas within the normal range of stations, namely areas where because of topographical difficulties normal reception is not practicable.

The procedure for gaining approval for a permit is to make application to the Board, following which the Board makes its own investigations and if satisfied on the matter makes an appropriate recommendation to me. There is no difference in the procedure for high density areas as compared to other areas, although there could be more difficulties in obtaining necessary approvals from local authorities, e.g., in disturbing streets for the laying of cables. Not only has the approval of local authorities to be obtained but with cables crossing public highways the approval of the Post Office is also required. Further the permission of the television stations concerned must be obtained for the relay of their programmes.

Notes have been prepared by the Board for the guidance of persons interested in community television aerial systems, covering the method of operation, costs, etc., and copies may be obtained on application to the Board.

  1. Each application is decided on its merits, and the time which elapses between the lodgment of a formal application and the approval of such a system will vary according to the complexity of the technical aspects involved. However, the honourable senator may be assured that the Board processes applications for these systems as expeditiously as possible.

page 2482

COLOUR TELEVISION

(Question No. 2027)

Senator McLAREN:

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

  1. In view of the Government’s decision to introduce colour television to Australia in March, 1975, what action is the Australian Broadcasting Control Board taking in regard to (a) the removal of colour information from video tape transmissions, (b) permitting the transmission of the colour burst signal in video tape transmissions, and (c) permitting the transmission of the colour information of colour film.
  2. Can the Postmaster-General indicate whether colour transmissions will be permitted for test purposes, by manufacturing and advertising agencies, before 1st March 1975.

Senator GREENWOOD- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. (a), (b) and (c) The Australian Broadcasting Control Board considered it essential that no programmes capable of being received in colour on a normal colour receiver should be transmitted by television stations pending a decision on the timing and method of introduction of colour television. With regard to videotape programmes stations have been asked to ensure thaa there is no colour burst transmitted but there is no requirement to remove the colour information from the tapes. With regard to colour film programmes stations have been asked to ensure that no colour information is transmitted.
  2. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has advised me that colour transmissions will be required for test purposes by manufacturers and other sections of the industry before the 1st March, 1975.

The Board expects to receive recommendations on the timing and nature of these test transmisions from Industry Committees which are being set up by the Board and which are to study and report on this and other matters relating to the introduction of the Australian colour television services.

page 2482

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT

(Question No. 2056)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Is it a fact that there is no provision in the existing Broadcasting and Television Act for the granting of educational broadcasting stations licences, and do these stations obtain approval for transmission under the Wireless Telegraphy Act; if so, (a) how many applications for this type of service have been received, and how many have been approved, (b) does the present situation mean that all applications for educational stations are now under the control of the Post Office and not the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, (c) what returns have to be furnished by these stations to the Post Office under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, and (d) does the Government intend taking action to bring educational broadcasting services within the Broadcasting and Television Act and hence within the ambit of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Senator GREENWOOD- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is true that there is no provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act for the granting of educational broadcasting licences. Such educational stations as have been approved have been authorised under the Wireless Telegraphy Act by the Post Office, after consultation with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. These, however, are not broadcasting stations in the true sense in that transmissions are not directed to the general public but solely to registered students of the educational institution concerned in relation to courses provided by those institutions.

Eleven applications have been received (radio 7 and television 4) of which eight have been approved (radio 6 and television 2).

Yes, but the Post Office confers with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in relation to the conditions under which licences are granted.

No returns are required of these stations, but their licences are renewable annually.

Studies will be undertaken at the appropriate time with regard to the practicability of amending the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide for the grant of licences for educational and similar types of radio and television services; the whole question of educational broadcasting services is affected by the present examination by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board as to whether or not frequency modulation broadcasting services should be introduced to Australia. The Board hopes shortly to furnish its report and recommendation to the Government on this matter.

page 2483

ENVIRONMENT

(Question No. 2190)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Does the Minister intend seeking the enactment of a replica of the United States of America National Environment Quality Act 1969 to enable his Department to operate positively for the protection of the environment.

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

I set out the Government’s policy on the protection of the environment in my statement to Parliament of 24 May 1972. Legislation along the lines of the National Environment Policy Act of 1969 of the United States of America is not proposed in that statement.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Acting

Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What is the amount of free reserve held by each medical and hospital health insurance organisation in each of the States at 30th June 1971.
  2. In each case what is the amount equivalent to in terms of contribution income on a monthly basis.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s

  1. The honourable senator will be aware that the First Annual Report on the Operations of Registered Medical Benefits and ‘Hospital Benefits Organisations was tabled in Parliament on 18th May 1972. The Report tabulates the balance of each medical and hospital fund as at 30th June, 1971 and the contribution income of each fund for the 1970/71 financial year.
  2. The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the fact that organisations follow different accounting practices, e.g. not all organisations make provisions for outstanding claims, etc.

page 2483

MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL HEALTH INSURANCE

(Question No. 2051)

page 2483

VIETNAM

(Question No. 2147)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

  1. Is the Prime Minister aware that the President of the United States of America will make a statement of United State’s policy on Vietnam at 1.00 p.m. on 27th April 1972.
  2. Has the Government been informed of the substance of Mr Nixon’s statement, or consulted as to the future United States’ policy on the war in Vietnam.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

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

  1. & (2) These two questions have now been overtaken by events.

page 2483

PRE-BUDGET ECONOMIC DISCUSSIONS

(Question No. 2222)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What are the reasons for the Prime Minister’s sudden decision to hold the annual preBudget economic discussions in Sydney instead of Canberra.
  2. What extra costs will be incurred for travel and accommodation of Government officials having to go to Sydney for these discussions.

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

  1. There was no ‘sudden decision’ to hold the economic consultations in Sydney. It was taken five weeks ago in the light of the commitments of the Ministers attending the consultations and Sydney was selected, as in February 1970, as a suitable location where Cabinet facilities are available.
  2. I am informed that in accordance with normal arrangements for official travel, expenses for air fares and travelling allowance will be incurred for a small number of officials required to provide a secretariat for the consultations.

page 2483

STEEL: PRICE INCREASE

(Question No. 1892)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

Did the Minister see or read the letter which the Prime Minister stated that, on 22nd February 1972, he had written on 23rd December 1971 to Sir Ian McLennan in relation to a possible increase in the price of steel by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited; if so, on what date, at what time and where did be see or read the letter.

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to Question No. 5179 in the House of Representatives (Hansard, 25 May 1972, page 3173).

page 2484

STEEL: PRICE INCREASE

(Question No. 1889)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

Did the Minister see or read the letter which the Prime Minister stated that, on 22nd February 1972, he had written on 23rd December 1971 to Sir Ian McLennan in relation to a possible increase in the price of steel by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited; if so, on what date, at what time and where did he see or read the letter.

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to Question No. 5179 in the House of Representatives (Hansard, 25 May 1972, page 3173).

page 2484

ORD RIVER

(Question No. 2154)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Wildlife Division undertaken any work on selected fauna species survival in the region of the Ord River Scheme.

Senator WRIGHT- The answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

No work has been undertaken by the CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research in the region of the Ord River Scheme on the effects of the development of the scheme on the survival of selected fauna species or wildlife populations generally.

page 2484

ARMY SERVICE

(Question No. 2191)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the recent misunderstanding that occurred over a French army call-up notice served on French-born naturalised Australian Mr Thomas Gable, can the Minister supply a list of nations who can or do make such a claim on people born in such countries, but who are now Australian citizens.

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

It is not possible to put a brief and meaningful reply to the honourable senator’s question; quite complex legal issues can be involved. However, as to the particular case, I am advised the man in question was born in France and has since become a naturalised Australian. He had neglected to apprise French authorities of his situation and had not taken advantage of the provision made for exemption from the liability for military service in France. Neither had he renounced his French citizenship as is possible and which provides immunity from the liability for military service. He has been provided with a written statement by the French Consul in Sydney that he has no liability for military service. He registered for national service as required in Australia but was not selected for service and has been granted indefinite deferment of his liability here.

page 2484

KWINANA STEEL WORKS

(Question No. 1860)

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Did the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd enter into an agreement with the Western Australian Government to construct by 1978 an integrated steel works at Kwinana capable of producing one million tons of fabricated steel per year, in order to obtain control of certain iron ore reserves in Western Australia.
  2. Has the company recently announced an increase in expenditure on plant at Newcastle amounting to $82m.
  3. Has the company also announced the possible closure of the steel works at Kwinana at the end of March.
  4. In view of the potential closure of the steel works at Kwinana can the expenditure at Newcasetle be justified.

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

  1. The Brokern Hill Proprietary Company Ltd, has entered into agreements with the Western Australian Government to construct by 1978 an integrated steel works at Kwinana, in order to obtain control of certain iron ore reserves in Western Australia. The plant is to consist of a blast furnace having a production capacity by 1978 of not less than 500,000 tons per annum of basic pig iron or equivalent foundry iron and steel making facilities capable of producing not less than 500,000 tons of steel per annum in a form and a quality ready for marketing.
  2. It has been reported that the additional expenditure at Newcastle is not concerned directly with the introduction of new iron making or steel making facilities. The major elements of the expenditure involve a new bloom mill and continuous mill complex, extension to the foundry, bulk power supply, extension to a merchant mill and a rotary lime kiln. As this expenditure will result in the installation of additional rolling capacity it is proposed to expand the steel making production of the currently installed facilities from 2.14 million to 2.68 million tons per annum to service this capacity.
  3. The expansion at Newcastle therefore should not affect operations at Kwinana which is concerned with pig iron not steel production. Production of pig iron at Kwinana was threatened by lack of orders but recent reports indicate that sufficient new orders have been received to alleviate the closure of the blast furnace in the near future.
  4. It should not be expected that short term fluctuations in the demand for pig iron products from Kwinana would materially affect long term planning for the expansion of the Australian steel industry of which the announced expansion at Newcastle forms a part.

page 2485

STEEL: PRICE INCREASE

(Question No. 1891)

Senator POYSER:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Did the Attorney-General see or read the letter which the Prime Minister stated that, on 22 February 1972, he had written on 23 December 1971 to Sir Ian McLennan in relation to a possible increase in the price of steel by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited: if so, on what date, at what time and where did he see or read the letter.

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to Question No. 5179 in the House of Representatives (Handard, 25 May 1972, page 3173).

page 2485

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME

(Question No. 1997)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many items are there on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which require the authority of the Director-General of Health before they can be prescribed.
  2. How many of these are Beta-Blockers and how many are related to the drug Intal.
  3. What was the total number of authorities issued by the Director-General last year, and what was the breakdown of this number in the categories of (a) Beta-Blockers (b) Intal and (c) others.
  4. Is Intal a drug used for the treatment of asthma, and are Beta-Blockers a group of cardiac drugs used mainly in angina, acute coronary insufficiency, etc.
  5. Why is it considered necessary in the case of these drugs for an authority to be issued by the Director-General of Health before it can be made available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to a patient.

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

  1. In the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits there are 90 items representing the various forms and strengths of 55 different drugs for which the written authority of the Director-General of Health is required before they can be prescribed as benefits.
  2. Five of the drugs, comprising seven items in all, are Beta-Blockers (beta adrenergic receptor blocking agents). Intal (disodium cromoglycate) is a unique drug and no other drug in the Schedule of Benefits is related to it.

  3. The total number of authorities issued by the Director-General in 1971 was 159,842, comprising -

    1. 25,998 authorities for Beta-Blockers;
    2. 83,475 authorities for Intal (‘Special Authority’);
    3. 50,369 other authorities.
  4. Yes.

In addition, two Beta-Blockers, Propranolol and Prindolol are now established as being effective in the treatment of severe hypertension. Since April 1972 these drugs have been listed as benefit, on authority, for this condition in addition to the cardiac diseases for which they have been available for some time,

  1. The requirement for the authority of the Director-General to prescribe certain drugs as benefits is in each instance in accordance with a recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The Committee was set up, under section 101 of the National Health Act, to advise the Minister on the listing of drugs and medicinal preparations as pharmaceutical benefits.

page 2485

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1996)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What is the scale of charges payable to general practitioners under the Pensioner Medical Service for (a) surgery visits, and (b) home consultations.
  2. Were these charges fixed by agreement between the Government and the Australian Medical Association.
  3. What was the date on which the charges were agreed to, and for how long does the agreement run.
  4. Are the scale of charges payable to general practitioners under the Pensioner Medical Service also the subject of review by His Honour Mr Justice Kerr.
  5. Are general practitioners allowed by the Department of Health to add a mileage allowance to the fee they charge under the Pensioner Medical Service where the distance exceeds a certain mileage; if so, what is the rate of the allowance and the distance involved when such allowance becomes payable.
  6. What was the amount paid to general practitioners under the Pensioner Medical Service in each of the States last financial year in the first 6 months of this financial year for (a) surgery visits, (b) home consultations, and (c) mileage allowance.

Senator GREENWOOD- The acting Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The rates payable under the Pensioner Medical Service are -

    1. surgery consultations, $2.50
    2. domiciliary visits, $3.60
  2. and (3) The above fees were proposed by the Australian Medical Association and were accepted by the Government to apply from 1st July 1971 to 30th June 1973. The new fees were announced in a Ministerial Statement made in the Senate on 7th May 1971.
  3. No.
  4. Yes. The mileage fee payable is 50c per mile, calculated to the nearest mile, one way, beyond a radius of 3 miles from the medical practitioner’s surgery in metropolitan areas or provincial cities, or beyond a radius of 2 miles in country areas. The Commonwealth accepts responsibility for payment at the rate of 40c per mile and the balance may be collected by the medical practitioner from the pensioner concerned up to a maximum of $1.00.
  5. The amounts paid to medical practitioners participating in the Pensioner Medical Service are as follows! -

page 2486

STEEL: PRICE INCREASE

(Question No. 1893)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Did the Minister see or read the letter which the Prime Minister stated that, on 22nd February 1972, he had written on 23rd December 1971 to Sir Ian McLennan in relation to a possible increase in the price of steel by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited; if so, on what date, at what time and where did he see or read the letter.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to Question No. 5179 in the House of Representatives (Hansard, 25th May 1972, page 3173).

page 2486

RADIO AND TELEVISION LICENCES

(Question No. 2178)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many people receive the concessional rate for radio and television licences.
  2. What is the estimated cost to the Department for this concession.

Senator GREENWOOD - The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Section 128 (1) of the Broadcasting and Television Act prescribes the following licence fees:

Broadcast Listener’s Licence (Zone 1), $8.00.

Broadcast Listener’s Licence (Zone 2), $4.25.

Television Viewer’s Licence, $19.00.

Combined Receiving Licence, $26.50.

Section 128 (2) of the Act provides that schools and blind persons may be granted broadcast and television licences free of charge. As at 31st March 1972 there were 10,596 ‘Free’ licences in force.

Section 128 (3) of the Act provides for the granting of licences to pensioners at the following rates:

Broadcast Listener’s Licence (Zone 1), $1.00.

Broadcast Listener’s Licence (Zone 2), $0.70.

Television Viewer’s Licence, $3.00.

Combined Receiving Licence, $4.00.

As at 31st March 1972 the following pensioner licences were in force.

Broadcast Listener’s Licences (Zone 1), 70,544.

Broadcast Listener’s Licences (Zone 2), 1,237.

Television Viewer’s Licences, 36,565.

Combined Receiving Licences. 389,066.

  1. Had the normal fee been applied to the licences issued under Section 123 (2) and 128 (3) of the Act, the additional revenue to the Commonwealth, based on the licences in force as at 31st March1972, would have been:

page 2487

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

(Question No. 2137)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the composition of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment been finalised; if so, what are the names of these persons.
  2. What papers has Australia submitted to the Conference and will the Minister make available copies of these papers for perusal by honourable senators.

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

  1. On 14th May 1972 the Prime Minister announced that the delegation will consist of:

The Honourable Peter Howson, M.P., Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Leader)

The Honourable J. G. Beale, M.L.A., New South Wales Minister for Environment Control (Representative)

The Honourable V. O. Dickie, M.L.C., Victorian Minister of State Development (Representative)

Sir Lenox Hewitt, O.B.E., Secretary, Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Representative)

Sir James Plimsoll, C.B.E., Australian Ambassador to the United States of America (Representative)

Sir William Refshauge, C.B.E., DirectorGeneral of Health (Representative)

Mr W. K. Pilz, Under-Secretary, Department of Envionment Control, New South Wales (Alternate Representative)

Mr J. C. Fraser, Chairman, Environment Protection Authority, Victoria (Alternate Representative)

Mr C. N. Barton, O.B.E., CoordinatorGeneral, Queensland (Alternate Representative)

Dr W. G. Inglis, Director of Environmental Conservation. South Australia (Alternate Representative)

Dr B. J. O’Brien, Director of Environmental Protection, Western Australia (Alternate Representative)

Mr J. F. Pottinger, Director of Environmental Control, Tasmania (Alternate Representative)

Mr H. J. Higgs, First Assistant Secretary, Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Alternate Representative)

Mr A. 1. McCutchan, Senior Assistant Secretary, Department of National Development (Alternate Representative)

Dr J. B. Allen, Assistant Secretary, CSIRO (Alternate Representative)

Mr G. Unkles, First Assistant . Secretary, Department of Shipping and Transport (Adviser)

Mr G. L. V. Hooton, Assistant Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry (Adviser)

Dr R. S. Merrilees, First Australian Mission to the United Nations, New York (Adviser)

The Australian Ambassador-designate to Sweden, Mr J. D. Petherbridge, will join the delegation in Stockholm.

  1. In company with other members of the United Nations, Australia submitted a National Report. In addition, Australia submitted to the U.N. Conference Secretariat a list of proposals for case studies to illustrate particular topics to be discussed at Stockholm; the Conference Secretariat then invited the National Capital Development Commission to prepare a casestudy on the Development of the New Towns of Canberra. Australia also submitted a paper ‘Proposal for International Action on Insect Viruses’,prepared by CSIRO. In addition, the States have contributed specific papers which will be included in the Conference Library. I will arrange for copies of the Commonwealth papers to be available to the Parliamentary Library.
Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

I draw attention to a statement made in Adelaide yesterday at a writers’ week occasion by Vincent Eri, who is described as being the first indigenous novelist of Papua New Guinea, and who is reported as having said that anti-white attitudes and anti-white writings served a useful purpose for encouraging nationalism. Is the Minister aware that the same writer claimed that as indigenous writers did not have the opportunity to study novels and other literature they found it easier to write about missionaries or government officials. Will the Minister inquire of his colleague as to the availability or otherwise of literary and other aids of assistance to indigenous writers? In view of the comprehensive programmes of education carried out in the Territory, will he seek to obtain an assurance that opportunities exist for encouraging and achieving nationalism without resorting to the practices mentioned?

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

Since early 1970 the Literature Bureau of the Papua New Guinea Department of Information and Extension Services has been most active in encouraging Papuan and New Guinean writers. such encouragement includes the publication of a quarterly magazine containing their work; placing their work in other publications; encouraging public and private bodies interested in local writing to promote and publish work by Papuans and New Guineans; the holding of annual literary competitions; constructive criticism of their writings; suggesting themes; and writers’ workshops. The Officer-in-charge of the Literature Bureau was one of the persons who read Mr Eri’s book The Crocodile’ in its draft form.

The Commonwealth Literary Fund has also provided financial assistance to some indigenous writers to enable them to prepare material on a full-time basis.

The efforts of government officers and missionaries as well as other expatriates who have lived and are living in Papua New Guinea have been principal forces impacting village life and traditional values in recent times. It is not surprising therefore that these people have been featured in local writings. Papuan and New Guinea writers will probably continue to choose themes closely related to their experiences. Social, economic and political changes have required the people to adopt new behavioural patterns and these have inevitably brought some tensions as the people emerge from a largely dependent situation to one of independence.

As the process of formal education impacts more and more on the people, self-esteem and self-respect for their country and countrymen will become popular ingredients in the growth of nationalism - as they have in other emerging countries. Some writers are bound to write about the forces which have, in their minds, disrupted their society. Whereas some will analyse the changing situation without passing judgment others will tend to be critical of the agents of change.

The Australian Government clearly recognises the need to promote in Papua New Guinea the development of a positive national sentiment. Main elements of the political education programme are consolidating national unity and encouraging a spirit of nationalism by welcoming the adoption of national symbols. In 1971 the House of Assembly passed the National Identity Ordinance which provided for a flag, crest and national day. The first National Day, held on 13 September of last year, has as its theme ‘We are all one people*.

A spirit of nationalism is promoted also by bringing Papuans and New Guineans from all regions of the country together in the Public Service and education institutions.

In my address to the University of Papua New Guinea last March, I praised the students for their efforts to create a distinctive nationwide cultural identity which blended the strength and vitality of former traditions with new perceptions and skills.

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

Can the Attorney-General explain why Commonwealth Police in Warrnambool on Saturday, 8th April 1972 refused to recognise Mr K. J. McClelland, who is out on bail and has a duty to report daily to them, when Mr McClelland approached them alone, and yet when Mr McClelland approached them in the company of a member of the Commonwealth Parliament they agreed to take recognisance of the fact that he had reported to them.

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

Officers of the Commonwealth Police Force did not refuse to recognise Mr McClelland. The circumstances were as follows. Mr McClelland was, on 8th March 1972, released on bail on condition that he report daily, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., at the Commonwealth Police Office, McKenzie Street, Melbourne.

On Saturday, 8th April 1972 at Warrnambool Mr McClelland approached 2 officers of the Commonwealth Police Force, Inspector McCabe and Constable O’Brien, and said that he was reporting. Inspector McCabe informed Mr McClelland that the conditions of bail were that he report to the Commonwealth Police Office in Melbourne. The Inspector said he would take cognizance of having seen Mr McClelland and was prepared to allow him extra time to get back to Melbourne.

Shortly afterwards, in company with a member of Parliament, Mr McClelland again approached the officers and the question of reporting was further discussed. Mr McClelland saidthat he had been advised by the officer of the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office, Melbourne, concerned with the case that he could report to the Commonwealth Police in any city.

As the Inspector did not know arid could not immediately ascertain whether that advice had in fact been given he considered it prudent to accept the statement at its face value. In the circumstances I regard the Inspector’s action as reasonable although I have since been informed that that advice was not in fact given.

page 2487

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: INDIGENOUS WRITERS

page 2488

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

(Question No. 2090)

page 2488

WOOL

(Question No. 2165)

Senator CANT:

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

  1. Is it a fact that in the sheep and wool research section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisationthe number of senior scientists is being reduced from 28 to 10 and that the number of support scientists and technicians will be reduced propotionately; if so, does this mean that a number of major research projects will be postponed indefinitely.
  2. Was the reduction in research projects taken last year during a period of depression in the wool industry; if so, in view of the improvement in the wool industry will the policy be reviewed.

Senator WRIGHT - The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The figures given in the first part of the question are incorrect. The major part of the sheep and wool programme of CSIRO is funded from the Wool Research Trust Fund, and is carried out in 8 production Divisions and 3 textile Divisions. There were 895 staff supported from this source at 1st July 1971, and by 30th June 1972 the number will be approximately 820. There will he no significant change in the ratio of professional to non-professional staff over this period.
  2. The reduction was necessary because the funds available to CSIRO from the Wool Research Trust Fund were insufficient to maintain the previously existing programme in the face of increasing research costs. The staff who could no longer be supported from this source were redeployed to other work related to the rural industries, either in the same or other Divisions of CSIRO. I am assured that it is the intention of the Executive of CSIRO to retain a strong sheep and wool research programme within the framework of its total rural research programme.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 18th May, Senator Donald Cameron addressed a question to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, concerning a comparison between the Commonwealth Unemployment Benefits paid to an unemployed station hand with 5 children ($47.50 per week) and the minimum wage for a station hand working 44 hours a week under the Federal Pastoral Industry Award ($46.40 per week).

I undertook to have the figures checked and obtained further information. The following answer has been received from the Minister for Labour and National Service.

The figures in the example quoted by the honourable Senator are correct. However it is important to define the role of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when it determines a minimum wage. Indeed in its most recent judgment on the National Wage Case 1971-72 of 5th May, when dealing with the minimum wage for adult males the Commission said:

When the minimum wage for adult males was first established in 1966 it was described as being designed ‘to meet the circumstances of employees in the lowest classifications who are in receipt of award rates and no more’ and it was on this basis too that the current rate of. $46.30 (for Melbourne) was fixed in 1970 (See B6017 p.13). In assessing the rate on that occasion the Commission stated. ‘We are prepared to assume, as the Commission did last year, that people on low incomes have special problems which we can to some extent alleviate’, but it pointed out that it was ‘an arbitral tribunal and not an administrative social welfare agency’.

Similarly, when speaking of the Pastoral industry generally, the Commission in that judgment also said:

Because of the special history of the provisions in the Pastoral Industry Award, because that award is not before us and because we have not heard The Australian Workers’ Union we feel that we should make the observation that neither our decision regarding wages generally nor that relating to the minimum wage should automatically apply to that industry. Whether in fact they are made to apply will be a matter for the Commission however constituted which has to deal with them when an application is made by The Australian Workers’ Union’.

In passing it would not be inapporpriate to draw attention to other existing provisions of the present Federal Pastoral Industry Award. These include that employees may also be provided with living premises either free of charge or at a rental of not more than $2 per week and the provision of meat of a quality equivalent to that used at the homestead for not more than 5c per pound. I do not believe the comparison which the honourable Senator seeks to make between these matters is either tenable or appropriate.

Senator Dame NANCY BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the

Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the present international currency situation of vital importance to the Australian people; if so, what fields of Australian endeavour are most affected by it.
  2. Are press articles about floating of the yen and devaluation difficult for the average person to understand.
  3. Is the headline in “The Australian Financial Review’ of 30th November 1971, stating that a currency crisis is near, a clear and comprehensible indication of the immediate situation; if so, will the Treasurer explain in equally plain language what the currency crisis is all about.

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

  1. As the Prime Minister announced on 22nd December 1971, the Government has decided to maintain the existing gold parity of the Australian dollar and, at the same time, to set the market rate for the Australian dollar on the United States dollar close to the bottom of the permissible 2¼ per cent range about par.

This decision followed an agreement reached by member countries of the Group of Ten to realign their exchange rates. A number of these countries, notably Japan and West Germany, revalued their currencies upwards against previous parities while others, including Britain, retained their previous parities against gold. The United States dollar has been effectively devalued by 7.89 per cent against its previous gold parity. Based on current market rates, the change in Australia’s effective exchange rate against the rest of the world, calculated by averaging changes in the rates of our principal trading partners weighted by the value of our transactions in goods and services with them, has depreciated slightly from its position early in the current financial year. In these circumstances, it is not expected that the currency realignment will have a significant impact on Australia’s overall balance of payments performance or on the domestic economy as a whole. The Government recognised that some industries might be adversely affected by its decision, but taking all factors into account it considered the interests of the nation as a whole at the time would best be served by the action it took.

  1. That would depend in part on the quality of the article in question.
  2. The headline in question referred to the possibility of a resolution of the international monetary situation in the then near future. Up to that time I had made several statements on the international monetary situation. In particular, I made a statement on 28th October 1971, which I believe was a reasonably clear account of this complex subject, and which was tabled in the Senate on 3rd November.

In this period our immediate concern was that continuing uncertainty over the future exchange rates could have harmful effects on world trade and economic activity. The major currency realignment, involving a return to stable currency relationships, which followed the Group of Ten meeting in December 1971 has done a good deal to remove this threat. In particular. It has resulted in the cancellation of the United States import surcharge. The Government’s decision on the exchange rate of the Australian dollar was announced by the Prime Minister in his statement on 22nd December 1971. In the longer term, the question of reform of the international monetary system will command our close attention.

page 2489

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 2156)

Senator MULVIHILL aked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

How many people migrated to Australia from NorthernIreland and the Irish Republic, for (a) the first quarter of 1972, and (b) the last 2 quarters of 1971.

page 2489

COMMONWEALTH UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

page 2489

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY

(Question No. 1736)

page 2490

WOOL

(Question No. 2004)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. What is the duty imposed by the United States of America on raw wool imports entering that country.
  2. How long has such a duty been imposed and has the duty charged been reduced in any way having regard to the general decline in wool values.
  3. What has been the value of exports by Australia of raw wool to the United States in each of the last five years.

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

  1. The duty imposed by the United States of America on raw (greasy) wool imports entering that country is cents U.S. 25½ perlb clean weight for wools finer than 44’s. Concessional rates apply to coarser wools but virtually all greasy wool imported from Australia attracts the rate of 25½ cents.
  2. The rate of 25½ cents has been in force since 1st January 1948, when a 25 per cent reduction from the earlier rate of 34 cents was implemented as a result of G.A.T.T. negotiations in 1947. There has been no further reduction since then.
  3. The value of exports from Australia of raw (greasy) wool to the United States in each of the last five years was as follows:

page 2490

VIP FLIGHTS

(Question No. 2116)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. How many VIP all- jet aircraft landed at or departed from Kingsford-Smith Airport during the period 1st January 1970 to 30th November 1970.
  2. In the case of those landing, what was their take-off point; and, in the case of those departing, what was their destination. (3)How many passengers were on each plane, and who were they.
  3. In the case of those landing, what was the time of arrival and in the case of those departing what was the time of departure.

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

  1. RAAF VIP flights during the period 1st January 1970 to 30th November 1970. included 199 all-jet landings and the same number of departures from Kingsford-Smith Airport. (2), (3) and(4) The information set out in the following list includes details previously provided in documents tabled in the Senate on 20th

October 1970 (Hansard, Senate, page 1307) and 7th May 1971 (Hansard, Senate, page 1570), but excludes details of passengers carried on aircraft positioning flights.

page 2516

WOOL

(Question No. 2139)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is the present temporary stimuli in the wool trade doing anything of real value to stop the decay in the industry.
  2. Do 70 per cent of the 90,000 woolgrowers in Australia run flocks of less than 2,000 sheep.
  3. Is 7,000 sheep the accepted rough figure at which a grower can reasonably expect to maintain essential quality.
  4. What definite long-term scheme has the Government in mind to keep small woolgrowers in a viable business.
  5. Does the Minister agree with the statement made by Mr George Le Couteur that the present ceiling could be too high for the long-term good.

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

  1. I personally am hopeful that the recovery in the wool market since January this year is more than temporary. I have no doubt that the improved wool prices now being obtained are of very real benefit to wool growers.
  2. Figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician in March 1971 (the latest available) show that in 1969-70, 70 per cent of all holdings with more than 200 sheep bad less than 2,000 sheep.
  3. It is not possible to quantify the minimum flock size needed by a grower to maintain flock quality except in relation to a specific area. This is because the flock size depends on a large number of very variable factors, such as soil, climate and genetic material available.
  4. The Government’s policies in regard to the wool-growing industry are aimed at the industry as a whole although the interests of the family farmer have been kept well in mind in their formulation.
  5. The view that present wool price levels are too high for the long-term good of the wool industry is one which I find difficult to accept. There is a good deal of evidence to indicate that the wool market at present has a solid basis. Since January, prices at Australian wool auctions have staged a strong recovery from the extremely low levels of last year. Demand for wool is good and improving in Europe, Britain and Japan, and it should not be overlooked that the current level of woo) prices is still below the levels which prevailed before the recent slump.

page 2516

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT

(Question No. 2161)

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

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

  1. How many trade missions have been sent abroad by the Commonwealth Government over the past two years with a view to increasing Australia’s exports of apples and pears and which countries were visited.
  2. Are any future missions, with a similar aim, planned before 3 1st December 1973.

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

  1. No trade missions with the sole aim of increasing Australia’s export of apples and pears have been sent overseas by the Commonwealth Government over the past two years. However, four delegations from the Australian Apple and Pear Board have visited, during that period, the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States of America in connection with freight rates, shipping and marketing matters. The General Manager of the Board visited the United Kingdom in May 1970 to conduct a market survey, and the Board Chairman is presently visiting the United Kingdom and Europe with a delegation from the Overseas Trade Publicity Committee. Visits and delegations of the kind referred to above, would within the general charter given them, be alert for any opportunities to expand markets or to follow up opportunities to increase exports.
  2. At this stage there are no missions planned before 31st December 1973.

page 2516

BANANA INDUSTRY

(Question No. 2173)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Are arrangements being made to expand the banana industry, in Queensland for the purpose of exporting bananas to Japan.
  2. Was a delegation recently sent to Japan by the Queensland Government to investigate the possibility of exporting Queensland bananas to Japan; if so, who were the members of the delegation.
  3. What will be the likely effect on the banana industry in New South Wales.
  4. Have any attempts been made in recent times to obtain a national stabilisation scheme for the banana industry; if so, what progress has been made.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) A delegation under the auspices of the Queensland Government left for Japan on the 19th April to investigate market prospects for North Queensland bananas in Japan and returned on the 8th May. I am informed that the delegation consisted of Mr G. Short, Senior Marketing Reporter, Queensland Department of Primary Industries; Dr D. Langbridge, Market Development Officer, Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd; and Mr E. Greaves, Manager, Banana Sec- tion, Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, Brisbane. I understand that the Report of the delegation has not been completed yet, and it is therefore too early assess the market prospects in Japan for bananas on the basis of this delegation’s visit, or the effect of any, possible trade in Queensland bananas that might develop on the industry in New South Wales. When the report is available it will be considered by myself and my officers with the interests of the industry in all parts of Australia in mind.

  1. Leaders of the banana growing industry have for some years been studying the possibility of achieving a satisfactory stabilisation plan for this industry. During this time they, have had discussions with officers of the Department of Primary Industry and other people who might be of assistance to them in their investigations. The initiative for further action in this matter is at this stage with the industry.

page 2517

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

(Question No. 2201)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

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

  1. What dairying industry interests are represented by Amalgamated Co-operative Marketers (Australia) Ltd.
  2. Can the Minister indicate whether Amalgamated Co-operative Marketers (Australia) Ltd’s action in nominating the General Manager, Mr K. R. Kent, and campaigning for his election to the Australian Dairy Produce Board as the representative of Victorian co-operative butter and cheese factories, is being done in the interests of the industry generally or is being motivated by commercial self-interest as has been alleged.
  3. Are there any factors which would prevent a company from mounting a campaign for election of a candidate to the Australian Dairy Produce Board.

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

  1. I am informed that all Victorian cooperative dairy companies are shareholders in Amalgamated Co-operative Marketers (Australia) Ltd (A.C.M.A.L.) which is a marketing organisation set up to market dairy products manufactured by the shareholding consigning companies. These companies are situated in north and north eastern Victoria, Gippsland and the western district of Victoria. In addition through its wholly owned subsidiaries A.C.M.A.L. provides cold storage and carton making facilities as well as farm servicing facilities.
  2. It is considered that A.C.M.A.L. like any other large dairy organisation would be concerned to ensure that the industry representation on the Australian Dairy Produce Board is the best available to the industry, which no doubt is reflected in its decision to make its General Manager available to serve on the Board as the representative of Victorian co-operative butter and cheese factories.
  3. There is nothing in the relevant Act or regulations to say that a person who has been nominated as a candidate, or his company, shall not spend money to campaign for his election. Consequently, there is no implication that action by a company to campaign on behalf of its nominee is improper.

page 2517

WHEAT

(Question No. 2205)

Senator McLAREN:

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

What action does the Government intend to take to prevent across the border wheat sales, as mentioned by the immediate past Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir Allan Callaghan, in the Board’s Annual Report issued earlier this month.

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

The section of the Annual Report of the Australian Wheat Board to which the question refers made a number of points on interstate trade in wheat. These included:

An undue spate of publicity did nothing to alleviate the problem.

The Board closely examined the development of this trade under the protection of Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution ,

The trade is of relatively small dimensions but is a serious threat to the future of. orderly marketing ‘ .

The trade has been contained to some extent by the availability of weather-damaged wheat from Board stocks.

The Australian Wheat Growers’ Federation also has been giving a great deal of attention to the problem of unauthorised trading. In this it has maintained close liaison with the Board. It has examined a number of alternatives, some of which it has put before me for consideration. None has offered real hope of an effective and acceptable solution to the problem. Most have foundered on the rock of Section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Others, aimed at closing some’ lesser avenues of unauthorised dealings, could not prevent or even reduce movement of wheat’ trade across State borders.

State Governments have participated in examinations of proposals. They have been consulted in the Australian Agricultural Council and, within their own boundaries, by wheat grower organisations.

Thus far the problem has proved to be intractable. Efforts to find ways and means of Overcoming it are continuing and will continue. Most growers are aware of the importance for themselves and for their industry of maintaining and strengthening the orderly marketing arrangements which have served them well for 3 decades. The relatively small proportion trading outside the Board are acting against the good interests of their fellow growers.

page 2518

ESTATE DUTY

(Question No. 2206)

Senator NEGUS:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the Treasurer aware that some widows are paying death taxes on expected income tax refunds which have been set down as assets of their deceased husband’s estate.
  2. Are these refunds often delayed because they are refunds on a deceased person’s estate and does this delay cause hardship to widows; if so, will the Treasurer endeavour to expedite these tax refunds.

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

  1. Income tax refunds due to the estates of deceased persons and arising from tax or provisional lax payments or tax instalment deductions made prior to the date of death are liable to estate duty to the same extent as other assets of estates.
  2. Every effort is made by the Commonwealth Taxation Office to finalise as quickly as possible a deceased person’s income tax affairs. Special arrangements are made to accelerate issue of refund cheques where it is known that hardship exists.

page 2518

BOOK BOUNTY

(Question No. 2232)

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

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

In view of the Minister’s answer to a previous question revealing that book bounty payment had been made to the printers of ‘Intercourse’, ‘Ways of Loving’, ‘Call Girl’ and “The Little Red Schoolbook’, and also unsolicited information that a similar bounty was refused to the printers of Lesbian Capers’, ‘Jay Birds in Love’, ‘Week End Love’ and ‘Girls in Love’, and as in the same answer the Minister stated ‘Payment of bounty is in no way related to the merit of the book. Bounty has been paid on the production of every type of book, including cheap, badly-written detective stories and trashy romances; merit, literary or otherwise, is simply not relevant. The Book Bounty Act is not an instrument of censorship and moral attitudes are not taken into account in the consideration for bounty purposes of a book which satisfies all the criteria for bounty payment’, will the Minister now disclose why were the bounties refused on the books he listed.

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

Bounty was refused on the publications referred to by the honourable senator because had they been imported editions they would have been declared prohibited imports and would therefore have fallen within the scope of Section 8 (1) of the Book Bounty Act. That Section provides that bounty is not payable in respect of a book if the printing or publishing of the book by a person or the sending by a person of the book through the post constitutes or would constitute an offence by the person against a law of the Commonwealth.

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the

Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is there very strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that the Minister for Primary Industry has committed a breach of section 79 of the Crimes Act
  2. Will the Attorney-General’ have all circumstances of this allegation investigated to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to support a charge against the Minister for Primary Industry for breach of section 79 of the Crimes Act
  3. If the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to permit the matter to go before a court of competent jurisdiction, will the AttorneyGeneral, in accordance with the duties of his office, authorise a prosecution.

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. See answers to (l)and (2).

page 2518

CRIMES ACT

(Question No. 2246)

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 June 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720601_senate_27_s52/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant