Senate
24 August 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 377

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Notwithstanding internal measures taken to combat ‘skyjackers’, what stage has been reached by the appropriate international body to achieve a common policy when a hijacked aircraft seeks landing sanctuary?

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

– A substantial degree of unanimity on common action has been reached. 1 think the honourable senator might well benefit if I obtained fairly substantial information for him on his subject. This is a matter of considerable interest. There are one or 2 countries with which problems arise, but not a great number. The measures agreed upon have fairly wide acceptance and some strong attempts are now being made in the United Nations to strengthen the overall international approach lo this matter.

page 377

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to several television interviews in which the Labor Party Leader, Mr Whitlam, has indicated that, in the Labor Party’s view, tariffs are too high and should be reduced? Would any appreciable reduction of tariffs threaten the continued existence of thousands of Australian secondary industries and the jobs of tens of thousands of Australian workers? Does this not make a hollow mockery and a humbug of the Labor Party’s criticism of current levels of unemployment - levels which, by world standards, are a record low?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I understand that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, has been on television programmes and I am told that he has indicated on those programmes that he and his Party believe in fairly substantial reductions in tariffs. I cannot say with accuracy whether that is his Party’s beliefs or just his own. But it has been stated, I am told. There is no doubt at all that the Australian manufacturing industry operates under quite a degree of tariff protection. It is necessary that it should do so in order to survive because the scale of production, having regard to the available market, is not such that manufacturing industry can be exposed to unbridled competition. It is equally true that it is the substantial employer in this country today of labour. It would certainly be true without any qualification that if tariffs were to be reduced we could see quite a massive rise in unemployment in manufacturing industry. Therefore, in common with the honourable senator, I find it extremely hard to reconcile the concern of the Australian Labor Party on the one hand about unemployment with its apparent willingness on the other hand to reduce tariff barriers and so increase unemployment.

page 377

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it not a fact that a statement made yesterday by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs in New South Wales, Mr Gallagher, to the effect that complaints of faulty workmanship in new cars had risen by 86.3 per cent since last July, confirmed statements I made on Tuesday night during the debate on the motion for the adjournment?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– While I listened with fascination to the comments and observations made by the honourable senator on Tuesday night, I have not seen the comments and observations made by the chief of the Consumer Affairs Bureau. Until I see them I cannot reconcile them or agree that he might well have reinforced the honourable senator’s view or that the honourable senator reinforced his view. I will direct this question to the responsible Minister, get the honourable senator’s comments analysed, get the comments of the Consumer Affairs Bureau analysed and see whether the honourable senator and the Consumer Affairs Bureau are working in unity, in concert, or not together at all.

page 377

QUESTION

MERCURY CONTENT IN FISH

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that a specie of fish of a certain size has been declared in Victoria as being unfit for human consumption due to the suggestion that those fish contain an unduly high mercury content? Was it the fisheries section of the Department of Primary Industry which alerted the Victorian Government to this health hazard? Can the Minister explain why it is that one specie of fish is so affected, and why this has happened in Victoria? Is there any significance about a fish 28 inches long? Is the Minister aware of the serious economic difficulty in which some fisherman are placed due to this announcement? Does he know of any request for Commonwealth Government assistance?

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

– I do not know whether I can answer all parts of the honourable senator’s question. I did seek some information on this matter which is along the lines that the Victorian investigations to date show that school shark above a certain size and age may have a mercury content above the permissible level recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council. This matter at present is under further consideration. I understand that such fish have not yet been officially declared unfit for human consumption by the Victorian Government. The Department of Primary Industry did not make the recommendation. The action being taken by the Victorian Government no doubt arose from discussions on this subject by the Standing Committee on Fisheries on which the Department of Primary Industry is represented. Tests to date have been mainly based on shark caught off the coast of Victoria and other southern States. It is believed that school shark is particularly affected because of its longevity and predatory habits. In order to obtain more basic information on this problem the Minister for Primary Industry has allocated $23,423 from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account to study the occurrence of mercury and other heavy metals in sharks and other commercial fish species in south eastern waters.

page 378

QUESTION

HOTEL AND MOTEL ACCOMMODATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Is it a fact that some 8,000 international hotel and motel rooms foreshadowed in the last few years for the eastern State capitals, half are now classified as having been cancelled or likely to be cancelled? Will such action have a disastrous effect on our capacity to cope with Australia’s growing influx of overseas tourists? Will the Minister make a declaration of intent in regard to Government assistance for the building of major city hotels in reply to repeated requests by all sections of the tourist industry to do so?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As one who has played his part in trying to stimulate tourist travel to Australia, and travel by Australians within their own country, 1 naturally am interested, as the honourable senator is, in the accommodation situation. I cannot say whether the figure he mentioned is accurate. This is a matter for the responsible Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities who is in the other place. The honourable senator’s comments and his question will be directed to the Minister.

page 378

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I ask: Has the Minister noted the comments made in Canberra yesterday by His Excellency the Governor-General in which he said, among other things, that he had noticed a weakening of the discipline of learning in the academic sphere and that the discipline of learning involved a dedication to the task of learning? As the discipline of learning also carries with it references to teaching, I ask: Has the Minister observed the recommendation in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts on teacher education that refers to attention, aptitude, temperament and desire? Is the Minister aware that the Committee recommended some Commonwealth research into the methods of screening applicants for teaching positions? Can he advise whether there has been any Government response to this recommendation?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I am obliged to the honourable senator for directing attention to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts on teacher education. I recall that reference was made in it to the desirability for institutions accepting applications for teacher training to consider the aptitude of the applicants. I carried with me into the chamber the education statistics that are such a notable achievement of this Government, In regard to teacher education, I remind the Senate that in 1970 the full time teacher education enrolment in colleges of advanced education numbered 1,068, that by 1973 it is estimated that the full time enrolments will exceed 2,500 and that since 1968 the number of teacher trainees in Government schools has increased from 29,000 to 42,000. I think it is a necessary corollary of that fact that teacher education is being guided as much as possible into colleges of advanced education at the present time although of course many teacher institutions will continue to exist for their exclusive function of teacher training. With this emphasis upon teacher training, I think it is almost inevitable that the good sense of the report of the Senate Committee that has been referred to will make an increasing impact. I am not aware that the Government has given any specific allocation of funds for research into this matter, although, as the Senate knows, the funds made available to the States by the Commonwealth and the direct expenditure by the Commonwealth on education afford ample opportunity for the States to institute this research if necessary.

page 379

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister agree that it is a widely held view among economists that the under-valuation of the Australian currency is one of the major factors in Australia’s high rate of inflation? As the Budget gave nothing extra to the 112,000 people registered as being out of work and as the people who are receiving the inadequate unemployment benefit are those suffering most from inflation, would it not be an economically and socially desirable move to revalue the Australian dollar?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 suppose one of the worst things one can do in a responsible sense when one is involved in Treasury affairs, even if one is distantly involved or is in loco parentis to them as I am, is to involve oneself in speculation on the potential movements of currency. That is perhaps the greatest disservice one can do to a community and an investing public. Therefore I will not involve myself. But I would like to say very briefly in regard to the claim that the supposed undervaluation of the Australian dollar is producing inflation that there is not much economic warrant for saying that. Although there are economists who think that it is, there are also economists who think that it is not. So it is a matter of fine balance. Perhaps I should draw attention to a quite useful article which appeared in the finnancial pages of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ about 2 days ago. It pointed out that the capital inflow into this country is not composed, as is supposed, only of hot money looking for speculative gain but substantially of money from Australian companies borrowing abroad and reinvesting here. Their reinvestment programmes demonstrate once again the great confidence which the world has, and Australians have, in our economy and in our country.

page 379

QUESTION

PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister who represents the Prime Minister in this place ascertain the number of physically handicapped persons employed in the Commonwealth Public Service? Is special consideration given to facilitating the employment of such persons? If not, will thought be given to the establishment of generous and understanding criteria to determine the eligibility of physically handicapped persons for suitable employment in appropriate areas within the Public Service?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I cannot give the exact number. 1 know from my own experience that people in this category are employed in the Public Service. I have always made application in the past for employment for anyone in this category whom I may have had in mind. The only information I can give to the honourable senator is that a complete and comprehensive study of this matter was made by the Public Service Board. I think that it was back in 1971. It was published in the Public Service Boards report. If the honourable senator obtains a copy he may find ail the information he is seeking. If he has difficulty in obtaining a copy of the report I shall obtain one for him.

page 380

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he is aware that in November a record number of pupils will be leaving Australian schools and coming on to the labour market for the first time? In view of the serious unemployment situation now existing in Australia, and likely to be existing in November, has any survey been made of the likely job opportunities available for these people and also of the number who are likely to be unable to obtain work? If so, will the Minister make the details of the survey available to this Parliament? If not, will the Minister request that such a survey be undertaken?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Anybody who had an actual interest in the operations of the Department of Labour and National Service will know that it is routine for this sort of assessment - the honourable senator calls it a survey - to be carried out from month to month. Of course the Minister and the department are watching the probable growth in employment recruits coming on to the labour market at the end of the school year. These considerations occupy an important part in the budgetary measures which were taken last week to stimulate the growth of manufacturing capacity and other employment potential to cater for the increased needs of this country.

page 380

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Having in mind the blatant acts of racial discrimination by Uganda against Asians, will the Australian Government give an assurance that any sporting team from Uganda visiting this country will be given protection against racial demonstrators in an endeavour to avoid another Springbok demonstration and clearly show that the Government and great majority of people in Australia will not accept the mixing of politics with sport?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I think it was Madame Roland who lamented during the French Revolution: ‘O Liberty, what crimes are done in thy name!’ (Opposition senators interjecting)

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Question time in this place is either a time when questions can be answered or a lime when the bedlam of the Australian Labor Party can take over.

Senator Hannan:

– I rise to order. Owing to the bedlam emanating from honourable senators opposite I have been unable to hear the answer given by the Minister. I wonder whether it could be repeated?

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! Once again I remind honourable senators that they must listen to questions and answers in silence. Otherwise they cannot be heard.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I had been saying that it was during the French Revolution that Madame Roland said: ‘O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!’ Having regard to recent events one could say that many crimes are being committed in the name of racism. This is one of the problems which the world has to face. Double standards are everywhere to be seen. I am quite sure that the view which the Australian Government has taken consistently is the only view which provides certainty in a difficult world. The Australian view has always been that its doors are open to those who are invited in the name of sport and in the name of culture to come into this country. It was the view which the Government took with regard to invitations extended to South African rugby players and to South African cricket players. It was the view which the Government took when invitations were extended to basketball teams from Taiwan and table tennis teams from China. It is the view that the Government has always taken when an invitation has been extended to soccer players from Russia or to those engaged in cultural activities from Iron Curtain countries. I know that members of the Opposition, who are making an awful lot of noise at the moment, would have some sort of selective inclusion and exclusion and that is always liable to cause trouble. I repeat that the view of the Government has been to say that if people in Australia want to extend invitations to people from outside this country, those invitations will be honoured. I am quite sure that this will be the view that the Government will continue to observe in the future.

page 381

QUESTION

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF COMPANIES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, ls the Minister aware that the following industries are foreign owned to the following degree: agricultural and earth moving equipment manufacturing, 91 per cent; meat production, 92.5 per cent; fruit and vegetable preserving, 95 per cent; and flour and ceral production, 97 per cent? As it is apparent that the Government approves of this amount of foreign control, can the Minister inform the Parliament of the amount of profits exported to overseas countries from each industry for the last financial year?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– 1 have seen some figures indicating something along the lines put forward by the honourable senator, but they were not the figures mentioned by him. 1 shall have the true figures taken out.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Do you say that they are untrue?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– 1 do not know.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Do not cast aspersions on me, please.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The figures that I have seen are substantially different from those mentioned by the honourable senator. I shall obtain the figures from the Prime Minister’s Department or from the Treasury and supply the honourable senator with whatever information I can obtain.

page 381

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Is he aware also that the Secretary-General of this committee is at present in Australia for the World Congress for the Handicapped, which is to be held in Sydney next week? Will the Prime Minister meet this man to investigate the possibilities of setting up a Prime Minister’s committee to do exactly the same thing here, that is, to sponsor job opportunities for handicapped people?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am aware of the information which the honourable senator has just given to the Senate and 1 am also aware, as is the Government, of the wonderful work being done in Australia by certain organisations. 1 would have to see the Prime Minister about the remainder of the question. It will be for him to decide what further action he takes.

page 381

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer give favourable consideration to making retrospective to 1st July 1972 the increased age, invalid and repatriation entitlements set out in the 1972 Budget? If the Treasurer will not accede to the request, will he make known the reasons which prevent such legislative action?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The question is an interesting one. I thought the Opposition was opposed to the Budget. I shall direct the question to the Treasurer.

page 381

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, is supplementary to the question asked by the Opposition senator who supported the advocacy of Mr Whitlam of revaluation of the Australian currency. While appreciating the sensitivity of the area of currency discussions, would substantial revaluation have the following major effects: firstly, a serious decline in rural industries; secondly, a significant fall in revenue in the mining industries and a very real threat to their future; and, thirdly, a threat to the survival of large sections of Australian secondary industry and of our export industries? Would these factors provoke serious unemployment in Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– There is no doubt about the accuracy of the comments contained in the honourable senator’s query. Revaluation would have a substantial deleterious effect on the income of primary producers and of the mining industry and it would expose manufacturing industry to greater hazard and greater competition, noting that secondary industry is engaging increasingly in export trade. All these things would be true. The effect on employment would be quite serious.

page 382

QUESTION

CONTRACEPTIVES: SALES TAX

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to various reports suggesting that undue pressure was brought to bear to prevent sales tax on contraceptives being lifted in the 1972 Budget? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether these reports are correct and whether the overwhelming views of Liberal Party members and other community groups on this subject were ignored to placate outside pressure groups?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It would be wrong to say that the views of groups of people were ignored. In his Budget speech the Treasurer made the point that during its examination of the Budget the Government had considered reductions in the rates of sales tax. In its wisdom it decided that in view of the kind of Budget that was to be introduced it would not reduce the rates of sales tax. I will convey the question to the responsible Minister. If I can get further information for the honourable senator, I will give it to him.

page 382

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator HANNAN:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster General. It refers to recent public announcements by Sir Robert Madgwick, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, relative to bias in Australian current affairs programmes. Is it a fact that when giving sworn evidence on 6th June 1971 before the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, as recorded at page 224 of the transcript, Sir Robert said, inter alia:

I have never said that the ABC programmes have always in my opinion been impartial.

When speaking to the ABC Staff Association on 5th June 1971, as reported in the Canberra Times’, did Mr Whitlam strongly dispute the requirement put on the ABC to provide balance in its programmes? In the same speech was Mr Whitlam reported as saying:

I confess there is an authoritarian streak in my Party as strong as exists among my opponents.

I know because all my battles within the Party have been directed against authoritarianism and intolerance.

Does this mean that an ALP Government would simply set the ABC current affairs programmes up as a pure organ of propaganda?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that the Senate should be indebted to Senator Hannan for his exposure of facts which ought to have the widest currency. In the first place, I earlier confirmed that Sir Robert Madgwick did give evidence before one of the Senate standing committees. I recall seeing the remarks that Senator Hannan attributed to him, together with a lot of other statements which Sir Robert Madgwick made and which persons interest in the conduct of the Australian Broadcasting Commission would be well advised to read. As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question as to whether Mr Whitlam had said the words attributed to him, my information, culled from the newspaper report, is that Mr Whitlam did say them. In my understanding, he said in a report in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ on 5th June 1971:

It would be dishonest for me to assert that the ABC would be free of criticism, free of pressure under a Labor government. I confess that there is an authoritarian streak in my own Party.

But what is so alarming is that although the staff of the ABC, over the past week or so have been critical of Sir Alan Hulme for saying far less than Mr Whitlam said, there was not one protest from the staff of the ABC against the statements which were made by Mr Whitlam. That very lack of balance, I think, gives absolute proof that there is a tendency for the staff to use the ABC to present an unbalanced viewpoint. In fact, there is more than a tendency. There is evidence of it.

page 383

QUESTION

NON-METROPOLITAN UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF SCHEME

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. How many persons employed by the nonmetropolitan unemployment relief scheme are Aborigines? Does the scheme make any special provision for the relief of unemployed amongst Aborigines?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have nol the figures of the number of Aborigines who are assisted by the non-metropolitan unemployment relief scheme. My understanding is that the scheme makes no discrimination whatever between Aborigines and other unemployed persons.

Senator Keeffe:

– 1 can give you the name of a couple who have been refused relief.

Senator WRIGHT:

– 1 did nol hear the interjection. For once, the circumstances of hearing in this chamber have been merciful to me.

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! Before we proceed further with the asking of questions, J should like to draw the attention of honourable senators lo the fact that long quotations must not be given in questions. That is the general rule.

page 383

QUESTION

QUESTION TIME

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

– I direct a question to you, Mr Acting President, for your consideration. 1 refer to the method of honourable senators rising in their places to ask questions without notice. Having observed the scene for some 10 years and, during that time, increasing in age and finding increasing disability in jumping up and down like a yo-yo, and after hearing comments from a Norwegian who thought as 1 do that it is quite undignified for members to keep on popping up and down almost like continuous yo-yos, I ask: Would it not be possible for some system to operate whereby honourable senators could notify the presiding officer beforehand either personally or by messenger that they had a question to ask and let the President or whoever is acting in that position proceed to call on honourable senators to rise in their turns rather than have this undignified method of popping up and down and hoping that we will be seen?

The ACTING PRESIDENT- -In reply to Senator Turnbull, I desire to say that the present practice in regard to the asking of questions is a long-established one. I think that any change may have to go before the Standing Orders Committee. However, I will certainly refer the matter to the President on his return. I want to say that 1 am following precedent. I know that sometimes honourable senators may feel that they are being overlooked. But certain principles have been set for me to follow. They are that leaders and deputy leaders of parties or whips take precedence over other honourable senators when they stand to ask a question. I want honourable senators to bear this in mind. The request of Senator Turnbull will be submitted to the President for consideration.

page 383

QUESTION

ELECTORAL EXPENSES

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Being the father of the Senate, 1 will now become the first popper. 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior who is Minister in charge of Commonwealth electoral matters. In view of the imminence of the Federal election at which members of the House of Representative and a Senator will spend and have spent on their behalf considerable sums of money exceeding the statutory limit of $500 as prescribed by the Electoral Act, and in view of the necessity to make a statutory declaration which, according to the Electoral Act, is false if the sum spent on behalf of members and candidates exceeds $500, when can the Government be expected to bring in legislation amending the Electoral Act which will remove this embarrassing ambiguity and thus clear candidates from the obvious charge of perjury?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– lt is well known that 1 have a great interest in fathers and those intending to be fathers; therefore I take the question from the popper opposite extremely seriously. Properly, I ought to direct the question to the responsible Minister; I am sure Senator O’Byrne understands this. I ask the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper.

page 384

QUESTION

INQUIRY INTO POVERTY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It arises out of the recent statement by the Prime Minister that the Government is to conduct an inquiry into poverty in Australia. Will the Minister tell the Senate the name of the man who is to conduct the inquiry, what are the terms of reference, and when will the inquiry begin?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Leader of the Opposition in another place this morning asked the Prime Minister a question along similar lines. The Prime Minister informed the Leader of the Opposition that the terms of reference had now been decided upon and that this would be a one-man inquiry. The Prime Minister further advised the Leader of the Opposition that the man who will conduct the inquiry is at present out of Australia but will return on Sunday and that, when he has returned, his name and the terms of reference will be announced.

page 384

QUESTION

ABORIGINES: EDUCATION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minster for Education and Science state, firstly, the total amount spent by the Commonwealth Government on Aboriginal education in the year ending 30th June 1972; and secondly the amount allocated for this purpose in the current Budget? Thirdly can he represent these figures as per capita figures? Fourthly, can he provide me also with the per capita figure spent on the education of other Australians during the same period?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am able to inform the honourable senator that the allocation for Aboriginal education last year was $8.6m. In the present Budget it is $15. lm, an increase of more than 70 per cent. That only takes its place as an item in the very impressive increase in the Commonwealth’s direct expenditure on education which rises from S354m a year ago to $426m this year.

Senator Mulvihill:

Senator, you are electioneering.

Senator WRIGHT:

– No. I am giving, facts. In view of the intelligence of Senator Mulvihill, nobody would be more interested than he in objective facts. With regard to the comparative per capita expen diture on education as between Aborigines and others, last year the general per capita-

Senator Georges:

Mr Acting President, I rise to a point of order. It is obvious that the answer being given is being given to a question that is not a question without notice. It is obvious that the questioner must have given previous notice of this question to the Minister and I think that the question ought to be placed on notice.

The ACTING PRESIDENT - Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr Acting President, the intervention of the honourable senator shows how ignorant he is of parliamentary procedure. Questions on notice are questions on the notice paper. Questions on notice are not questions as to which conversation has not occurred; they are questions on the notice paper. As I was saying when an attempt was made to suppress the actual facts by the honourable senator who yesterday brought innuendo and malice into the chamber and then got great publicity for it -

Senator Georges:

Mr Acting President, at this point I demand a withdrawal of the word ‘malice’ which implies, or even clearly states, that I was malicious. The word was used yesterday. As I indicated to the Minister, I did not take action yesterday, but its re-use today makes it very offensive and I ask for a withdrawal.

The ACTING PRESIDENT - Order! The point of order is not upheld because in my opinion the Minister is stating correctly what took place.

Senator Georges:

– As you yourself saying now that I acted in a malicious fashion yesterday?

The ACTING PRESIDENT - The

Minister did not refer to you. I did not take it that the Minister referred to you.

Senator Willesee:

Mr Acting President

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator Willesee:

Mr Acting President, every time I have tried to speak on any of these matters you have silenced me. I should be given a chance to speak.

The ACTING PRESIDENT- I was going to give a decision. But go ahead if you want to delay the proceedings.

Senator Willesee:

– I do not want to delay the proceedings. If there is one person in this place who has not delayed the proceedings it is I, and I think that you, Mr Acting President, will agree with that. The proceedings were delayed very badly yesterday and, thank heavens, to a slighter degree today. Firstly, you say that Senator Wright was not referring to Senator Georges. I think the only man who can answer that is Senator Wright.

Senator Wright:

– And I indicate to the Chair that I think 1 did refer to Senator Georges.

Senator Willesee:

– There you are Mr Acting President. Let it proceed if that is the case. But I think that when you say that you know what is in somebody’s mind you are exceeding your authority.

Senator Wright:

– May I say I referred to Senator Georges. In deference to his remarks I will withdraw the references to malice.

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! Before your proceed any further, Senator Wright, I want to make it clear that my interpretation of what you were referring to was the incident which took place in the chamber yesterday. Apparently Senator Wright, in speaking, did not refer to that but was referring to Senator Georges, Before you rose, Senator Willesee, I had interpreted from what Senator Wright had said that he did mean Senator Georges and that he was withdrawing the reference. That is why I suggested the matter could have been finalised then without any further delay. There is no reflection on you, Senator Willesee, because I know that you always observe the orders of the Senate very completely. Senator Wright has withdrawn the charge that he made.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That gives me the silence which I need to state the figures in order to reply to Senator Jessop.

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Proceed with the answer.

Senator Keeffe:

– Get your stuff over.

Senator WRIGHT:

– They are still out to suppress the facts; the noise is continuing.

But the fact is that the per capita expenditure on all Australian children last year was near enough to S27 and this year it is $31. In the Aboriginal field last year it was $60; this year it is approximately $100 per capita.

page 385

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General: In view of the almost universal dissatisfaction in Tasmania with the present 3-sections telephone directory with its very wasteful and costly duplication and great inconvenience to users, will he request the Postmaster-General to examine again the need to return to a single directory for Tasmania?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Yes.

page 385

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Was Kim Robert Norman of Perth arrested in Perth on 26th July for alleged breach of section 51 of the National Service Act - failing to answer a call-up notice? Did he appear in court on the same day and was bail set at $1,500 with a similar surety? If so, does the Minister believe the bail to be excessive? Will the Minister obtain for the Senate the reason why such high bail was set? I also ask the Minister: ls bail of such an excessive amount generally set for much more serious crimes?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 am aware that Mr Norman was before the court recently, but I have not the details before me and I cannot recollect them. 1 do know - and this is a broad matter of policy which is followed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office with regard to bail applications by persons who have been on the run from the police in regard to National Service Act offences - that the Crown Solicitor should point out to magistrates that there has been a record of evasion of arrest, that bail applications should not be granted and that if they are to be granted there should be an amount of bail fixed which indicates that the persons run away from the police at their peril. This is the general policy and it has been necessitated by the numerous instances in which people arrested by police have been given bail of $200 or $300 and then they have cheerfully forfeited bail and not appeared in court on the date to which their case was adjourned. That is the situation which has happened on many occasions with these persons who are members of the draft resisters’ union and other persons who are avoiding arrest for their offences. I think that it is only proper that these facts should be made known to magistrates. It is entirely a matter for the courts as to the amount of bail which they fix. But if a magistrate fixes a large amount of bail, I am sure that he does so on his appreciation of the circumstances.

page 386

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate follows on the questions asked by Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield and Senator Laucke concerning handicapped persons and their employment in the Commonwealth Public Service. Is it a fact that the relatively high medical and efficiency standards applied by the Department of Health and the Commonwealth Public Service Board restrict Commonwealth employment as an avenue of useful work for handicapped persons and that these standards do not apply in respect of private employment? Will the Minister refer to the appropriate departments the need for revising these standards to ensure that the Government’s policy of promoting the employment of handicapped persons is related to Commonwealth employment avenues?

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

– I know that there are some restrictions because I have encountered them in my own representations in the past.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They are in respect of superannuation requirements.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yes. I will seek further information. To obtain a proper answer to the question, the honourable senator may care to place it on notice. .

page 386

QUESTION

PENSION PORTABILITY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services: What progress has been achieved in negotiations with countries with which Australia desires reciprocal agreements relating to pension portability?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I spoke recently to the Minister for Social Services about this matter. I understand that negotiations have been entered into for agreements to be made for pension portability with some 28 countries. The position at present is that whilst no reciprocal agreements have been entered into, the Minister is hopeful that in the near future there will be an announcement of some agreements having been made and that further negotiations will be continued.

page 386

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, follows an answer given by him to Senator Hannan. Are the commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission charged with responsibility of administering the affairs of the ABC and with ensuring that adequate and comprehensive programmes serving the best interests of the community are programmed be the Commission? Will the Minister agree that all of the existing commissioners have been appointed by a succession of Liberal and Country Party Minsters and that criticism of the ABC staff by the Postmaster-General the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General is not only an attack on the staff but also a very serious reflection on the capacity and integrity of all Government appointed commissioners? In short, is the Minister saying that the commissioners are not carrying out their statutory responsibilities under the Broadcasting Television Act?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think the Postmaster-General made the position clear last week when he indicated that he believed that there was a responsibility resting with the commissioners to excercise control within the Commission. He made some suggestions - they were only suggestions - which the commissioners could accept or not accept. However, in making those suggestions he reflected a widespread view - I think it is a widespread view which has justification - that there are within the ABC some elements of the staff who seem to regard themselves as responsible to nobody. That attitude has reflected itself in some-

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! There are too many interjections. Senator Douglas McClelland asked the question. If a honourable senator asks a question the answer should be listened to, particularly by the questioner, otherwise what is the use of asking it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The attitude to which I am referring is one which has been reflected in some of the current affairs programmes of the ABC. As one commissioner is reported to have said, there is an ideological slant which a small section of the ABC staff has engaged in which reflects upon the whole of the ABC staff.

Senator Georges:

– You cannot stand the truth.

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order!

Senator GREENWOOD:

– All I am saying is that in response to a question-

Senator Negus:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr Acting President, you have said repeatedly today that you insist on silence while a question is being asked or while an answer is being given. I suggest, Sir, that you maintain order.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! I have asked for silence. If we do not have silence it is a reflection on the Senate and on honourable senators. I will try to maintain silence. If a question is asked, honourable senators should listen to the reply, particularly the questioner who should be keen to hear the answer.

Senator Willesee:

– On a point of order, Mr Acting President; you have called the Opposition to order over the past few days and have asked for silence on several occasions. That is what should happen. However, it may be that all of the fault does not lie with the Opposition. I put forward as a suggestion, to use the words used by Senator Greenwood, which you may not accept, that questions that have been asked over the past couple have been very loose and the answers also have been very loose. Many members of the public might be astounded to know that senators are human. Some of the replies given by certain Ministers over the last couple of days set the stage, 1 believe, for noisy interjections. I disagree with interjections and I disagree with noise just as much as you do, Mr Acting President, but I understand the human element and the psychology of this. When Ministers deliberately do not answer questions, when they become very provocative and say things that are unparliamentary, they put us in the position that we would need to be taking points of order all the time, thus further shattering the smooth running of this place. I think that both sides of the chamber could contribute to what you are trying to do. Perhaps in any further appeals you may have to make you will appeal also to the Government side of the chamber.

Senator Greenwood:

– I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr Acting President. I listened to what Senator Willesee had to say. The clear implication was that the Opposition is not wholly to blame. At the present time I am responding to a question which was asked by one of the Labor senators, Senator Douglas McClelland, and which was couched in a wide form, and I am replying directly to the question which was asked. Mr Acting President, I have observed that every time a Minister stands up to respond to a question on a subject on which there is obviously some sensitivity on the part of the Opposition there is a barrage of interjections; there is bedlam. I have experienced that constantly this morning. I do not believe that Senator Willesee was accurately stating the position when he said that the matter could not be wholly controlled from within the Opposition. It could be controlled if only the Opposition would respect your rulings, Mr Acting President. It is apparent, even as I speak, that I cannot get a word out without some of the blabbermouths of the Opposition making interjections.

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! Having listened to the arguments advanced in relation to the point of order, I want to say that I think that there may be something in what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Willesee, has said. Some of the questions asked may be loosely framed, but some of the answers given are correspondingly loose. I ask honourable senators to put their questions in a concise form and I ask Ministers to observe wherever possible the practice of directly answering the question asked of them. There is no doubt that from time to time something comes out of either the question asked or the reply given about which individuals may feel a little concerned. We all have feelings. But 1 think, honourable senators should control themselves in those circumstances and listen. If an honourable senator is not satisfied with something that is said, or feels that someone has overstepped the mark, he has the opportunity to ask a further question. I repeat my request that questions asked by honourable senators be as concise and effective as possible and that the replies given by Minsters be pertinent to the questions. I also ask for silence from honourable senators on both sides of the chamber.

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Mr Acting President, I am in the course of replying to the question asked of me by Senator Douglas McClelland. Of course, as we all know, the interrupting of replies to questions by the taking of points of order is one way of stopping the replies being rebroadcast on radio ai night. That ought to be regarded as one of the explanations for the noise. Sir, I hope that you will take such steps as are open to you to ensure that the tactic of interjecting and taking points of order during the course of an answer will not preclude that answer from being rebroadcast in the evening. We all know that it is a tactic which has been going on for a long time. 1 was replying to Senator Douglas McClelland’s question before the interruption and I had indicated to him that what the Postmaster-General had said was directed towards the discharge by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as an independent body of commissioners, of its reponsibilities and that there is ample evidence to indicate that there is control by ABC staff of some of the programmes without regard to or with resentment of the exercise of managerial control. One has only to read the report of the meeting which was held last Tuesday night to recognise that that is a fact. The ABC staff members who were present at that meeting passed a resolution in which they objected to any censorship - of course they would be the judges of what is censorship - exer cised by either management or the Commission which, in their own language, indicates that they want to have complete control. That would be inconsistent with not only the functions of any management but also the charter of the ABC which was passed by this Parliament.

page 388

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator JESSOP:

– I also wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the ‘AM’ programme broadcast yesterday in which a Mr Blood interviewed Senator Douglas McClelland? I ask whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr Blood that when Mr Whitlam addressed the federal conference of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association in June of last year he said:

  1. . il would be dishonest for me to assert that the ABC would be free of criticism, free of pressure muter a Labor government. I confess that there is an authoritarian streak’-

The ACTING PRESIDENT- Order! I have already given a ruling that quotations must noi be used during question time. You may give your own interpretation of what somebody has said, but do nol quote.

Senator JESSOP:

– Is this not a clear indication that a Labor government would subject the ABC to both criticism and pressure?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I did hear the radio programme ‘AM’ broadcast yesterday. I heard what the interviewer said and what Senator Douglas McClelland said. I recall that the interviewer referred to the statement by Mr Whitlam to which Senator Jessop has referred. I also noticed that Senator Douglas McClelland tried to gloss over the statement made by Mr Whitlam by suggesting that possibly a Labor government would not do those dreadful things. I think the position is that the Labor Party ought to make up its mind about where it stands. The conclusion which may be drawn from that ‘AM’ broadcast and from Senator Douglas McClelland’s remarks is that the Labor Party should make up its mind whether it will follow the same broad line as the Government has followed of giving independence to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, whether it will follow the indicated Whitlam line that there will be some political control and direction of the ABC or whether it will follow the current line adopted by some of the ABC staff that they should be able to run the ABC without any control whatsoever.

page 389

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT

Senator PRIMMER:

– Will the Minister representing for the Interior disclose whether, in the House of Representatives election of 1969 and the Senate election of 1970 there were any known breaches of section 147 and the associated schedules of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which require the furnishing of statutory returns of electoral expenses with respect to the following: disclosure of excess expenditure above the figure prescribed by law; detecting of understatement of moneys expended by candidates, parties or organisations in the interests of candidates; failure to submit returns as required by law? Will the Minister make available a schedule of returns submitted in relation to the aforementioned elections, giving details of the contents of returns submitted by all candidates; by parties or organisations which have expended money in the interests of candidates within the definition of 147 of the Act; and by newspapers? In the event of lodgment of substantiated complaints by interested persons alleging breaches of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, will the Minister advise the Attorney-General to authorise the appropriate prosecution as prescribed by the Act?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Just briefly, before answering, I point out that it has occured to me with reference to the problem of keeping order that perhaps the time has come to get out the new sword. This is an extremely long question. I think the honourable senator will appreciate that I need to have it put on notice.

page 389

QUESTION

USTASHA

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I preface my question which is addressed to the AttorneyGeneral by referring to his answer given yesterday about police raids in relation to the activities of Ustasha terrorists in Australia. As the Attorney-General said last week that he was unaware of any evidence of Ustasha activity in Australia, will he expand on his answer of yesterday in which he said that he had not been aware of the intention of the police under his authority to carry out these extensive raids? Will he make a full explanation so that the impression will not be gained that he is not aware of the activities or plans of the Commonwealth Police under his charge.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It may be that when I am asked to expand on something it is on something that Senator Willesee would regard as a loose question. But I shall endeavour not to make my answer too loose. The point I made yesterday was in simple response to the question whether I was aware of the fact that the searches were taking place. I was not aware that the searches were taking place. I think it should not be regarded as surprising that many activities which the Commonwealth Police undertake in the whole range of their responsibilities are matters of which the person who happens to be the Minister politically responsible in the Parliament for what they do should not be aware. It is inevitable that there is a tremendous amount of routine police work in investigations and pursuing lines of inquiry. The Attorney-General becomes aware of them if a matter has taken place upon which a report has to be made. I shall receive a report on the outcome of these particular searches.

I do not believe that there is any occasion to expand further on what I have said in response to the question which was asked. If Senator O’Byrne has evidence of what he said about the activities of Ustasha terrorists in this country I think he should provide that information to the Commonwealth Police because the searches and investigations carried out by the Commonwealth Police hitherto have not been able to discover any evidence of an organisation. That there are individuals who have been prepared to engage in bomb activities is well known, but we have not been able to locate more than a fraction of the persons responsible for particular incidents. If there is any information which the honourable senator has or which other members of the public have, what the Commonwealth Police would seek is information which can be investigated.

page 390

QUESTION

USTASHA

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question to the Attorney-General is supplementary to the question asked by Senator O’Byrne. Am I to understand that the action of the Commonwealth Government in taking Mr Srecko Rover’s passport from him means that nothing was wrong? Surely when his passport was taken it must have been an indication of fears of what was going on in that element of the community. Has his passport been given back to him to enable him to go overseas?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The responsibility for the withdrawal of passports is exercised by the Minister for Immigration. The fact that Mr Rover’s passport was withdrawn is publicly known. I think it was Senator McManus who some time ago asked why it was withdrawn and he renewed that request within the last week.

Senator McManus:

– No, I asked a question on the general circumstances in which the passport of an Australian citizen may be withdrawn.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I accept Senator McManus’s correction. I had interpreted his question as having a particular relevance. I have asked the Minister for Immigration to provide an answer as soon as possible. I shall ensure that the answer that he gives comprehends the question asked by Senator Mulvihill.

page 390

QUESTION

LIGHT AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. Has his attention been drawn to the frequency of accidents involving light aircraft? Can the Minister or his departmental officers identify any common cause in such accidents? As the accident rate of light aircraft is considerably higher than that applying to heavier aircraft, is the Minister satisfied that the various maintenance, safety and training codes at present operating are satisfactory?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-] do not have the figures with me, but 1 can get them for the honourable senator. There has been an improvement in the accident rate in the regular passenger transport field and the light aircraft field in the last 12 months. Nevertheless, one is always concerned about accidents, wherever they are, and equally I am concerned about the light aircraft situation. I always watch it very carefully. Every week I get a report on every incident that takes place throughout the field. Even small matters like damage to the underside of wings or fuselages are all reported and are subject to query and investigation. The Aviation Safety Digest’ is issued to all licensed pilots in an attempt to improve flying safety performance. The Department cannot and I am unable to give a predictable pattern or to isolate any particular circumstance that would lead to an improvement in any disciplines that might be exerted. Most of the problems appear to be the product of what might be called human error, which is a very hard thing to control. We did begin and have carried out a course of training to improve understanding by talking to people about these things. We did quite a deal of seminar work in Papua New Guinea on this matter where the incidence of accidents had become higher than we cared for. I will get extra information for the honourable senator because I think it is valuable to raise in the Senate matters such as this. The fundamental reasons for there being so few accidents are good maintenance of aircraft and pilots taking appropriate precautions when they are flying aircraft, particularly light aircraft, as the flights made by light aircraft are somewhat removed from the normal inspection arrangements.

page 390

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. In view of the desire of Australians to see live on television their representatives participating in the Olympic Games at Munich, can the Minister say what is the present position concerning the dispute between the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and its employees?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I replied to a similar question yesterday. I indicated that the Public Service Arbitrator, acting under powers conferred upon him recently by the Public Service Arbitration Act, had made an order which required members of the Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australasia and members employed by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to desist from conduct which would prevent the Olympic Games being televised. That order has been made. Only time will tell whether there will be compliance with that order. At present I am unable to take the position beyond what I said yesterday.

page 391

NON-METROPOLITAN

page 391

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF SCHEME

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, is supplementary to a question asked by the Acting Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate, Senator Willesee. I preface my question by advising the Minister that 1 have knowledge of one Aborigine who lives in a western New South Wales town and who has been refused unemployment relief, apparently because he is black. If I supply the name and address of the Aborigine concerned, will the Minister take immediate action to ensure that the man obtains one of the positions financed by Commonwealth unemployment relief funds?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question deserves no answer because he inserted the insinuation that the person concerned had been refused employment ‘apparently because he is black’. The purpose of that statement is subversive. Until that part of the question is withdrawn, I ignore the question.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise on a point of order. I asked the Minister a responsible question. I ask for a responsible answer. Mr Acting Prisident, can you enforce the Standing Orders so that I get a responsible answer?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I repeat that until that part of the question is withdrawn I ignore the question.

page 391

QUESTION

SENATE: QUESTION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Will you, Mr Acting President, examine the full Hansard text of a question asked yesterday by Senator Hannan, vide page 305, in which an imputation is directed against the loyalty of Mr Jurevic as to his responsibilities as an Australian citizen?

The ACTING PRESIDENT- I am sorry, Senator Mulvihill; would you repeat your question?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I am reminding you of the promise that you made yesterday. I know that you have a busy day ahead of you. Could you examine the text of that question?

The ACTING PRESIDENT- I must apologise for not listening to the question. I had my mind on other matters. I was checking the list of speakers to be called. Senator Mulvihill asked me a question yesterday. I had no chance of doing what I said I would do. As the honourable senator would know, the Senate sat until almost midnight. I was at a meeting of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee at 9 a.m. to-day. It finished just before we came into the chamber. I shall get inquiries under way as soon as possible.

page 391

QUESTION

SENATE: QUESTIONS

Senator McLAREN:

– My question is directed to you, Mr Acting President. It arises out of a question asked earlier by Senator Turnbull. Would you adhere to the policy, which has been adopted by the President at question time, of starting the call on one side of the chamber one day and on the other side of the chamber the next day so that honourable senators do not have to rise in their places to attract your attention?

The ACTING PRESIDENT- No directions have been given to me in regard to the calling of honourable senators, other than for leaders, deputy leaders and the whips of Parties to be given preference. I want to make it quite clear that I have been a temporary chairman of the Senate for many years. I have been the longest serving temporary chairman, in addition to being Acting President at the moment. Until recently, the practice adopted during my time has been that honourable senators are called in the order of their standing. It was only the other day that I learned that the present President has been adopting another system. I might tell Senator McLaren that honourable senators, even from his own Party, have told me that they appreciate the method that I am adopting now. I give the leaders, deputy leaders and whips the call as soon as they rise. Sometimes there is a rush of other honourable senators wanting to receive answers. Some of them probably have to wait until other honourable senators have a turn. However, I try to keep a record of the order in which I notice honourable senators stand. I try to call them in that order. 1 may make mistakes but it is not intentional. I think the question that Senator Turnbull raised may have merit. I shall certainly bring it before the President. So far as 1 am concerned, I will continue to use the system I have adopted.

page 392

QUESTION

FOREIGN AID

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether it is a fact that the Australian Government has donated only $20,000 for flood relief in the Philippines. Is it also a fact that wheat and flour to be donated have not yet left Australia? Will he examine this matter urgently with a view to recommending that the Government increase substantially cash aid and at the same time take appropriate steps to speed up the dispatch of food gifts?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– These facts are not known to me. 1 would think that it is a question that properly belongs within the portfolio of the Minister for Foreign Affairs because these aid and relief pro grammes are implemented by that Department. I shall direct the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 392

QUESTION

DISMISSAL OF CLEANERS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply concerning question No. 2368 which was placed on the notice paper yesterday. It concerned the dismissal of 2 female cleaners employed by the Australian Watching Co. Pty Ltd. As this is a matter of urgency, I ask whether the Minister has been able to get the information? If not, could he investigate the possibility of having the information supplied today?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will make inquiries and endeavour to do what I can for the honourable senator.

page 392

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– I move:

That Government business take precedence of general business after 8 p.m. tonight and that at 8 p.m. Government business, order of the day No. 1, be postponed until after consideration of orders of the day Nos 2, 3 and 4.

I mention in explanation that the effect of this motion will be to bring on the debate, of the Committee reports immediately after 1 sit down. At the conclusion of the debate at about 3.30 p.m. we will then go on to the debate on the Budget Papers until we rise for dinner. At 8 p.m. the Senate will debate the 3 remaining Bills that are on the notice paper. As soon as the debate on those 3 Bills is complete. I will move for the adjournment of the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Australian Labor Party does not resist this motion. Of course, it must be clear that this applies only to tonight because of the way that the business paper has fallen. We are again affected by this Canberra ‘flu that is going around. Some of the motions are in the names of honourable senators who are sick. In the case of one motion, we are not ready to go ahead with it because we expect to receive new information. So it seems to us to be the sensible thing to do without prejudice to further nights of private member’s business. The Opposition has no objection to this course being followed tonight.

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

– I merely want to indicate that the proposals advanced by the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate are quite acceptable to the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 392

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Report on Freight Rates

Debate resumed from 22 August (vide page 295) on motion by Senator Young:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The debate on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade concerning freight rates charged by the Australian National Line shipping service to and from Tasmania was very well received. I think a tribute should be paid to the members of the Committee who so thoroughly examined this problem within the field of their terms of reference. I think they were able for the first time to give not only to the Senate but also to the people of Australia the proper emphasis to be placed on the great difficulties which Tasmania experiences as a result of its geographically insular position. Not only are we Tasmanians disadvantaged because of this insular position as related to the neighbouring continental mass with its alternative forms of transport such as very highly subsidised railways and highways systems and regular airway and seaway schedules, but also the lack of population in Tasmania adds to our problems. This in turn makes it essential that the great bulk of production which takes place in Tasmania on a primary and secondary level is without a readily available local market and must he exported either to the mainland or overseas. Wilh this in view the Committee has tried to come to grips with the problem with regard to the ANL activities and the introduction of new techniques in the way of roll-on roll-off vessels to provide a service which is satisfactory in terms of both regularity and costs. We have heard from Government senators and people outside this chamber that all blame for Tasmania’s shipping problems is to be attached to the employees associated with that industry. In fact, the situation is typical of the economy as a whole: Inflation and increasing costs are making it impossible for many organisations to do business in Tasmania simply because of its isolation. These costs could be absorbed were there a ready local market - but there are not enough people resident in Tasmania to make the same adjustments to costs. Therefore the inflationary trend in the economy greatly affects those on the island.

The recommendations of the Committee covered a very wide field. I think most of the points that were made have been given very close consideration. The Minister spoke recently of an investigation into recent increases in both freight and passenger rate charges. He pointed out that if averaged across the board these adjustments in the freight schedule on the Tasmanian service apply to only a limited number of items and amount to an increase of only 1 per cent. The whole concept of a roll-on roll-off service, in my view, should have brought greater benefits to Tasmania in the way of reduced freight costs. After all, although a formula showed that nearly half the costs are on the land side - the costs incurred when a ship is lied up-

Senator Wright:

– What do you mean by the land side?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The report includes a formula which shows that 50 per cent of costs are to be attributed to the land leg. It states:

Though there were some variations in the relative proportions quoted by witnesses, these depending to some extent on the nature of the goods and the size, shape and weight of packed units of cargo, the Committee believes it is reasonable to accept the following figures as a basis for consideration: Percentage of total charges - sea freight 40 to 45 per cent, wharfage 10 per cent, land leg charges 45 to 50 per cent.

Those percentages add up to 100 per cent. The report goes on:

It seemed to the Committee that the position of the Australian National Line had not been viewed in the proper perspective when Mie criticism arose following the shipping freight increase of 12£ per cent in August 1970. In the preceding 11 years, despite rising costs in the latter states, the freight rates charged by the Line had remained constant, with the qualification that there had been in 1961 a reduction of 15 per cent in the rates charged tor shipments from Tasmania to the mainland. Over the same period, freight forwarders’ charges had been increased progressively by approximately 50 per cent.

So although the criticism that has been levelled at the Waterside Workers Federation and at other unions associated with this industry has been pretty sharp, the report shows that the freight forwarders’ charges have increased progressively by approximately 50 per cent. Yet I have not heard one word of criticism from Senator Wright or from others who have been examining this situation of the effect of that increase on overall freight charges.

Senator Wright:

– To be fair, does not the report refer to an annual increase in wages costs to the ANL itself of $lm a year?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– As a matter of fact I have before me a document dated 17th August last in which the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) points out that a review covering the period March to December last year showed that costs had increased by $1.8m. It reads:

Since increases were last applied in March 1971, there have been losses through strikes and increases in wages, maintenance, repairs, insurances, terminal charges and general overhead.

These increases in cost include the Tasmanian land end of the Line’s operations as well as the mainland end.

After all, this is a shipping line which has very little at either end of its run because of the nature of its charter. The facilities for booking through private agents have been mentioned. My family is to sail from Tasmania tonight on the ‘Empress of Australia’. Perhaps we have been favoured, because following a number of phone calls we were able, first, to get a standby on some chairs on board, and later, miraculously, we were able to secure a 4-berth cabin. But when we made our first inquiries we were told: ‘No, there is a big line up’. As I see the pattern, the private agents like to take bookings from all over the country and to hold them as long as they can before they confirm them with the Line. As a result early bookings are put on the stand-by list and it is not until the last week or so before the ship sails, when the company has to run around all its agents to see whether they can have their bookings confirmed, that anything can be done about final bookings. This seems to me to be most uneconomical and unsatisfactory, and it has a very bad public relations effect.

A French sea captain visited me in Launceston, and I have never heard a Frenchman swear in English as fluently as he did because of all the trouble that he had going from the tourist bureau to the booking office - having the big runaround in Melbourne. He tried his very best to get any sort of accommodation on the ‘Princess of Tasmania’. When he arrived on board the ship he found that there were 30 to 40 vacant berths. He was appalled to think that this could happen on what is not only a national line but also one of our few life lines cross the Strait. He wanted to come across by sea because he did not like air travel.

Senator Wright:

– Did the Committee make any comment on this matter to which you are now referring?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Committee commented on it, but I do not think its recommendations were forceful enough. It is my firm opinion that we have to take a wider view of transport generally throughout Australia. There is not a shadow of doubt that Trans-Australia Airlines is the most efficient organisation in Australia for achieving quick results when inquiries are made and for giving service. TAA leaves any other organisation for dead. It has an electronic system for registering bookings.

Senator Marriott:

– You would not try to book with Ansett, would you? I think that the people in Ansett are capable as well.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I speak as I find it. The people in Ansett are very good. I must admit that Ansett is my second preference. I have no complaints about that airline. When I started travelling with TAA, Ansett was not in existence. There was Holymans and then there was the Australian National Airlines which became Ansett Transport Industries. I suppose Ansett has the same facilities as TAA. The point I am making is that if people book with TAA in Brisbane the booking staff can immediately receive advice from the central office. They know within seconds whether it is possible to make the booking. Why cannot the Australian National Line operate with this kind of technique, so that people who want to book with the Line can go to a TAA office or an Ansett office - preferably one only of the airline offices, and TAA has offices right throughout the Commonwealth. Instead of booking to travel by air they could book to travel by sea. The same process could be followed. They would know what the bookings were and what the availability of bookings was for 12 months ahead if neccessary. Not only would this give the general public greater respect for the Line and provide better public relations but it must result in more economies when all the berths are filled and there is maximum usage of the very expensive vessels.

The present difficulties arise from the costs of $1.8m that have been mentioned. This has been a cause of great concern to Tasmanians because they see no end to these spiralling costs. At the same time we find that our industries are suffering because every time there is an increase in freight our capacity to compete on the mainland is reduced and the incentive for people in Tasmania to produce goods is reduced because of the increased freight costs.

Senator Webster:

– Does not the Labor Party want to cut protection and put industries at the risk of losing everything to overseas companies? Is that not your policy?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Is Senator Webster interested in the ANL or does he want a sort of Budget debate? I can elaborate on that perhaps during the Budget debate, I think he might be a better authority on old bomb motor cars than perhaps he is on Tasmanian shipping problems. The Minister in his statement of 17th August said:

Because of these cost increases, losses incurred in ANL’s Tasmanian services and the high cost of providing passenger facilities, it became regretfully inevitable that some increases in charges must occur.

Of course, that is quite obvious, but the important point is the impact of these charges. It is all very well to isolate the Australian National Line and to say that unfortunately the increases have to occur, but there is a flow on from these increased charges right through the whole economy in Tasmania. Not only that, but when there is an increase in shipping freights, the forwarding people get their proportion and all along the line this reaction accumulates to the disadvantage of the Tasmanian people generally.

The Minister mentioned that fare and accompanied vehicle rate increases will bring in about an extra $150,000 annually and freight increases will bring in about $200,000. Of course, these increases apply to individual fares and cars. The cost of sending a car to Tasmania and bringing it back to the mainland has practically doubled.

Senator Wright:

– Which statement are you referring to? The recent one?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, the statement of 17th August.

Senator Marriott:

– That was the second increase since the Committee was set up. There have been 3 increases.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– This is the unfortunate thing.

Senator Marriott:

– A great advertisement for government enterprise.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Perhaps we could take that view, but the other competing lines have not done any better. They certainly have not provided the same standard of service. I suppose the ‘Empress of Australia’ could be called one of the most modern roll-on roll-off vessels operating in the southern hemisphere. She has provided facilities that should really have considerably reduced freight costs but the advantage has been eaten up by these added charges.

The Minister said that further savings will come about through the recent rationalisation of the services plus increased efficiency. I am hoping to hear the Minister make some definite statement about the booking arrangements because I think the private side of the booking arrangements has let the Government down. I do not want to accuse the Union Steamship Co. of having any purpose to denigrate or to undermine the Australian National Line, but I do not think that the company is equipped properly to handle the bookings for this service. I am certain that when berths are allocated to the various booking offices throughout Australia those offices are not as interested as we are in making the Line a viable economic proposition. All they are interested in is getting their commission. If Joe Blow comes into a booking office and wants a berth or a chair on the Empress of Australia’ that office would like to sell it to him, but if he does not come in to the office it will just send the allocation back to the shipping line at the latest possible time. That results in a loss to the company. I believe that if what the Minister has said about the recent rationalisation and increased efficiency means that this aspect is being considered, we will see quite an improvement in the situation and perhaps a longer period before the next freight increase.

I come finally to the point that the Minister made in his statement. He said:

On the matter of freight subsidy, the Government has looked at this proposal from time to time, but it has not been able to accept it. In addition the Senate Committee investigation frowned on “subsidy.

I do not know how we are going to overcome this matter because the old shipping line to Tasmania was subsidised. The Taroona’, the ‘Nairana’ and the ‘Loogana’ were subsidised for carrying mail.

Senator Marriott:

– Over £1,000 a day, was it not?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, and perhaps it helped Tasmania to reach its present population and its present standard of production. We have all become tired of reiterating our complete dependence on shipping services for the bulk of our freight.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– When the sitting was suspended, I was drawing the attention of honourable senators to the peculiar and invidious position of Tasmania with regard to the freight problem which is the subject of the report now being considered by the Senate. The latest round of increases adds a burden which, in the eyes of Tasmanian people, brings the State to a crisis situation. People in local government and business are confused as to the economic future of Tasmania. The latest freight increases became effective on 14th August. An increase of almost 20 per cent took place in 5 categories of cargo. These freight increases followed freight increases of up to 50 per cent on vehicle and passenger services. The management of the Australian National Line explained the increases by saying that they were designed to eliminate anomalies in cargo rates.

Senator Marriott mentioned that the activities of the ANL illustrated the inbuilt inefficiency of government enterprises. Down through the years that I have known Senator Marriott I have been on committees with him and enjoyed his friendship. But this is where our philosophies part. It is my contention that many of these activities are public services in the same way as roads, electricity, water supply and telephone facilities are essential public services and are not areas for private enterprise. Private enterprise has operated in these fields in the United States of America, but many of them are failing now. The transport system of the United States, particularly the rail system, faces bankruptcy and, in more and more areas, the individual States are being forced to take up their public services.

Looking at private enterprise in Tasmania we see not only that it has been given a number of considerations and concessions but also that it has been a source of revenue to the Commonwealth. After all, Tasmania receives poor royalties in responsibilities to provide these facilities as respect of the first class quality timber it produces, which is mainly exported, and from its mineral resources. Tasmania has spent a great deal of its financial resources on the development of hydro-electric schemes to attract industries that use hydro-electric power. These industries include the aluminium industry and the paper pulp industry. Many of these industries disadvantage Tasmania because of the high level of pollution that they produce. Nevertheless these industries have made a contribution to Tasmania’s economy. Yet such facilities as our shipping services are making it nearly impossible for Tasmania’s economy to remain viable.

It has been pointed out that, in the recent Budget, the Commonwealth found no difficulty in allocating $54m for the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway and $2. 5m for the sealing of the Eyre Highway. These are most important contributions by the Commonwealth towards the Australian transport system. We claim that not only an equal share should be given to Tasmania but more should be provided. (Quorum formed) I appreciate the concern of Senator Negus that my words of wisdom were falling on so few ears. Nevertheless, I know that there are times when honourable senators are busily engaged in their offices on electoral work. I fully understand how busy they are. I had pointed out that the Budget provides $54m for the rail system between Tarcoola and Alice Springs and $2. 5m for the sealing of the Eyre Highway. Yet, we cannot get the message across to the Government that similar sympathetic consideration should be given to the only method of transport available to Tasmania for its commercial products. These other areas to which assistance is being provided have alternative methods of transport and are not as isolated as Tasmania is.

The Commonwealth Government has power to provide assistance to Tasmania. I draw attention to the contribution that was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Barnard, when he was speaking on 1 7th August 1972. Dealing with the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to section 17, and stated:

It is worth looking closely at this section because its implications have been largely overlooked. The section empowers the Minister to direct the Commission to establish, maintain and operate shipping services to meet the requirements of a particular area where it is desirable in the public interest for such a service to be provided. Furthermore, the section stales clearly what can be done when such a service is established and it operates at a loss. If the service operates at a loss and in the same year the ANL records an overall loss, the line is entitled to be reimbursed by the Commonwealth. The amount of the reimbursement is defined as the amount of the loss of that particular shipping service or the overall loss of the ANL whichever is the less.

  1. . also am at a loss to understand why the Committee did not deal with this point. I mention particularly Senator Rae who, unfortunately, is absent this afternoon. 1 am very sorry to hear the reasons why he is absent, lt is absolutely essential that the terms of this provision of the Act should be brought into effect with regard to the shipping line operating to Tasmania. This is a disguised form of subsidy, but provision is there. Yet, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) has said that this power has never been invoked and that no reimbursement has ever been made by the Commonwealth under that section. There is no time like the present for it to re-examine not only its responsibility towards Tasmania and the Australian National Line but the compensating gains that it would make by keeping Tasmania a viable, developing, healthy and economical part of this Commonwealth.

There has been a depression of mind and spirit in so many directions in our little island. Our mainstay for so many years has been our fruit industry - our apple and pear industry. Its activities have been well ventilated in the Australian Parliament over the past 72 years. The industry is in a very bad economic plight. This has been brought about by an alteration of the emphasis of our . markets, the accessibility to the European and British markets by South African competitors, as well as by shipping freights, coming back to the subject. The extra imposition on the Tasmanian people at this stage is such that the Commonwealth must provide some incentive for the people of Tasmania to find a way out.

Recently there was a change of government in Tasmania. It is possible that the Commonwealth Government might feel that it might get some political gain by making it more difficult for that State Government of a different political colour to overcome this problem. I say that because these issues often reflect more on State and local government than they do on the Commonwealth. I believe that the national Parliament and the national Government should approach this problem on a truly national level. Tasmania is the poorer sister of the family. There is no doubt about that. However, it is poorer only in the economic sense because Tasmania can match the other States in the other qualities of life. I am trying to emphasise the special need of Tasmania at this time of economic crisis when Tasmania’s cost structure is influenced so strongly by freight charges incurred in transporting our goods to the mainland. The lifting of the confidence of our people needs immediate attention. 1 am taking advantage of the debate on this report apropos the Australian National Line and Tasmania’s transport problems generally in the hope thai, in the councils of the Government, Tasmania will be given urgent consideration and whatever concessions can be granted to help out at the present time.

The Committee set out to do a job and did it very thoroughly. Members of the Committee did credit to themselves as individuals and to the idea of Senate select committee investigations. Its work represents another of those little segments of the mosaic in building up the prestige and usefulness of the Senate. I believe that the system of democratic government is enhanced by the presentation of these reports because they are then available for further research and for projections along the lines of the recommendations made by the various committees. We of the Opposition support the report and hope that some of the suggestions made during the course of the debate on it will be heeded by the Government and that this will be to Tasmania’s advantage.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I. am pleased there have been a number of speakers in the debate on this report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade entitled ‘Freight Rates on Australian National Line Shipping Services to and from Tasmania’. The Committee was given the reference because so much concern was expressed, mainly by Tasmanians, when they suddenly found in 1970 that there was a 12£ per cent increase in ANL freights.

One should point out that it had been about 11 years since there had been an increase in freights. The Committee took a wide range of evidence from some 60 people including witnesses from other shipping companies because the Australian National Line is not the only shipping company operating between Tasmania and the mainland.

The Committee discovered interesting aspects of the freight increase. Perhaps one of the first I should mention is the fact that whilst there had been so much public concern and criticism about the 12i per cent increase in sea freights, during the same period there had been overall about a 50 per cent increase in freight forwarding charges. These increases had been applied in small percentages, but the end result was that while in the same period freight forwarding charges increased by about 50 per cent, sea freight charges increased by only 12i per cent. However, concern was expressed about the sea freight charge.

As Senator O’Byrne said this morning, we must deal with the breakup of the whole transportation cost. The total charge includes a sea freight component of from 40 per cent to 45 per cent, a wharfage charge of about 10 per cent, and a land leg charge of some 40 per cent to 45 per cent. The sea freight component and land leg component are approximately equal, but the 50 per cent increase on the land leg raised no comment, whereas the 12i per cent increase over the same period on sea freight raised a lot of comment.

Concern was expressed by many people that deficits experienced by the ANL on other sea runs were being reflected in Tasmanian freight charges. I want to make it clear that the Committee found out very early that this was not the case. The increase of 12i per cent was related directly to the cost factors associated with transporation between Tasmania and the mainland. Tasmania is in an unfortunate position inasmuch as it is very dependent upon sea transport whereas the other States have a combination of road, rail, sea and air transport. Of course Tasmania has air transport as well. The great increases in sea transportation in the last few years have disadvantaged Tasmania to some extent. With sea freight, the shorter the sea leg the higher the cost, per mile, and the longer the sea leg the lower the cost. This is another disadvantage for Tasmania, as it is a comparatively short haul operation.

I must be honest. As a member of the Committee I feel, frankly, without delving into local loyalties or parochialism, call it what you like, that Tasmania is at further disadvantage because it has so many main ports. But the evidence we heard clearly showed that there is a tendency these days for a greater throughput through the northern ports of Tasmania to service consumer demands and trade generally in the Hobart area and in other southern areas of Tasmania. If I were permitted to hazard a guess I would say that the natural trend will be towards an increase in this trend as time goes on. The Tasmanian Government railways are now playing a much bigger part in freight transportation. They are operating with freight forwarders, who in turn are working through the Australian National Line and other shipping companies in servicing the sea leg to the mainland.

The Committee made many recommendations and came to many conclusions. I do not intend to deal with all of them today, but I would like to refer to 3. I will be very brief because I had an opportunity to make a few comments on this matter when I presented the report to the Senate. The first is that a recommendation has been made by the Committee that the relevant figures of trading results for the Australian National Line’s Tasmanian services be made available to the Tasmanian Government in the future on a highly confidential basis. I think it is essential that this be done in order to allow those in authority in Tasmania to see clearly the pattern and what factors are involved in the increasing of costs so that there will not be any confusion or misunderstanding about them, as there was previously when concern was expressed about the I2i per cent increase in freight rates. That is one recommendation I hope the Government will accept and not just give consideration to.

It was recommended that at the earliest available opportunity and no later than the renegotiation of the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement, which will be coming up for consideration in the not too distant future, the Australian National Line be empowered to act as a freight forwarder if it so wishes. I think it is important that there be some flexibility in this respect and that the decision should be one for the Australian National Line to make. But it is also important, for quite a number of reasons, that the ANL be placed in the position of being able to act as a freight forwarder if it so desires. I say that because the position could arise whereby its competitors would have a controlling position regarding both the land leg and the sea leg as a result of the combination of those 2 major factors in transportation and the co-operation, if 1 can put it that way, of the Tasmanian Government Railways. I think that is something which should be left to the ANL to decide in the future. If it found itself to be in a position of disadvantage it should be able to overcome that disadvantage by moving into the area of freight forwarding.

Another factor which must be considered is that freight forwarding has been clearly seen as one aspect of freight transportation in which there is quite good profitability. In this repect 1 refer to page 51 of the Committee’s report and the views expressed by some of the major freight forwarders in Australia. The report states:

Mr E. H. P. Abeles, Managing Director of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, said that his firm was making a net profit of 31 per cent to 4 per cent on revenue on its national operations and that the figure for the Tasmanian sector was slightly less. Mr L. N. Brickhill, Chairman of Directors of the Tasmanian Road Transport Association, and Chairman of the Forwarding Section of the Association, quoted a profit figure of from 7 per cent to 10 per cent.

So it can be seen that freight forwarders were showing a profit when the shipping companies had the great problem of increased costs producing losses that necessitated further increases in freight rates. I could dwell lengthily in this area today, but as many other honourable senators have already dealt with the subjects of freight forwarding and profitability and the need for combination of the ability to be both a freight forwarder and a sea transporter, I will leave my remarks at that at this stage.

Another recommendation that I feel should be mentioned because of its significance is the fifth Committee recommendation, which reads:

That subject to the requirement that the ANL meet its statutory obligations to pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all ils expenditure properly chargeable to revenue, and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on its capital, the present tonnage limitation should be revised and the Line should have equal opportunity with private operators to provide any additional tonnage required on the Australian coast.

That recommendation concerns a matter which is of great imortance. I hope that the Government will do more than just consider that recommedation because it is essential that the ANL, if it is to be a competitor of the other shipping lines, be able to have the type of modern ship which is needed today and which could require tonnage increases in order not only to be able to provide an efficient service around the Australian coastline to suit its customers but also on a dollars and cents basis to keep its freight rates as low as possible. If the ANL were not placed in this position the situation could arise where it could be out-tonnaged by other shipping companies and not be able to work at its maximum efficiency. Again that would place the ANL in a very disadvantageous position.

One other matter that I must mention is the question of subsidies. Many of the Tasmanian senators who have spoken about this report have dealt with this question. There is a reference in minority reports of some members of the Committee to the belief that there should be subsidies. The Committee looked very closely at the question of subsidies, lt spent quite a deal of time looking at all aspects of this problem. However, it could see that it would not be in a position to make any recommendation on a subsidy for freight to Tasmania. The Committee ended up by making the following statement, which appears at page 65 of its report:

Having in mind the particular advantages of a competitive climate, particularly for those who use the services provided, and having considered all the proposals put to us, we do not believe that the weight of the evidence establishes the feasibility, practicability or desirability of any of the subsidy proposals considered.

I appreciate the situation in Tasmania and the views expressed so strongly by Tasmania’s representatives in this chamber, but I assure honourable senators that if the Committee could have seen a way by which it could have recommended that a freight subsidy be introduced it would have done so because the Committee was sympathetic to the argument that Tasmania is definitely in a position of disadvantage.

Nevertheless the Committee could not justifiably recommend the introduction of any subsidy in this area. Certain recommendations were made with regard to assisting of the building of ships to be placed on the Tasmanian run, but apart from that the Committee came to the firm conclusion that it would be foolish and unrealistic if it were to make any subsidy recommendation.

The Committee worked extremely well. It travelled over a great deal of Tasmania in order to make sure that it could give consideration to the various ports in that State and to the views of the representatives of the various areas. The Committee also took quite a deal of evidence in Melbourne from representatives of various shipping companies and transporters in order to make sure that it would cover all of the aspects of its terms of reference and to be able to present to the Senate what it hoped would be a realistic report. 1 wish to pay my compliments to and thank exSenator Bull, who has since retired from the Senate, for the manner in which he conducted this inquiry as the Chairman of the Committee. I think the Senate owes a great deal to ex-Senator Bull for the presentation of this report by a committee under his chairmanship.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– by leave - As the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) I would like firstly to congratulate members of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade and the chairman, our erstwhile colleague Senator Bull, on the splendid and detailed effort they made in preparing this report. As has been mentioned to us the Committee met and interviewed a wide representation of persons concerned in this matter, both on the mainland and in Tasmania. The importance of sea transport to Tasmania needs no emphasis. The island is nearly completely dependent on its sea link with the mainland. There is no competition by alternative modes of transport which could exert pressures for re-allocation of transport resources and thus there is an essentia! need for efficient, economical operation of the existing sea service. Tasmania depends heavily on its export trade, both interstate and overseas. More than half of the State’s primary and secondary production is exported and is dependent on transport by sea. In fact, 92 per cent of exports from Tasmania are carried by sea, air cargo - being mainly restricted to high value or perishable commodities - accounting for the remainder. The effects of transport costs on the island economy therefore are of fundamental importance.

As honourable senators will recall, the motion moved by Senator Rae on 3rd September 1970 reflected concern at the then recent announcement of an increase in freight rates by 121 per cent by shipping services to Tasmania. Let me say that 1 fully understand the reasons and sympathise with the concerns of those honourable senators who referred the matter to the Standing Committee, lt was in recognition of this that the Senate resolved that there be referred to the Standing Committee:

The operation of the Australian National Line’s shipping services to and from Tasmania with regard to:

the factors considered in establishing freight rates;

the appropriateness of the current level of freight rates; and

any amendments necessary Dr desirable to the governing legislation to enable the operation to be carried out at the lowest possible freight rate.

The terms of reference given to the Committee have been criticised by Senator Marriott as being too broad in scope; he thought that consideration under these terms would take too long for what was essentially needed, namely a quick report of the situation and justification of the freight increases then proposed by the Australian National Line. This may have appeared so at the time. However, the Committee saw the need to widen its investigations and this has been justified by the detail of its comment and recommendations. The ANL service, although the major operator, is not the only shipping line operating to Tasmania. It was felt necessary to include services, costs and the financial position of others in the trade in order to make a valid and objective assessment. Further, sea transport forms only a part of the delivery service. The Committee saw the necessity to look at associated transport costs, namely land leg and wharfage charges. The Committee was satisfied that the additional time taken in giving the proper assessment to all the relevant factors which influence the shipping service was necessary in order to make valid recommendations based on well documented evidence and carefully considered conclusions.

In the wider aspects, the Committee’s conclusions are certainly not critical of the ANL role in its Tasmanian shipping services. I have mentioned in previous debates the introduction of roll-on roll-off services with associated improvements in cargo handling techniques. Quicker turn-round times led to more efficient utilisation of available tonnage and a substantial reduction in sea freights. The National Line is continuing its efforts to contain freight rates by re-deployment of its fleet and the phasing out of old and costly tonnage. Faced with mounting costs from wages, repair bills, stores bunkers and the like, the Line is endeavouring to provide against further rises by a more efficient utilisation of its fleet in the respective trades. Honourable senators will recall that in support of Senator Rae when this review was referred to this committee I outlined the history of ANL participation in this trade. Its entry with radical new vessels in 1959 brought about an immediate and substantial reduction of 45 per cent in sea charges. Two years later a further reduction of 15 per cent was made in freight rates from Tasmania to the mainland. As I said then and will repeat, I know of no other industry with such a record of reduction and stability in its charges.

Turning to the specific conclusions made by the Committee, I would first refer to those concerning freight rates. Both the 12i per cent on the Sydney/Tasmania service and the 8 per cent on the Melbourne/Tasmania service introduced in July 1971, were considered fully justified. Because of the fact that the sea leg amounted only to 40-45 per cent of the total charge it was found that increases in sea freights were of lesser significance than would be imagined. Of importance also is the fact that a good deal of the reduction of 45 per cent in sea freights brought about by the introduction of roll-on roll-off vessels in 1959 was absorbed by freight forwarders’ changes. Arising from this conclusion, the Committee recommended:

That at the earliest available opportunity - and no later than the re-negotiation of the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement - the Australian National Line be empowered to act as a freight forwarder if it so chooses.

There are of course many implications involved in this recommendation which would require careful study before the Line could undertake total door to door services. The need for increased land buildings, equipment and personnel to cater for this commercial activity would represent a significant capital outlay. I am advised that the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement Act is due for renegotiation in 1976 and that the implications of the Line entering into this field will be given due consideration. For my own part, I have noted the remarks made by my colleague Senator O’Byrne. I shall look into whether it is possible to obtain some help from the Trans-Australia Airline and Ansett Transport Industries booking service arrangements. Perhaps this may provide what I might call, in aviation terms, a better load factor for the service. Naturally I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I have asked my adviser to make a note of this. In the proper process of administrative demarcation the Minister for Shipping and Transport can write to me in my capacity as Minister for Civil Aviation and I shall do what I can.

Associated with this recommendation which, in intent gives expression to the Government policy that the National Line should be allowed to compete on terms no less favourable than for other commercial enterprises, is the recommendation that the present tonnage limitation should be revised, honourable senators will be aware of the restrictive effects this limitation has on operations of the ANL, particularly in view of the increasing size of ships engaged in the coastal trades. In 1956 the Commission’s coastal fleet was 162,615 gross registered tons, which represented 31.5 per cent of the Australian fleet. The limit of 325,000 tons which was agreed to by signatories to the Agreement allowed ample increase to cater for the then established trades. The ANL coastal tonnage in April this year was 292,924 gross registered tons - including 2 vessels being built - and represented only 27.2 per cent of the Australian fleet. There is thus an obvious need for revision in the limit which was imposed. A decision will depend on the outcome of negotiations which will have to be undertaken with signatories to the Agreement. In its consideration of the matter of subsidy, the majority of the Committee concluded that none of the subsidy schemes considered would be practical or desirable. However, in relation to the conclusion there were reservations by Senator Lillico and Rae for the reasons that they have enumerated. I can appreciate the sentiments expressed as being an endeavour to remove some of the disabilities involved in transport for Tasmania.

The conclusions of the Committee seem to me, however, to be realistic ones. The fact that subsidy was paid to the King Island service between 1965 and this year and to the ‘Taroona’ prior to the introduction of ANL roll-on roll-off vessels, was recognition of special circumstances for particular purposes and is not considered to have a bearing on this case. Subsidies will not solve the problem but merely transfer the real cost of transport to another sector of the economy. Real costs are reduced by competition, efficiency and the investment of capital for commercial reasons. It would be of doubtful effectiveness if subsidy were to be applied only to the sea leg which is only 40-45 per cent of total charges and administratively impractical if it were to apply only to individual shippers. Since the Committee examined the position there seems no indication that subsidy is more warranted now than it was then. Senator Wreidt has suggested that section 17(4) of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act should allow re-imbursement of losses to the ANL in its Tasmanian services. As honourable senators will know, this section empowers the Minister, in the public interest, to direct the Commission to continue, establish, maintain or operate a particular service. There have been no directions made previously under this section and I do not see that the Tasmanian situation falls within the purpose envisaged by this section.

In agreeing to the recommndation made by the Committee that the Bureau of Transport Economics be asked to attempt a qualitative assessment of Tasmania’s transport disabilities relative to other States, the Minister for Snipping and Transport has arranged that this study be undertaken. It is estimated that it will take the Bureau a few more months to complete its task. Currently information is being obtained on transport costs, shipping operations, freight forwarders and the degree of subsidisation, if any, in roads and railways for interstate mainland transport. Its inquiries have encompassed a wide spectrum in attempting to define what Tasmanians see as their transport disability and in assessing the significance of exports and imports to the economy. Its task is made more difficult by the fact that so little information is readily available to quantitatively assess the situation.

The reservation by Senator Lillico at the view expressed in favour of setting up a central port authority to attempt to control Tasmanian ports can be appreciated. This could lead to less efficient administration through lack of direct contact with local port needs and requirements and through the creation of a larger more complicated administrative machinery. On the other hand there would be merit in the proper planning of port facilities on a State basis in recognition of future requirements for the State as a whole. This would avoid a multiplicity of port facilities arising from economic rivalry associated with the growth of country centres. It was estimated by consultants engaged by the Tasmanian Government to determine the mini. mum cost solution for the movement of goods to, from and within Tasmania, that the establishment of a central port would save some $65m to the year 2000 AD compared to development of 4 ports. It is suggested that the Tasmanian Government give a long and hard look at the recommendations made in the Pak Poy report.

Not the least of the problems facing the ANL along with all other shipping operators are those concerned with industrial problems. There is some confusion as to the losses ascribed to the stewards strike in April-May 1971. There is no doubt that the Line suffered. Losses by the ANL in the Tasmanian trade in the year 1970-71 amounted to $800,000. Of this $600,000 was a non-recurring loss arising from loss of revenue, net of operating costs saved whilst the vessels were tied up. Industrial stoppages over which management has little control continually beset Australian shipowners and are of severe influence in the Tasmanian trade. Not only does the company suffer loss of revenue but also its clients, the cargo owner and the passenger are held to ransom and suffer from its effects. We have heard of the instance in which Senator Marriott was involved when a passenger sailing was cancelled. Multiply this a thousand times and add to it the numbers of consignees awaiting urgent cargoes which are not delivered because of industrial stoppages of this nature and we have some idea of the inconvenience and hardships caused by irresponsible actions on the part of maritime unions.

Senator Wriedt has suggested that we would not have men going to sea if it were not for the wages and conditions granted through our arbitration system. I am not concerned as to the arguments of relativity in these respects but rather that, along with these conditions, should be a more responsible attitude and more awareness of the damages that are inflicted and the dangers to sea transport which will result from continued disruptions. The final recommendation by the Committee was that the Government give urgent consideration to a scheme designed to enable shipping operators to finance shipbuilding on a deposit of no more than 20 per cent with the balance payable over 10 years at nominal interest rates. In its consideration of the Tariff Board report the Government endorsed the Board’s comments that forms of assistance additional to the high level of building subsidy would be inappropriate and undesirable. This was in response to requests for assistance made by the shipping industry for cheap loans, deferred payments for the purchase of ships, grants to operators and accelerated depreciation rates.

It is my view that the ANL is performing an efficient and economical function in providing shipping sevices to Tasmania. However, it is important that the people of Tasmania are satisfied that they are being fairly treated. With this in mind, the Minister has welcomed representations from Tasmania. I am advised that on 21st August a delegation led by the Tasmanian Chief Secretary and Minister for Transport, Mr Batt, met the Minister in Mel bourne. The delegation presented a detailed submission outlining the problems of Tasmania due to unemployment and shipping. It contained a number of suggestions for improvement of the shipping service which will be carefully examined and replied to in detail. The results of this dialogue and co-operation will, I am sure, resolve many of the problems which have been the real cause of the report we are now discussing.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 403

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Report on Telephone Directories

Debate resumed from 4 November 1971 (vide page 1680), on motion by Senator Laucke:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– My role in respect of this issue is similar to that of a political St Paul in that I will be conveying a message that will be elaborated on by succeeding speakers. This reference to the Standing Committee on Social Environment was just one of the assignments that has been given to the Committee. Some of my colleagues serving on the Committee had a deeper interest in this reference than I had. A thing that struck me and on which I sound a note of warning is that with all these high pressure public relations firms and consultants we could be inundated with suggestions about what should be done to improve telephone directories. I suppose the proliferation of telephone lines has aggravated the situation. When I look to my right flank and see my colleague Senator O’Byrne from Tasmania I know that there are cogent reasons why the situation in respect of telephone directories for Tasmania should not remain as it is.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is guidance from St Anthony.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I have noted that interjection. In dealing with the welter of submissions that were made to the Committee, the fact that we were acting as a watchdog indicated to the authorities of the Postmaster-General’s Department that the era of old ideas and stereotyped approaches to situations from which one does not depart has gone. 1 think Senator Laucke could confirm that although we publicised the fact that we were’ open to suggestions in relation to the various complaints that one sees in newspapers in letters to the editor and from columnists, unfortunately we were not inundated with as many submissions as we thought we would receive. However, it could be said that later, when we were on the threshold of finalising our report, other organisations and people did approach us. But, by and large, those who advanced viewpoints, some of which were very detailed, were not as great in number as we had expected. Speaking as one who sees these things through the eyes of metropolitan Sydney, let me say that a number of innovations were accepted. This is not to say that we have reached the millenium - far from it - because it is obvious that various changes will have to be made. Probably it will be necessary to review the telephone directory every year. The point I make is that this reference to the Committee was one of those miscellaneous chores that are thrust upon us. I believe that the discussions that we held with senior officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department and one or two other people of repute in the private sector were beneficial. Nevertheless, this is a subject which needs to be reviewed constantly. I hope that the report submitted by the Committee will be a watershed for future developments.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I should like to take the time of the Senate for a few moments to refer to a matter which I have raised in this place on a couple of occasions in the past several months in relation to the Tasmania telephone directory. My comments are directed to the fact that in the last reprint of the Tasmania telephone directory we departed from the old established system of having one telephone directory to the point where 3 directories have been issued covering the 3 telephone districts of the State - the north, the south and the north west. Whilst it may be argued that, generally speaking, Tasmania falls into those 3 geographical divisions, I suggest to the Senate that the population and area of Tasmania are such that it is most unwise to break up the single directory into the 3 directories that we now have. In the course of preparing these remarks I took out a few figures which I hope will tend to illus- trate the purpose of the point that I want to make in this regard. The directory for the north-west section contains 96 pages of telephone numbers, 112 pages of classified advertisements and other information and 12 pages of post code information. Those 112 pages are what is commonly referred to as the pink pages. There are more pink pages than there are actual pages of telephone numbers in the total of 220 pages in the directory for the north-west section.

The directory for the southern section contains 152 pages of telephone numbers out of a directory total of 343 pages. It contains 179 pages of classified advertisements, or pink pages as we know them, which is a number substantially greater than the number of pages of telephone numbers. The post code information is repeated in this directory. I suggest that the pink pages contain certain repetition because, Tasmania being such a small State, it is only natural, 1 think, that the various sections of the State which form one integrated unit will advertise in each directory. The pink pages in the 3 directories appear to be pretty substantial. The directory for the southern section contains 152 pages of telephone numbers out of a directory total of 343 figures. It contains 179 pink pages and 12 pages of post code information. The directory for the northern section has a similar pattern. It contains 112 pages of telephone numbers, 108 pink pages and 12 pages of post code information. In the 3 directories there is a total of 795 pages. The actual pages of telephone numbers total 360. The pink pages total 399. The pages containing post code information total 36. Of that figure of 36, 24 pages are repeats. Again I refer to the considerable repetition in the classified advertisements - the pink pages, as we know them. If the 3 telephone directories were amalgamated the size of the total directory would be about one inch in thickness.

The point I make is that it should be possible - it used to be possible - to encompass the 3 directories in one book. I strongly suggest that that situation should be reverted to. Having 3 directories is wasteful of resources. It must be wasteful in terms of costs because part of what is included in one directory is repeated in the other directories both in the pink pages and in the pages giving the post code information. It is a most frustrating and terribly annoying thing - it must annoy business people - to have 3 directories. One is about half an inch thick, another is about three-eights of an inch thick and the other is a little more than half an inch thick. Tasmania has a population of about 400,000. I would think that the greatest distance from one point in Tasmania to another point in Tasmania would not be more than about 200 miles. The directories are almost similar in colour, design, production and everything else. They are a most frustrating and annoying collection of documents.

Senator McManus:

– If they were put together they would be nearly as big as Tasmania.

Senator DEVITT:

– Yes, if they were spread out. I have not been able to find in Tasmania a starter to support the new form of the directory. There is no doubt that the telephone directory is a very important document. It is an important social document. It is a tremendously important business document.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order. The report which is being debated is the report of the Standing Committee on the content, form and presentation of the information section of telephone directories. The honourable senator is directing his remarks to whether the telephone directories should be split up. He asked me a question about that matter today, I said that I would refer it to the Postmaster-General. It appears to me that there is a question of relevance here. The information sections are those parts of the telephone directory which give information about telegraphic, telephonic and postal services. That was the sole issue which was referred to the Committee. That is the sole issue upon which the Committee has reported. I submit that the honourable senator, having made the point twice today, is taking advantage of the debate in a way that even generous relevance will not permit. On the debate on the report of the Committee he should not move into areas which are not canvassed by the report.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Senator Devitt, I suggest that you keep a little more to the report.

Senator DEVITT:

– I would like to speak to the point of order. If we are not permitted to speak in general terms I think the whole purpose of the exercise must be lost. I am talking about the form of the telephone directory and I am encompassing those things to which the Minister representing the Postmaster-General has been referring - that is, the information section of the telephone directories. While the report is related to a specific part of the directories, surely we are not precluded from directing some worthwhile general observations. Surely we will not be stifled to the point where we must confine our remarks solely and strictly to an examination of the report. The terms of reference are included in the report. The resolution of the Senate, as set out in that report, was that the Standing Committee on Social Environment report on the content, form and presentation of the information section of the telephone directories. While the terms of reference may appear to have a fairly limiting influence, frequently they are interpreted to embrace things which go somewhat beyond the immediate question to which one is pointedly directing his attention. The resolution of the Senate was:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matters - The content, form and presentation of the Information Section of telephone directories with a view to -

This is the point to which I want to draw attention:

  1. an improved section and dissection of postal, telephone and telegraphic material; and
  2. a more modern and more functional layout, to facilitate easier reference to the information desired.

If that is not what I am talking about, would somebody tell me what I am talking about?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Senator Devitt, have you concluded your reference to the point of order?

Senator DEVITT:

– That concludes it. I submit that I am speaking in terms of the resolution of the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator Devitt, I rule that you cannot deal with the rest of the content of the telephone directory. You are somewhat limited by the terms of the report.I ask you to confine your remarks to the actual terms of the report.

Senator DEVITT:

– I think my point can be made on those terms. The report has an application in the other direction as well. Let us take it on that basis. Some of the information that is contained in the telephone directory for the north-west section almost certainly must be contained in the telephone directory for the southern section and it must be repeated in the telephone directory for the northern section. I hope that I am now speaking within the terms of the resolution of the Senate. To have 3 directories is wasteful of manpower. Surely it is wasteful of money to publish 3 documents when all the information can be encompassed in a booklet half an inch in size. Three different telephone directories are now available to the people of Tasmania. I strongly suggest that the people of Tasmania have been frustrated because they now have 3 directories. The colour of each directory should be different. There should be a colour for the directory for the southern section, another for the directory for the northern section and another for the directory for the north-west section. Perhaps that would overcome some of the difficulties being experienced. People have to fiddle around and find the correct telephone directory to get in touch with somebody who is only about 40 miles away anyway.

Western Australia, for the first time, has had its telephone directory broken up. It has a population approaching 1 million. My colleague Senator Wheeldon addressed some comments on this subject during an adjournment debate. He said that for the first time Western Australia has had its telephone directory containing this information broken up into a number of volumes. That break up was the first time and it was in relation to a population of over 900,000. Apparently the same argument is being used to justify the breaking up of the Tasmanian telephone directory. Tasmania has a population a little in excess of 40 per cent of the population of Western Australia. I think the whole thing is crazy, stupid, silly, frustrating, wasteful and costly and that the position should be reversed so that all that information is contained in one telephone directory.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– When this matter was first debated in the Senate a number of reasons were advanced for referring it to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment. Senators will be aware that amongst the 7 legislative and general purpose standing committees of the Senate there is one entitled the ‘Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment’. These 2 words ‘Social Environment’ would seem to indicate that a whole range of matters might be referred to that Committee without very much regard to their relationship to the type of committee that it is. I suppose it could be argued that if a reference came forward and a suitable committee to which to refer it could not be found, this Committee could take up the reference. So it was back in May of last year that the matter of telephone directories was raised in the Senate. The resolution of the Senate was:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matters -

The content, form and presentation of the Information Section of telephone directories . . .

The reference was made with a view to:

  1. an improved section or dissection of postal telephone and telegraphic material; and
  2. a more modern and more functional layout,to facilitate easier reference to the information desired.

In the short debate that look place in the Senate on 13th May of this year, speakers mentioned that the matter might perhaps more properly be directed to the Joint Committee of Publications. I have a considerable measure of agreement with this proposal, being involved with that Committee. But as was pointed out by the Minister and other speakers, no machinery was available for a reference of this kind. Speakers who took part in this discussion expressed their great sense of frustration with the services provided by the information section of telephone directories. So it was agreed that this matter should be referred to the Senate Committee of which my colleague from South Australia, Senator Laucke, is the Chairman.

With all respect and sympathetic appreciation of the frustration which I think everybody has when he looks through any directory of information until he becomes familiar with the index and the headings and information of this nature, in a Senate in which the committee system is already very heavily loaded and has a considerable number of difficulties imposed upon it both in the provision of membership and in staffing, I question whether a measure like this should take up the time and, indeed, the expense of a committee. I suppose it could be said that it is a matter of some public interest and that at least the operation of an inquiry of this nature provided an opportunity for the general public not only to do some study but also to bring forward its viewpoint on a matter over which we were led to believe the entire community was greatly inconvenienced and about which people were very concerned.

In response to this claim, the Committee advertised in all capital city morning newspapers. It invited the presentation of written submissions from interested persons and organisations. Honourable senators will recall from their reading of the report that it is stated on the second page that the response was poor. Therefore, in order to obtain a representative range of views and opinions, the Committee subsequently undertook a further inquiry by way of seeking information from people in the commercial world, the trade union world and in the sphere of consumer organisations, as well as from independent publishers. So a cross-section of opinion and information was sought. The Committee undertook some examination and has brought forward a report which is the subject of our debate this afternoon.

I think that it is not always appreciated or acknowledged that a comparatively simple instrument such as a telephone directory becomes very much a part of our social life inasmuch as in our ordinary working or private lives we cannot function without it. The telephone directory is a Post Office publication. I think that it is the only Post Office publication which goes into the home of a telephone subscriber. Of course, there are quite a number of telephone subscribers in Australia and a great number of homes which are described as those of telephone subscribers today.

This book is referred to frequently. To this extent, it becomes something to which we turn not only for telephone numbers but also for a wide variety of information extending from postcodes, addresses and the names and numbers of government offices to all of the various other services that one might expect a telephone directory to provide. As I think the report states, it becomes a matter of balance as to what should be and should not be regarded as essential and frequently used information. I think that it is important to note - this is also contained in the report - that the telephone directory is more than just a commercial publication. Rather, it is a document of great social and personal value. In an attempt to give what the Committee hoped would be an intelligent report to the Senate, the members examined information pages from a number of directories, including those from Chicago, Edmonton in Canada, London, and Pretoria, the national capital of South Africa, as well as others from cities of the United States of America. The report has requested that certain clarity be achieved in the information pages; that a way bc found in which essential information and that which is most frequently used be placed in a position on its own; and that information such as the instant call guide service or STD codes be readily available while promotional and other material to which we do not often refer be placed in another part of the directory altogether.

The section of the recommendations for which 1 displayed some enthusiasm was that referring to maps. In some of these directories, maps showing the area within the ambit of the directory have been displayed. This has not been continued in this way or in the way I would like to see it done. In our work as senators and, indeed, with our general interest in the States and country areas when we seek to find particular areas we frequently depend upon maps for the purpose of relationship and location. I hope that the recommendation contained in the report which refers to maps will be taken note of by the PostmasterGeneral (Sir Alan Hulme). One could say other things about this. But I think that it is sufficient to note that the Committee has responded to the words of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in

May 1971. He said that he regarded this reference as a short one and as a matter which could be disposed of very quickly. I think that this is exactly what happened thanks to our secretariat under the leadership of Mr Thomson who obtained a great deal of the material and put it down for the Committee to examine and reach a decision on quickly.

In finality, I think it should be said that however much information is provided in a telephone directory, the final matter lies within the personal responsibility of the people concerned. After all, with a little reflection and one or two references, I do not find the telephone directory a difficult volume to use. I think that we all expect rather too much from our telephone directories. I do not think that information can be repeated over and over again in varying forms although it is true to say that this is exactly what happens throughout the pages of telephone directories. I think that it is also pertinent to observe that the results of the work of the Committee have been noted already in the directories that have been published since the report was tabled. Therefore, to that extent the work of the Committee has been very useful.

Senator GREENWOOD:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Of course, I speak on this matter as Minister representing the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) in the Senate. I have read the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment and I know that the PostmasterGeneral and his Department have given attention to the recommendations which it has provided. I think that it is noteworthy that the Committee found there was little public concern about the contents of the information pages of telephone directories. It is significant that in several places the Committee expressed its surprise - a surprise contrary to its anticipation - that there was very little public response to the Australia-wide call for persons who wished to make submissions to the Committee. The second point to be acknowledged from a reading of the report is that the Committee recognised how very much one’s impression of the information pages of the telephone directories is dependent upon the subjective view of whether or not at a particular time those pages give readily the information one is seeking. I suppose all of us have had the experience of checking whether the telephone directory information pages contain information about telephonic, telegraphic or postal services, at which time we have experienced varying degrees of annoyance according to whether or not we have been able readily to locate where such information is to be found. I suspect it is this form of annoyance which we have all occasionally experienced that gave rise to the concern which prompted the reference of this matter to the Committee. The Committee has acknowledged, however, that it is a matter of a time to time experience as to whether or not we regard the information pages as adequate. This is probably the way in which the whole problem is to be viewed.

The third point is that the Committee on its own assessment and appreciating the subjective character of that assessment, did make a number of recommendations, all of them of course designed to improve the presentation of information in the directory. The Committee acknowledged that a considerable amount of work has been done, including obtaining the services of a graphic design consultant in 1968 - long before this Committee was suggested, of course - from whom the PostmasterGeneral took advice on the best form that these information pages could have. The work of that consultant has found its way into those pages. Nevertheless the PostmasterGeneral has viewed the recommendations as worthy of action, and action has been taken on many of them. If 1 deal with the recommendations seriatim the Senate will understand the way in which the work of this Committee has been accepted by the Postmaster-General’s Department. The first recommendation was:

Thai:

Only essential and frequently sought information such as (i) index; (ii) emergency services; (iii) directory map; (iv) instant call guide services; and (v) STD codes, be provided at the front of directories.

All promotional material, charge information, telephone use instructions, postal, telegraphic and similar information be placed at the back of directories.

Action was taken this year, particularly in the 1972 issue of the Canberra telephone directory, to provide material at the front of the directory and the other information at the back. Of course, there had to be some recognition of the fact that a separate 16-page section was necessary for binding purposes. Therefore items such as Using your telephone’, ‘Telephone call charges’, ‘Trunk and international calls’ and ‘Abbreviations of exchanges and place names’ were included in the information pages at the front of the directory. The Postmaster-General’s Department will utilise both the experience and the convenience of what has been done with the Canberra directory this year as a guide to the extent to which it can be adapted for directories in other places.

The second recommendation was that an index be clear and complete and that alphabetical key letters be used. It continued:

  1. An exhortation he given at the top of the index page to encourage the use of the index.
  2. A separate index, suitably mentioned in the main index, be provided for general Post Office material located at the back of the directory.

The first 2 of these recommendations are being acted upon and will be incorporated in all telephone directories in all States. The third recommendation - that a separate index for general Post Office material be provided - has not been adopted for the current Canberra directory, the only one to which it could have conveniently applied this year. The Department believed this recommendation would have been impracticable because that index would be superfluous. For example, if a subscriber had consulted the main index on page 1 without success, then a second index at the beginning of the section containing information on charges, appearing at the end of the alphabetical section, would appear to have dubious value. One may suppose it would seldom be consulted.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order! Three hours of sitting having elapsed since the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate, the Senate pursuant to order will now proceed with other business on the notice paper.

page 409

QUESTION

BUDGET 1972-73

Debate resumed from 23 August (vide page 364), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Civil Works Programme 1972-73.

Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1972-73.

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1973.

Expenditure:

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1973.

Particulars of Proposed Provision for Certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1973.

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1972.

Commonwealth Income Tax Statistics for Income Year 1969-70.

National Income and Expenditure, 1971-72.

Upon which Senator Wriedt had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add - but the Senate condemns the Budget because it fails to define adequate economic and social goals for Australia; and in particular because it provides no programme for restoring full employment, no means of checking the costs and prices of goods and land, no framework for improving the standards of education, health, welfare and public transport and no national plan for our capital cities and regional centres’.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to pursue a number of points in the debate on the Budget this afternoon. In particular I want to refer to various errors by which I believe that this Government, publicly and otherwise, has come close to the borderline of public corruption. I hope that when I have to criticise Ministers or the affairs of their Departments in the contribution that I shall make it will not be taken as a personal insult. I do believe that this Government has been riddled with inefficient Ministers for several years. Nevertheless should any Minister take that to heart he has time to resign his portfolio between today and election day, which will probably be Christmas Eve - the same day of the year as that on which the last cyclone struck north Queensland. When the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) presented his Budget in another place a few days ago, his opening remarks included these words:

Our proposals are geared to achieve social and economical goals of significance to all Australians and particularly families. The briefest portrayal of the Budget is as follows: Taxes down; pensions up; and growth decisively strengthened.

Since then financial commentators, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party (Mr Whitlam), and those of my colleagues on this side of the chamber who spoke before me have all, I think, contributed in no small way to proving that those words were in fact a hollow echo of the confidence of Government members. On page 5 of his Budget Speech the Treasurer refers to $2.5m being made available over 5 years to South Australia for completion of the sealing of the Eyre Highway. He continues:

We will develop in consultation with the States a suitable programme for further improvement of the national highway system.

He has found the fantastic sum of $250,000 this year for investigations and planning to develop such a programme. Why was not some of this work done 20 years ago? After all, the Government has been in power for 2 decades and it is only when it faces the crisis of a declining vote in a national election that it has suddenly been able to find money for a number of things. Had this kind of programme been initiated in Queensland 10 years ago it is possible that a very large number of people who died on the roads would be alive today. Despite the introduction of seat belts as a compulsory safety measure, the death toll so far this year already exceeds that for the same period last year. With due respect, I submit that a contributing factor is the poor condition of roads in my State. However, I do not imagine that this condition varies very much in other States.

The Treasurer’s next reference is to defence. Following the loss of 500 Australian lives and the maiming of 2,000 other Australians in the Vietnam involvement, the Government sets out in this Budget a long ranging defence plan. But when we look at this plan in depth, we see that it does not mean a thing except that from 1963 to 1972 the Government has had on order 24 Fill aircraft - long referred to as the plane that will never fly. It is said that this year or next year this plane will be brought to Australia. I suppose that if one wants to look at technical advances one could say that the plane is probably already obsolete, but that does not seem to worry the Australian Government.

For a long period of time the Australian Government has been niggled by the Opposition into doing something positive about defence plans. I submit that should the national disaster of the return of the present Government occur, these defence plans will be just pushed under the table again. The Government will do nothing positive between now and the election date to implement the plans. Regardless of how much Government supporters may waffle on and talk about the plans they will not be carried out. As I said a moment ago, if one looks at the whole of the defence planning in depth one sees that there is nothing to it.

The Government has decided to make available an additional sum of money for tourist attractions. I suppose tourism is or could become one of the major industries of this country. I understand that when the Estimates come before this chamber there will be a discussion about the failure of plans already instituted. So I do not propose to mention that matter at this point of time. In north Queensland we have asked for the installation of an instrument landing system merely to make flying safer in the Townsville area and the far north. We were told originally that somewhere along the line this system would be installed, that we would be the next cab off the rank. We are now told officially by the Minister that the timing of the installation of this system is now indefinite.

We have asked for the construction of runways that will be in keeping with requirements for an international airport. We are told that this will cost $15m. But when one asks for a breakdown as to how that $15m will be expended one is told that this is not available. I think this is a pretty poor sort of a hoax to put over people who want to do something about developing tourism in a particular area. We have a department and we have a Minister for bits and pieces who in fact takes tourism under his wing in his multitude of portfolios. The Minister has no proper department operating in the tourism field, nor does he have a proper department operating in the environment field. In fact there are many things that the Government has talked about particularly over the last 5 years that it has never implemented or planned for. I do not think the Government ever intended bringing these things into operation.

On page 10 of the Budget Speech reference is made to expenditure on Aboriginal advancement. In my view, and in the view of everybody else who has examined this matter in detail, it is a hoax. The Government has made very little increase in the allocation for Aborigines in the current financial year. In fact, it is extremely doubtful that the Government has convinced its own supporters. Let us see what people, other than Government supporters, say is required to be done.

Earlier this year the Centre for Research into Aboriginal Affairs held an Aboriginal health services seminar at the Monash University. Some of the most distinguished medical people in Australia were present at this seminar. I will not read all of the recommendations made, but I will read some of them. The first recommendation in regard to principles was:

In any programme of health care the integrity of the Aboriginal people is crucial, therefore every attempt must be made to foster a sense of solidarity, and dignity so that Aboriginal identity can be preserved and promoted.

A further recommendation stated:

That health programmes be planned in consultation with the Aboriginal communities they are designed to serve, over the entire cultural, linguistic and economic range of such communities throughout Australia, and carried out through the people themselves and their community leaders.

A third recommendation stated this:

The current disastrous health situation is a byproduct of the complexity and diversity of an Aboriginal society under the pressure of European society. It is a total community problem and not primarily one of individual health. A strategy to meet this problem requires a comprehensive approach including a drastic improvement in education, housing and economic opportunity as well as health services.

Among the recommendations in the programme for action was a recommendation referring to the setting up of a national advisory body, which would include Aboriginal Government and non-Government members, to advise various organisations and governments. The following recommendation also came out of the seminar:

That community-based health education and preventive medicine, in close harmony with the provision of medical treatment, be the keystone of such health programmes. There should be a programme of orientation to and education about Aboriginal life and culture, including language courses where possible, presented essentially by Aborigines, for all personnel involved with Aborigines through health services.

Other comments have also been made. I draw honourable senators’ attention to the Development News Digest’ which sets out in detail many of the problems confronting Aborigines today and the manner in which some of the problems can be overcome. These matters are not mentioned in the Budget Speech. Other statements have been made, but because my time is limited I can make only a brief reference to them. But later in the session I shall certainly be talking in detail about a whole range of questions concerning Aborigines.

Honourable senators will recall the great national shame when the Aboriginal ‘embassy’ was moved from the lawns in front of Parliament House. They will recall that the ‘embassy’ was set up on 26th January 1972, and if there had been an objection to it something ought to have been done about it then. There was no need to introduce a special ordinance if the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) had wanted to shift the ‘embassy’. I am not blaming the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) specifically for this; I am blaming the Prime Minister and those who were urging him,

I do not think the Minister for the Interior has ever taken a decision on his own since he has occupied his portfolio. But he was pushed into taking this action and he certainly put on the type of face that the Prime Minister required. I will not quote the whole document, but the representatives of the ‘embassy’ had this to say:

The People of Australia and People throughout the world have been shocked and amazed at the double dealing and fascist manner in which the government has to date dealt with the Black Tent Embassy, established on the lawns of Parliament House, on Australia Day, 26th January 1972.

They were shocked at the way in which the Minister for Interior gazetted amendments to an ordinance which allowed his political police force to move in and use violence to remove the Black Embassy 40 minutes after being gazetted on 20th July 1972.

This was at a time when parliamentarians were scattered throughout this nation, when the Parliament was not sitting. The document continues:

The People were so concerned that many co-operated to send buses to Canberra full of Black People to re-establish the Black Embassy on Sunday, 23 rd July 1972. The organised violence of the political police force used on that day against the People who re-established the Black Embassy was unbelievable and had the effect of uniting the People to see the Black Embassy re-established at whatever cost.

I do not blame all the police who were associated with it, but unfortunately a large number of the police enjoyed putting in the boot. I think that the disgrace goes even deeper. This sort of action rebounds on the Parliament of this country, and on the white people of this nation. There has been issued recently a pamphlet which also deals with injustices to black people. There are only 4 or 5 pages in this document entitled ‘What Hope Justice?’ To avoid reading it, I ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document reads as follows) -

If you are black and a woman and in your early teens you have probably been raped at least once.

If you are black and a woman and in your early twenties then, you have probably been raped two or three times.

Take the example of an 11 year old black girl living in the River Todd with her 20-month old baby; while children are picked up off the streets in Alice Springs, by white louts with carnal knowledge, if not rape on their minds, where are the police? The supposed upholders of law arid order are too busy searching out blacks, to book for the much more ‘serious’ crime of drunkenness. By the time such a child is 20 is it not better to be a prostitute than be raped again - at least she might get a bottle of beer for her agony - she certainly will not get justice.

ABORIGINAL GIRL FLEES POLICE

Marlene Cummins, after being raped, made a desperate appeal to the system for protection. She was ‘protected’ by the police with her own arrest under 2 charges.

Marlene, a young black girl, lived her early childhood on the reserves in far west Queensland near Connamulla and Winton. At about the age of 12 her family moved to Brisbane and became fringe-dwellers at Acacia Ridge, just outside Brisbane. Soon after this her parents separated and she finally settled in Brisbane’s inner suburbs with her father, a strict disciplinarian, who had remarried. Repeated beatings drove her to run away from home at the age of 15.

The day Marlene left home with another schoolfriend, she had her first sexual experience PACK RAPE.

Having accepted a lift with 3 young white men, the 2 children were driven into the bush, followed by another 2 carloads of white youths.

The girls were separated and repeatedly raped despite hysterical protests and screams.

A shocked and terrified Marlene managed to get home at 3 a.m. and was beaten by her father for running away; she was too terrified to tell her father what had happened. At this time Marlene sought assistance from Juvenile Aid (a service to protect children from parental brutality).

At 16 Marlene left home again, and, travelling the only way an unemployed, uneducated 16-year- old black girl can, she hitch-hiked, surviving as best she could.

Having travelled north through Townsville and Mount Isa, south to Alice Springs and Port Augusta then east to Sydney, by some miracle Marlene escaped sexual assault, although on one occasion she was forced to leap from a moving car. Eventually she returned to Brisbane where she was rejected by her family.

Taken to a party by her cousin, she drank too much and fell asleep. Marlene awoke to find herself alone in. the house with a slightly retarded Aboriginal man. He barricaded the door with a wardrobe and threatened to stab her with a tin opener if she did not submit. Later when one of the rapists’ white friends returned to the house Mar:ene tried to escape. She was caught, and at knife point raped again. Her screams for help were ignored by the second man.

Shortly after this second horrifying experience, Marlene became involved in the new black militant movement, and with her association with such persons as Sammy Watson Junior and Dennis Walker, her face became known to the police. This year, during National Aboriginal Week Marlene, now 17 years old, was raped for the third time. Having missed a meeting with friends and unable to catch a cab, she started to hitch-hike home. A white businessman picked her up in a light coloured Valiant, drove her to a secluded place, and despite her protests, she was raped at knife point, under such threats as ‘If you don’t let me r– you I will shove this in you’. Marlene fought and screamed. Crying and hysterical she was eventually taken to hospital by 2 young friends, where rape was confirmed and a sedative administered.

The hospital reported her rape, and 2 CID detectives took her to the police station to be interviewed. While trying to explain her experience, her interviewer commented, ‘You’ve been f- before’. Still half hysterical Marlene responded, ‘I’ve been f- raped. What are you going to do about it?’ Immediately the detective snapped shut his report book and charged her with indecent language. Arrested on this charge, Marlene was transferred to the watchhouse where she was stripped and searched by a police-woman. Still endeavouring to tell what had happened to her that night, the police-woman’s only comment was, ‘Bully for you’.

Later at the charge desk the distraught Marlene was surrounded by sniggering police and became the target of obviously racist insults, such as: Black Slut’, ‘Black Gin’, ‘Black S- ‘.

By now Marlene was completely hysterical:. Whereupon a ‘helpful’ policeman tried to calm her down by throwing her heavy sheepskin, coax over her head, wrapping the sleeves so tightly around her, that she thought she would suffocate. Eventually struggling free, Marlene, not surprisingly, hit out at the nearest policeman. Although she failed to connect, she was knocked to the ground and then she was charged with assault

Marlene wars then locked in a cell for 2 hours until her hysterical but justified abuse of the police trailed off from sheer exhaustion. The final indignity came when she was fingerprinted before eventual release on bail.

Her final appeal at the Bail Desk against her treatment and the racist abuse such as being called a Black Slut was met with the comment, Well, arn’t you?’

page 413

THE POLICE DO NOT WANT THIS CASE TO COME TO COURT

And following their threats, Marlene Cummins has fled the jurisdiction of the Queensland Police. She is too terrified to return voluntarily for her trial on 4th August because of police threats. If she does not return there will be a warrant issued for her arrest. In either case her return to Queensland will expose her to further police brutality and violence.

page 413

WHY DO THE POLICE WANT TO STOP THIS CASE FROM GOING TO COURT?

They will find it impossible to explain charges against a young girl referred to them by a hospital as a rape victim. Marlene is by no means the only black girl in such a position. Most black girls in Australia can tell similar stories.

To analyse this situation you must first recognise the social and economic deprivation of Aboriginal women. The lack of education and employment opportunities, combined with White Australia’s racist attitudes, leave hundreds of Aboriginal girls in the familiar position of hitch-hiking penniless, seeking employment or social security.

Marlene and other girls in a similar position are not protected by the law.

page 413

HOW CAN THEY BE PROTECTED FROM THE LAW?

Obviously the system cannot and will not help girls in this position. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

JOIN WOMEN’S ACTION and the BLACK LIBERATION FRONT propose the following actions to protect Marlene and others in similar positions:

SISTERHOOD IS POWERFUL- Eight women can wipe out one RACIST RAPIST.

page 413

JOINT WOMEN’S ACTION

page 413

BOX 110, DICKSON P.O

page 413

QUESTION

CANBERRA, A.C.T

  1. Organised Protection: In Marlene’s case. Dennis Walker, Minister of Defence of the Black Panther Party, has already announced a $200 reward to anyone who can avenge Marlene against the white businessman who raped her and the arresting officer who abused his power by treating Marlene the victim as Marlene the criminal. Other Black communities should organise themselves in a similar way so that girls may be protected by them as obviously the police do not.

Marlene will be Australia’s Angela Davis, she is a victim of legal racism. It is important that we collect as much information on such racist abuse as possible if this racist society is to be smashed.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate. The final stupidity that occurred in Parliament House during the parliamentary recess was the taking over of a section of Parliament House for the SEATO Conference. It is to the credit of the Senate and of those in charge here that the Senate area of Parliament House was not taken over. Mr Gordon Bryant, my colleague in another place, issued a Press statement on 27th June 1972. It was headed: ‘SEATO and Parliament - the Banana Republicans’ Last Stand?’ I will not seek to incorporate this document but I will read out 4 relevant paragraphs. Mr Bryant stated:

The overwhelming presence of SEATO officials and delegates around and in Parliament House is the final humiliation of an institution which the Australian Government has reduced to a cypher.

The extraordinary number of guards and police armed and with personal radio communication is security run mad and a waste of money.

When the Speaker, Sir William Aston, informed the House of the arrangements, the impression gained by members was of an act of hospitality carried out unobtrusively. The reality is nothing like that impression.

I personally regard the whole operation as it is now mounted as offensive and humiliating.

Mr Bryant continues for a further page and a half to condemn the actions of this Government.

Responsible statements have been made by responsible people to the effect that on the previous occasion when SEATO met in Parliament House even members of the staff were followed by armed guards. When one young lady went to the toilet, a guard was mounted outside the door of that toilet. This is a pretty disgraceful state of affairs. But under this Government, we have become used to many of these things.

Let me deal further with some of the other sections of the Budget speech. Plenty of opportunities to carry out a further post mortem on what the Government proposes to do with respect to Aborigines will be available before this session terminates. Honourable senators on the other side of the chamber might cease their gossiping; they will have an opportunity to make their speeches later this day.

Senator Webster:

– We thought that there were so few listening to you that we were considering directing attention to the state of the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That comment applies to people on the other side of the Senate. They live in fear. They do not want to be in here arguing the point because they know-

Senator Webster:

– I think that you can say that of your own colleagues. There are only 3 of them here.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The point is that-

Senator Webster:

– You will have to think of something good.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Last session when the honourable senator spoke, we had to direct attention to the state of the Senate to make sure that there was another Government senator in the chamber to listen to him.

Senator Webster:

– That is not right.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– To whom do I talk, Mr Acting Deputy President - you or him?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT To the Chair.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Right, as long as it is not the Country Party. Reference is made in the Budget Speech to assistance with fares. The Treasurer stated: . unemployed persons should not be inhibited in seeking employment by the cost of fares, and- the Commonwealth Government: . . will be asking the States for their cooperation in developing a viable scheme. The estimated cost in 1972-73 is $200,000.

On the surface, it appears that the Commonwealth will make available $200,000. It does appear that the Commonwealth is planning to meet a situation in which 100,000 or more people will be unemployed for a long time. But unless the States come into this agreement, no-one will be assisted. Even though the sum involved is not great, this again is a hoax.

In dealing with external aid the Treasurer said:

In relative terms, Australia’s aid performance in respect of both volume and type of aid ranks us among the world leaders.

I submit with some contempt that that statement is a hoax. Australia ranks near the lowest rung in the world in respect of external aid if we deduct from the amount that we provide the contribution that we make to Papua New Guinea. If we deduct that amount we would contribute less than almost any other so-called developed country.

Senator Webster:

– What about taking away the rest of the contribution and then making the calculation?

Senator KEEFFE:

– With the distorted acountant’s mind that you have, I suppose that is the way in which you declare your profits each year when you approach your taxation return. I propose to read this as I see it and as your so-called expert, the Treasurer, has set it out.

Senator Marriott:

– Would you anticipate that we would not give aid to Papua New Guinea?

Senator KEEFFE:

– .Who is that talking? It is the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Health, Senator Marriott. You will need medical treatment if you keep making interjections like that. I come back to the point I was making. Obviously there is a crying attempt on the Government side in an endeavour to divert attention from the fact that our external aid is nowhere near the amount that this Government says it is. There was a time last year or late in the year before when the Treasurer said that Australia’s external aid contributions had exceeded one per cent of its gross national product. But when the breakdown was made the figure was shown to be very little in excess of one half of one per cent. It is of no use saying that this year we will provide a total of $220m to be spent on official economic aid to developing countries because in the next line of the Budget Speech we are informed that $145m of that sum is to go to Papua New Guinea.

Senator Webster:

– Why does the honourable senator not take that amount into account?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Look, we are taking it into consideration but surely to goodness we ought to give more than that to Papua New Guinea.

Senator Webster:

– That is not the point.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– Let me answer him. There is no reason why we should innate our official figures by including our contribution to Papua New Guinea.

Senator Webster:

– Why should we not include that figure?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Because if we take away the amount of $145m the sum made available by this country as external aid becomes a most insignificant one. Let us be realistic about this and not live in a fairy tale world. This morning, I asked a question about the aid we had given to the Philippines.

Senator Jessop:

– It is $2m this year.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 beg your pardon?

Senator Jessop:

– It will amount to $2m.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Will it?

Senator Jessop:

– Yes.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Goodness gracious me! Is it $100m out of your own pocket?

Senator Jessop:

– I said $2m.

Senator KEEFFE:

– How much of that is your own money, because it is not coming from the Commonwealth Government; that is for sure. What we have done is to make a cash grant of $20,000. That is all that we have done to date. I doubt whether the cheque for that amount has been sent yet. We have said that we will send some flour and some wheat. This may amount in value to $300,000 or $400,000.

Senator Jessop:

Senator, flour worth $176,000 is on the ocean at the present time.

Senator KEEFFE:

– -What ocean? The ocean of imagination!

Senator Jessop:

– It is going to the Philippines.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I asked a responsible Minister here this morning and he could not tell me. Here is one of the Government’s insignificant backbenchers claiming to have the information. Where does he get it from?

Senator Jessop:

– From the House of Representatives Hansard.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Obviously it comes from a fairy story that you were reading last night. I do not believe what you say. Sometimes I have grave doubts about what Ministers say. But at least they are in a situation where they ought to have access to knowledge. I prefer to wait until I am supplied with the information by the relevant Minister, which will probably be 2 months after the question has been put on notice and after the aid has been sent-

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I rise to take a point of order. I have listened to the honourable senator for some time. I think he should moderate his language. I refer to the way in which he has been casting aspersions on Ministers and backbenchers here by saying that they are insignificant.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

Yes, Senator Keeffe, I think you should moderate your language.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will moderate my language, but I have not really started yet. There are a few other things that I have to say. If we are ashamed of the $20,000 that we have made available to the Philippines, if this is such a touchy point, and if we are worried about the weevilly flour that we may or may not have on a boat, I would ask with due respect that the responsible Minister be in a position to bring that information to the Senate next week.

I turn to the subject of housing. The Treasurer makes much of the additional sums which will be made available by way of loans and by way of grants in this important field. It is deplorable that, when someone wishes to purchase a home in this country, he must put himself in hock for up to half a century in order eventually in his extreme old age to have a home that he is able to call his own.

Senator Webster:

– That is one thing that the socialists would not wish them to have.

Senator KEEFFE:

– You sound like a canary in a cage, trying to get out. If someone will give the honourable senator some seed, we might be better off. It is a well known fact that when the home savings grants were first made available unscrupulous builders immediately added all or part of it to their building costs so that in fact the person buying a home found that he was not saving money. The unavailability of building sites is one of the scandals of this century. A reasonable building site in the Sydney area now costs what a very good quality home cost 5 years ago, and there is not a stick of wood, brick, a piece of mortar or anything on the land. They have to start from there. People have to put themselves in debt to get the piece of ground first and then start building on it.

I think that one of the State Ministers made a very pertinent statement the other day when he said that there was no need for the Government to intervene to make areas of land available. Before concluding the statement he said that no land was available anyway. This is the sort of approach that the Commonwealth has adopted also. We asked for land for building sites on Thursday Island. It took years of battling to get 60 acres. Many months ago we were told that that area would be made available but we do not know even yet where the land is. The housing situation in that area is deplorable but nothing is being done by the Department of the Interior. The transfer of the land from the Department of Defence to the Department of the Interior has taken place but nothing has been done about making it available to the people. People living there wrote to me 3 or 4 days ago and asked: ‘Where is our land?’ This is the Commonwealth’s problem all the way through. The Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) wrote to me many months ago and said that the Act would be amended to take in those Torres Strait Islanders who have served in certain areas. We are still waiting for the Act to be amended. Come election day it still will not be amended if the current rate of progress is maintained.

I refer now to the health field. Yesterday I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Health said: ‘Put it on notice’. The question, No. 2365, was as follows:

Is it a fact that the Australian General Practitioners’ Society has distributed a notice, in the following terms, for display in doctors’ surgeries: Pensioner patients are advised to obtain, or to retain, membership of medical benefit funds as the Commonwealth Government does not enable doctors to provide satisfactory care to pensioner patients through its fourth-rate Pensioner Medical Service’.

Does the Acting Minister agree with the principles set out in the notice; if not, what action is being taken by the Government to remedy the situation.

That is a perfectly reasonable approach to a terribly serious situation. Many pensioners travelling on holidays or visiting sick relatives carry their pensioner medical cards with them but when they wish to see a doctor in the particular town concerned they cannot get free medical treatment. The doctor says that his list is closed and that he does not have to treat them. One cannot blame the doctors always. The fault lies in the slap happy manner in which this Government has approached one of the major problems of this time.

I might as well expand on the field of health now because it is a very important area. On my side of the chamber we have spokesmen who have been able to put up arguments that could not be knocked over by Government spokesmen. The arguments relate to the preventive side as well as the curative side of the health field. Honourable senators will remember that a long time ago, in this chamber in particular, questions were asked and debates took place about the advisability of banning the advertising of cigarettes on television, of putting warning labels on packets of cigarettes and of conducting a campaign to prove that smoking was dangerous. I am a smoking addict, as are many honourable senators in this chamber. It is just as powerful a drug as pot or anything else. It is a drug of addiction, as is alcohol. Whether we use tobacco in small or large amounts, in the long run it must have a bad effect on our health. All sorts of excuses are made for using it - I used to make them myself but I gave up doing so - excuses such as ‘I smoke because I find it calms my nerves’ or ‘it helps me relax’, or something else.

Senator Jessop:

– It does not help you much.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Smoking does not do any of those things. The honourable senator who just interjected probably goes in for something a little stronger. I regret that the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) is not here and I’m sorry that he is ill. He said: ‘Well, I have a cigarette.’ I do not think that that is any justification for not carrying out a programme to try at least to prevent young people taking up smoking. One can suspect only that the major tobacco companies have applied pressure against this Government in order to break down the campaign against advertising of cigarettes. I can see no other reason. Even when the original decision was taken it was not a strong one but it was somewhat stronger than the one finally adopted. The original decision was eventually broken down and then we had this long wait for it to be implemented. In the meantime probably another 10,000 kids have started smoking. Probably some of them would have been prevented from doing so had they had the opportunity to read some of the anti-smoking campaign material.

I now want to refer to another field. You will recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I said earlier that we have no real office of the environment. It has not been properly established or properly staffed and does not operate properly. There have been meetings of Ministers of the environment. At this time South Australia probably is the only State in which there is a full-time portfolio. The various Ministers concerned meet from time to time but the Commonwealth Government representative does not know what he is doing, and cannot make a decision either.

He is like another Minister I referred to a little while ago. Recently the Stockholm Conference was held. Our delegation was led by our Commonwealth Minister. On the first vote on nuclear pollution, Australia did not know where to go. Ultimately the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), had to intervene - why it should be him I do not know - and say: ‘Vote against it on the next round’. Then there was the Parliamentary Conference at Vienna. No directives or guidelines were issued to the Australian delegates to that Conference. At least the Office of the Environment ought to have been able to arrange streamlined entry for the Australian delegation at that Conference but that was not so. We knew nothing about it so we found our own way and made our own decisions. I must say that the decisions taken about nuclear pollution at that Conference were much better than anything decided at the Stockholm Conference.

The question of pollution in Australia is one of the gravest things that faces our people. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has come under a lot of criticism but a few weeks ago this matter was dealt with in a ‘4 Corners’ programme. I do not know whether it has led yet to the sacking of the commentator. Usually the person who produces or does the main commentary on any controversial programme on ‘4 Corners’ is transferred by political direction, or is sacked.

Senator Marriott:

– There must have been a lot of transfers lately.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It would be good if Senator Marriott would use a foghorn because he is a bit difficult to understand. That programme ought to have made all Australians feel ashamed of themselves. People in the Department of Supply and those associated with General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd and the Imperial Chemical Industries organisation particularly ought to hang their heads in shame. I say that because the Government gave permission for the dumping of dangerous chemicals and other harmful products into the seas around this country. We have just had the big panic over the amount of mercury now being found in sharks - I am not talking about political sharks because their skin would be impervious to mercury - in areas in which Victorian flake is caught. How much more of this pollution is going on? A warning has just been given that Lake Burley Griffin will be so polluted in a few months time that it will be dangerous to eat fish from it. When it has come to nuclear pollution the Government has trodden quietly - softly, softly. No matter how much fall-out there could have -been over Australia the Government has not been prepared to offend France.

In 1970, I asked the then Minister for Health for certain figures in relation to nuclear fall-out. On 7th December 1970 he replied in the following terms:

You sought additional information in relation to your questions on notice Nos 584 and 586 about nuclear fall-out which I had answered earlier that day. Two main points were raised by you concerning the work of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee which reports to rae. The first point concerned the time being taken to publish the results obtained from the monitoring programmes; and the second point concerned difficulty for the layman in easily understanding the reports when published.

Since then, I have discussed this matter with my Department and I am satisfied that there are very good reasons why the data should not be published on a day to day basis or even for each test in a series. Although the daily measurements can immediately confirm that the level of radioactivity in fall-out is far below what is considered to be of significance as a health hazard - and this is the case for the whole of Australia - it is only after all the data from a series of tests have been collected and analysed that it is possible to draw firm and meaningful conclusions. I can assure you that there is no unreasonable withholding of the information from publication.

Of course the Government is still going on in the same vein. That answer was given to me over 18 months ago. On 8th August 1972 a statement was issued by the Department of Supply on nuclear fall-out monitoring. I shall quote it in part. It reads:

These data now include measurements of fallout from the second explosion in the series.

Mr Garland said that fresh fission products from the present series became evident at a very low level in fall-out over Australia about 15th July: As expected, the monitoring programme has not yet recorded fall-out from the third explosion in the series, believed to have occurred on 28th July 1972.

Current monitoring of fall-out from the recent French tests has so far shown no evidence of iodine 131 in the major milk supplies.

The statement then went on to point out some of the details of the monitoring. I contend that the fall-out from the French tests was of some significance. It is all very well for the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland), who does not have scientific training anyway, to say it is not harmful. There are enough scientists in this country alone who say that nuclear fall-out of any sort can have harmful results in the long term. I think the Government is merely hiding from the real issue and that it is not prepared to face up to reality and say: Tt may be harmful. Let us take some sort of positive action’. A Minister said in the Parliament the other day that the Australian Labor Party would let one country explode bombs but not another. That is not true. The Labor Party has said on many occasions that all types of nuclear fall-out are dangerous. In my book underground testing probably will be just as dangerous as atmospheric testing in the long term.

The same situation applies to the poisonous waste from nuclear plants. It has never been adequately denied that poisonous waste from the proposed Jervis Bay plant if it had been established would have been buried somewhere in the remote vastness of either north Queensland or the Northern Territory. Whilst there were feeble denials that that would happen when this matter was publicly raised, I have not yet received a satisfactory answer from any Minister in this House that the waste was not going to be ‘buried in this way. We ought to proceed carefully in this direction also until we are sure that there is no long term danger from the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Let us examine a few other things that are very important. The Government has been singularly silent on all the great events of the day. I am not going to talk about ping-pong teams or football teams visiting Australia or anything else. Over a long period of time my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, has asked probing questions in this House about people being trained in this country for rebellious purposes in other countries. Every Minister who has replied to his questions has attempted to laugh him out of court. But now, because it has come to light that naturalised Australians have been killed in other countries in acts of rebellion, the Government is trying to brush off the matter. The Government is trying to say: ‘It probably happened but it is not really as bad as you think it is’. It is a bit like the Vietnam show. Every time there was a major killing of young Australian soldiers in Vietnam the Government brushed off the incident by saying that it was a big battle and referred to the glory of it all and so on. There are still 150 Australians in Vietnam. They ought not to be there.

The Government’s actions are a bit like those of the last of the bananalander governments in Queensland. The Premier of Queensland says: “The crown of thorns starfish cannot do any harm’, and he is backed up by a handful of money-hungry tourist operators. But the genuine tourist operators know what damage the crown of thorns starfish could do. It will do as much damage in the long term to the eighth wonder of the world as drilling for oil. Another of my colleagues in this chamber, Senator Georges, and his team of scientists recently set up a monitoring system in the area. The results of it have proved all of the things that we are worried about. But we never hear concern being expressed about this sort of thing at a Commonwealth Government level. The Commonwealth Government owns the Great Barrier Reef just as much as anybody else, but it shows somewhat less interest than the Queensland Government, if that is at all possible.

Nothing has been said by the Commonwealth Government about the assault that has taken place on democracy in Queensland during the last few ‘weeks. Not one member of the Commonwealth Parliament from Queensland who is a supporter of the Government has said anything about the smashing up of the Brisbane City Council because a Labor supporter could not be defeated through the ballot box. The Commonwealth Government has to take some responsibility in this respect because it supplies funds to the Queensland Government for the development of Brisbane. What has happened must be what suits the Commonwealth Government. As the Liberal Party member for one of the metropolitan seats of Brisbane said the other day, a massive newspaper poll has just disclosed that the great majority of the people of Brisbane do not want their council interfered with either in terms of boundaries or in relation to the manner in which the Lord Mayor, Alderman Clem Jones, was elected or the number of aldermen, and the aldermen have been joined by their Liberal Party counterparts in the Brisbane City Council itself.

When a newspaper poll was taken which showed that the people supported his actions, the Premier of Queensland commended the Press and said: ‘lt is delightful. It is jolly good. It shows what is democracy’. But what was his attitude to the introduction of daylight saving? As from 1st October there will be 4 different time systems in this country. There will be Western Australian time; there will be central Australian time, which will be adjusted according to the introduction of daylight saving: there will be eastern standard time, which will be adjusted according to the introduction of daylight saving; and there will be Queensland hill-billy time. None of Queensland’s clocks will coincide with the clock anywhere else in Australia. I believe that there is an argument against the introduction of daylight saving, but if people want it I think they are entitled to have it. I do not suppose that the Commonwealth cares 2 hoots anyway. But it ought to care. The Commonwealth ought to have some concern for the wishes of the people, even if those wishes do not accord with those of the bananaland dictatorship. After all a lot of us have to live in Queensland. We want to live there because we like the place. But there are a few people running the State Government whom we do not like. Because of the Commonwealth Government’s timidity. I cannot see it taking any action. Daylight saving should be introduced in those areas where the mass of the population is in favour of its introduction. A system on a taxation zone basis could be introduced to suit the farmers. There are a dozen ways in which such a system could work without interf ering with the rights of the people.

Let us examine a couple of the problems that we are having at a ministerial level. I regret that we have had great problems in this House during the last couple of days. I think it is a crying shame when Ministers come in and instead of answering questions sensibly take in giving an answer up to 5 times the amount of time needed to ask the question. They try to get over political propaganda. We know that the Government has its back to the wall. We know that in any set of circumstances which could possibly confront the Government between now and election day it is unlikely to improve its position. Of course it has been said that the Government is going to reap great benefits from the Budget. But the people have had time to analyse it. There was no need to have a snap election before they wake up. They have been able to wake up in a couple of weeks. They can see that the advantages which the Government says are in the Budget are in fact not there at all. If the Government takes my advice it will go as long as it can before calling an election in the hope that something will turn up. But on current indications it is not going to do that.

What I am going to say now does not apply to all Ministers, but it applies to 2 of them in particular. Shortly I will be saying something about another Minister; it will be not uncomplimentary to him personally but I hope he takes note of it. Let us look at the situation of the Minister now in charge of the House, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). When he is asked a question on anything to do with the requirements of trade unions he gets very upset indeed. He starts attacking the Australian Labor Party, trade unions, Bob Hawke and everybody in sight who may be a worker.

Senator Jessop:

– He does it very well too.

Senator KEEFFE:

– He does it very effectively, that is right. He is able to blind you with his emotions anyway. Then, of course, you have the Attorney-General-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! Senator Keeffe, you should address the Chair.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I pay respect to you every time, Mr Acting Deputy President. Then, of course, we have the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood). One could not call him dynamic except when he gets up to answer a question. In getting up and down he is like a bomb. But this does not apply to the quality or to the body of his reply. He, like the Minister for Works, uses question time as a political electioneering stunt. He is able to get draft dodgers as they run across that side of the chamber. He is able to get militant strikers on this side of the chamber. We receive this sort of reply all the time. I hope that he will take this in the spirit in which I say it, but it is doubtful whether he is not the most incompetent Attorney-General since another famous person who served in that position some years ago and who, when he was drafting a certain piece of legislation, was kicked upstairs for his trouble. It is the responsibility of the Attorney-General to maintain law and order. But it will not be maintained if he continues to act in the manner in which this Attorney-General has been acting. The way he carries on by demanding gaol for this person and penalties for that person is, I think, shameful.

Of course in the meantime there is more crime in this country - but not crime of trade union instigation. Nobody is doing anything about this at all. It is not of demonstration instigation. There are problems in the police forces in various places. If the police were paid a decent wage there would be less inclination for a minority of police to accept bribes and become corrupt. There would be less inclination for them to be forced into this sort of thing. But neither the Commonwealth nor any of the States pay adequate wages to their police, nor do they staff their forces properly. It is all very well for the AttorneyGeneral to conduct his daily war dance when he is replying to questions and get himself into a tizzy in his effort to evade a proper reply.

But there are other developments. The Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) does not come under a very great deal of criticism because he does not do anything for which to be criticised. In fact, he does not do a great deal - period. It is his bad luck that he happens to be landed with the Fill aircraft. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will note that when honourable senators on the Opposition side criticise the purchase of the Fill aircraft they do not direct their criticisms at the Minister for Air. In fact, we feel very sorry that he has this problem in his lap. I suppose we could start with the Prime Minister because this is where most of the rot has set in. Whenever the Prime Minister touches anything it turns to dust. It blows up in his face. I know that my colleagues will not mind my telling the Senate that on one occasion at a social function in Sydney he made a public speech and he even forgot the date on which Parliament was to open. Perhaps my colleagues might elaborate on that a little later. The Prime Minister went to the Asian area.

Senator Young:

– Does the honourable senator need leave to get some more buckets to pour?

Senator KEEFFE:

– If Senator Young is a little scared of the truth there is no harm in his crawling under his desk. He is upset because he is afraid of the truth. Of course, if he cannot stand up to the truth it would be a good idea if he got out of Parliament altogether. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, when we rose at the end of the last sessional period everybody on the Government side said: ‘Nothing is going to go wrong. We are right. We have 2 months when Parliament is not sitting. The Prime Minister cannot get into trouble.’ But 3 different statements came out of his Asian tour. And guess what happened when he could not go to New Guinea? The people of New Guinea said: Hurray, he is not going to cause trouble up here. He has to say at home.’ The Prime Minister had to stay at home because he had oily hands. Probably that is not the correct way to phrase it. He was mixed up in an oil dispute. It is of no use his saying, as he has attempted to do on a number of occasions, that he was not involved with the oil companies. It was perfectly obvious that the oil strike was perpetuated at the instigation of the Prime Minister and other Government members. That is where the situation stayed until it looked like blowing up and being an oily mess. Then I think the Prime Minister thought that it was time to get out. But do not blame the workers for these things as the Government so often wants to do.

I hate people who get mixed up - no, I do not like using strong words such as hate’ so instead I will say that I intensely dislike people who are public representatives becoming mixed up in mining companies and things of a similar nature. I want to go a little further than that. Today there is a move inside the Australian Country Party from the Butler league or the League of Rights and it has even sucked in our independent senator from Western Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who is that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The man who complains, Senator Negus. He has been wandering into Queensland. Last year - 1971 - when the election campaign was being held the Butler group would write letters. Some of the group did not have time to write out the letters which had been drafted for them so they enclosed a pamphlet which went with the letter. The pamphlet was based on the philosophy of the League of Rights. It is of no use the Deputy Prime Minister crying crocodile tears. He and people associated with him encouraged this infiltration of the Country Party. They have encouraged this breakdown of government in Australia. In Queensland it is even respectable for the Premier and his wife to go to dinner parties with these repesentatives. Do not let us have crocodile tears. This is what a Lorna Schneider said:

The enclosed pamphlet has 5 statements on the back. Would you read them please and let me know before the Senate election if you agree or if not why.

So many letters of that ilk were received that some day I am going to record in Hansard the names of everyone concerned with them. We do not have time to do it today. It will be very helpful when members of the Country Party want to see who their friends are. But today I have a different type of letter which states:

What is your personal opinion of death duties? In Queensland we have heard quite a lot of Senator Negus’s activities in this field, and I wonder when he does present this Bill will he have your support and help, I am also concerned about sanctions, directed against young developing nations e.g. Rhodesia. Are they quite fair? Is there any need for Australia to observe, in your opinion, these sanctions as it would appear other members of the UN do trade with them?

Yours faithfully, Anna Kuhl (Mrs)

Normally I would courteously acknowledge the letter and say that 1 had referred it to my Party headquarters. But then a Pat Simpson wrote back and asked:

Re your letter 11.7.72. I would like your personal views. Do you agree with the abolishment of Death Duty Taxes?

If Senator Negus wants to associate with the Country Party League of Rights, it is his right to do so. However, I say with respect that it will not do much good for his case for the abolition of death duties. The blackmailing tactics adopted by some of the people with whom he associates in their letters to other members of the Parliament will badly char his case before it starts. Finally-

Senator Webster:

– You do not really mean that, do you?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I did not know that the honourable senator was a member of the League of Rights. Is he?

Senator Webster:

– You did not really mean ‘finally’, did you?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is he or is he not a member? On 17th May 1972 I raised the matter of Nickelfields of Australia NL, which is a mining company with which an honourable senator of this chamber is associated. In my closing statement I said: l am sorry that Senator Wood has seen fit to leave the chamber. If that is the way he feels about it he ought to make a public statement about what happened to Nickelfields of Australia NL and one or two other companies, or alternatively be a decent politician and resign from this place.

I am sorry that the honourable senator is not in the chamber at the moment; no doubt he is listening in his office. I should like to refer also to other companies. In pursuance of what I have said previously I should like to say that it is a crying shame that small people have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in these small mining companies. Nickelfields was no exception. People were talked into purchasing shares in other small companies. While Senator Wood is about it, if he cares to make a statement publicly I would like him to say what his interest is in Laverton NL, shares in which I think today are worth about 7.5c at the seller’s rate. I should like to know whether any honourable senator on the Government side of the chamber has an interest in Shaw River Alluvials NL, another not very lusty mining company, the shares in which are now selling at the highest price they have reached for a long time - about 18c.

If people want to be in public life they should not get their noses, their fingers or their toes jammed in companies which, in the long term, could be construed as being dangerous financially. Another company to which I refer is Yassmine Mineral Explorations Pty Ltd. Only a week or two ago another member of the Liberal Party - a State member in this case - was sued by Wherry Investments Pty Ltd for §15,000. Unfortunately for this Parliament Senator Wood received honourable mention in that court case as being someone who is respected. I have forgotten the exact terms of that mention. We should not have politicians mixed up in this sort of thing. However can we get the trust of the people if we are going to indulge in floats of mining companies which are phoney from the start? I suggest that Nickelfields was phoney when it started. I asked for that company to be brought before the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, but Government Ministers said they would not do so. Why? Were they afraid of disclosing shareholdings? Were they afraid of the people who were promoting the company? Were they afraid of some other shady thing that might happen? I regret that one has to speak in terms of this kind but they are things that have to be said publicly. I hope that this Government has only a few weeks left in which to keep its dirty fingers in these matters.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from Senator Keeffe. We all listen intently to his dulcet tones. Inevitably we find that when there is a thread of denigration running through his speech, there is a reason for it. I am able to inform the Senate why this has happened today. It is because the Budget has effectively plucked the tail feathers from Senator McLaren, Senator Keeffe and other members of the Australian Labor Party, so much so that, they dare not refer in great detail to the provisions in the Budget. The honourable senator has made casual reference to defence, but of course the Labor Party is not interested in defence. He made some reference to Queensland’s requirement of an international airport. I, together with my colleagues of the Parliamentary Public Works Committee, will be visiting Queensland in the very near future and, after inspecting and listening to evidence related to 3 aerodromes in that State, the Committee will consider the expenditure of a large sum of money for that purpose.

Senator Keeffe mentioned the dispute in the oil industry and he insinuated something about the League of Rights, a remark which I thought was not applicable to the Budget. I should like to make a point about the oil strike. This was not a problem which involved the Government; it was a confrontation between Laurie Carmichael and Bob Hawke. This was a classic example of how the communist friends of the Labor Party can hold the nation to ransom. I believe that this was the precise situation in this case. It was a matter in which the 2 people to whom 1 have referred frustrated conciliation and arbitration to the great detriment of the working people of Australia. They almost succeeded in bringing the country to a standstill. This is the sort of activity that appeals to people like Laurie Carmichael. It was unfortunate that when Mr Hawke was elected President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions he said that he was going to take strike action. In this case the striking horse bolted and he could not stop it.

Having mentioned those things I should like to come back to the subject before the Senate - the Budget. Nobody can deny that the provisions of the Budget will provide a stimulus to the consumer section of the economy. It will inject confidence into the business part of the economy. I believe that there are many ingredients in the Budget that will achieve this purpose. The Leader of the Opposition in another place (Mr Whitlam) referred to this as a rich man’s Budget. I cannot work this out at all because the taxation rebates and the personal taxation restructuring were designed to give the maximum benefit to those people who are in the lower income groups. I should like to mention one or two illustrations of this. Consider the wage earner with a wife and 2 dependent children who is able to claim an average amount of other deductions. My first example is a wage earner with an income of $67 a week - $3484 a year - will receive a reduction of $63.20 in taxation, representing a 24.5 per cent reduction. As we go “p the scale to the middle area of - say $12,000 - the saving in a similar case would be $295, which is 10.5 per cent. As the salary becomes higher the percentage reduction becomes lower.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 406 and point out that the honourable senator is reading his speech.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - The point of order is not upheld. Senator Jessop will know the rules of debate in the Senate. I invite him to continue and to relate his remarks to the Budget.

Senator JESSOP:

– I could not help noticing while Senator Keeffe was on his feet that he was referring to notes quite frequently. I shall continue to refer to notes in the spirit of the standing order to which he referred. The Government’s decision to increase the amount exempted from estate duty received the acclaim of senators on this side of the chamber. No doubt Senator Negus was pleased to hear the concessions that were made in this regard. I think a lot of senators share his view that the exemption should be increased further.

Senator Gair:

– How many members of the honourable senator’s Party voted for Senator Byrne’s amendment years ago?

Senator JESSOP:

– I know that Senator Young, for one, did. If I had been a member of the Senate then I probably would have voted for it. I thank the honourable senator for giving me an opportunity to draw the attention of the Senate to the independence of Senator Young in exercising his right to vote that way.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! Senator Jessop will address the Chair and not carry on conversations with groups of senators. I ask other honourable senators to refrain from interjecting.

Senator JESSOP:

– I find it difficult to refrain from replying because I am pestered by interjections. I draw the attention of the Senate to one or two provisions with regard to ordinary estates. For estates arising from deaths on or after 16th August 1972 the statutory exemption from duty will be $40,000 where the estate passes solely to close relatives and $20,000 where no part of the estate is so passed. That increase in the amount of statutory exemption is an example of the Government’s liberal policy in this area. Estate duty on the estates of primary producers has been a tremendous burden to many .people in recent years. The statutory exemption in relation to such estates has had substantial changes made in it. I will not elaborate on that matter any further.

I was pleased to note that the Budget took heed of the need to provide further substantial amounts to benefit Aboriginal people. Expenditure for this purpose will be increased by 70 per cent to $53m. This morning I was glad to hear a reply from the Minister to a question that I asked. Despite attempts by the Opposition to frustrate him when he was giving his answer, he said that Aboriginal children are attracting education grants of $100 a head. I think this increase is quite a remarkable one, particularly in view of the fact that the per capita grants for other Australians are considerably less than that. If I remember correctly, the figure for Aborigines was twice the figure for nonAborigines.

Senator Wright:

– The per capita expenditure on other Australian children is $31. There is a percentage figure also.

Senator JESSOP:

– That is right. The figure for Aboriginal children is $100. That is an example of the way in which the Government is progressing very rapidly in the areas of need experienced by Aboriginal people. Senator Bonner has been most consistent with his representations in these matters. I think he can accept some credit for drawing the attention of the Government to areas of need as far as his people are concerned.

I refer now to 2 aspects that are of tremendous significance to South Australia and the Nothern Territory. The first is the provision of $2.5m to enable the South Australian Government to complete the sealing of national highway No. 1 from Penong to the Western Australian border. I was elected as a member of the House of Representatives in 1966. Since then this highway has been the subject of my constant attention and has been the reason for dozens of representations by me to succesive Ministers for Shipping and Transport. The excuse always was that the Government could not involve itself with a specific grant for the purpose of sealing that highway. It always threw up to me the

Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement. I think this provision in the Budget is a clear step towards the acceptance of the principle of a national highways system. Many people have been advocating this principle for a long time.

I was pleased to see that something is to be done with regard to highways that connect capital cities and highways that carry a larger percentage of vehicles registered in other States than vehicles from the State through which the road goes. I was particularly interested in the provision in the Budget of $250,000 to investigate and plan future requirements with regard to the policy related to a national highways system. I think this provision is a great step forward. I believe that the Commonwealth Government must accelerate the programme so that other roads which come under the same category will be sealed, thus enabling people to travel interstate on sealed roads.

As Secretary of the Government Members Transport Committee, I join with the Chairman, Mr Calder, the member for the Northern Territory, and with Committee members, Mr Kelly, the member for Wakefield and Senators Laucke and Young from South Australia, in congratulating the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) for providing $54m to construct a new railway line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. This project is of considerable significance to South Australia and the Northern Territory. I believe that it will contribute to the mutual development of both areas. I note from the Budget that $3 .4m will be spent in the coming year to get this work started. While I am on the subject of railway lines, I refer to the subject of concrete sleepers. This matter has been raised in the Senate by senators from both sides. All of us have expressed concern that the concrete sleeper industry at Whyalla was forced to close recently because the Commonwealth Railways was not able to give it a contract to provide sleepers for the upgrading of the railway line from Port Augusta to Port Pirie.

I believe that the economics of the use of concrete sleepers should be considered very carefully. I understand that the Bureau of Transport Economics is at present drawing up a report for the benefit of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Prime Minister (Mr

McMahon). In the last letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister I drew attention to the importance of reviving this industry in the interests of decentralisation. I am of the view that the Commonwealth Railways should give favourable consideration to the use of concrete sleepers on the railway line from Tarcoola and on other projects in South Australia. It has been suggested that the use of concrete sleepers will substantially affect the timber industry in Western Australia. According to statistics that I have, an increased cubic footage of timber has been used for making sleepers during the last year or so. I do not think that the use of concrete sleepers on these projects will substantially affect the production of timber sleepers in Western Australia. I have the assurance of the Prime Minister and. the Minister for Shipping and Transport that they will pay regard to the community interests, with regard to this industry in the northern part of the Spencer Gulf area, when the report of the Bureau of Transport Economics comes to hand.

I suggest to the Government that it should consider the economics of the provision of a road from Tarcoola to Alice Springs at the same time as the railway line is constructed. In my view, it seems quite stupid not to utilise heavy equipment that is there for the foundation work of a railway line. This sort of equipment could be used for the base metalling and construction work of a road running along a similar route with, I believe, great economic benefit to the Government.

Senator McLaren:

– What about the people?

Senator JESSOP:

– I think that the people are paying for this facility and they must have regard to the economies that would be achieved if this sort of project were considered. I am sure that I would have the honourable senator’s support in this regard.

Senator McLaren:

– I mentioned the subject 12 months ago in the Senate.

Senator JESSOP:

– This has been the subject of continual representations from honourable senators on this side of the Senate for many more years than the honourable senator has been here.

Senator McLaren:

– I have been here as long as you.

Senator JESSOP:

– In the Senate, that is so. Let us look at the tremendous advantage that could be achieved. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who is in the Senate chamber was once the Minister in charge of Tourist Activities. He has driven over this road. I may say that he was a man of great enthusiasm when he held that portfolio.

Senator Mulvihill:

– To whom are you referring?

Senator JESSOP:

– I am referring to Senator Wright. He is now the Minister for Works and has a continuing interest in construction work of this nature in Australia. He took the trouble to drive up there in a four-wheel drive vehicle. He said to me that the road certainly needed some attention. I know that I can rely on his full support in pressing this matter in the Cabinet room.

Senator Wright:

– Perhaps the honourable senator could impress that point on Senator Mulvihill. He simply wants to know that there is a road there and that it is most primitive.

Senator JESSOP:

– The Minister knows as well as I that many people from Sydney travel up into the Northern Territory and that improving the road would encourage a tremendous amount of tourist business through to that area. I know that the honourable member for the Northern Territory, Mr Sam Calder, in another place has been pressing very strongly for this and that he will continue to do so.

I wish to deal quickly with education. Here again, I appreciate that the Government recognised the need to make more money available for this important field and has increased direct expenditure in this regard to $426m, which represents an increase of $72m. Of course, we note that there have been substantial increases in secondary and tertiary scholarships. I would like to draw the attention of the appropriate Minister, the Minister for Works who represents the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the Senate, to the plight of parents living in outback isolated areas of Australia. I know that essentially this is a State matter and it is up to the States where they spend their money. I believe that the Commonwealth Government ought to have a look at this and provide-

Senator Wright:

– It is not a State matter in respect of Commonwealth scholarships.

Senator JESSOP:

– That is true, but I intend to touch on a matter a little different to that. I am referring to the penalty that is imposed upon such people because of the need to provide governesses up to a certain stage of education and because of the need for these parents to send their children away from home thus incurring substantial boarding expenses as well as general education expenses. This is not confined to the station owners and farmers. It applies also to the people working on the Commonwealth railways up in the northern part of South Australia and to station hands and other people with children who work on these properties and who keep the rural industries going in these areas. I think that this is a matter that ought to be given careful consideration. I have received representations from the Port Augusta Isolated Children’s Parents Association over the last couple of years in regard to this matter. This position applies in Western Australia, Queensland and other States. So I think that we ought to be able to do something in this regard. The expenditure involved would not be great. I think that the parents in South Australia have worked out that it would be of the order of $600,000. Perhaps this matter could be looked at in the context of the next Premiers Conference to see whether a little extra can be given to help these people.

Senator Wright:

– On what was the $600,000 to be expended?

Senator JESSOP:

– I think that Association wants something to be provided for living away allowances for their children. I will obtain more specific details. I have already given the Minister some idea of what is required. At the first opportunity I will furnish him with the figures. I turn now to a project that is of great significance to the Eyre Peninsula. I refer to the Kimba-Polda pipeline. Yesterday I heard Senator McLaren use the Victoria Grant (Millewa Pipelines) Bill 1972 as a vehicle to introduce this matter. I appreciate his concern. I support the motives behind it. But I would like to correct one or two things he said to bring him up to date with the history of this matter. In 1967 I was the member for the electorate of Grey in another place when this project was first submitted to the Government for consideration under the national water resources arrangement. It was rejected.

Senator McLaren:

– So were you.

Senator JESSOP:

– I was rejected, but not by very much. I was interested to see that the electorate of Grey could be won back by the Government if a 2i per cent voting swing were to take place. So it is a marginal seat. I want to refer chronologically to this project for the information of honourable senators who have not taken a continuing interest in it. In 1967 funds were not provided for the Kimba-Polda pipeline because the Keith pipeline down in the south east of South Australia seemed to have more going for it. I objected to this and tried to attract the Government’s attention to the urgency of the pipeline to which I now refer. This project was re-submitted by the present Labor Government in South Australia in 1970. This is the point on which Senator McLaren was right. His reference to this is shown in yesterday’s Hansard. He referred to the fact that the Commonwealth Government could not provide money for this purpose because it appeared that it would cause an increase in sheep population and aggravate the problems of the wool industry at that time. That was a very logical attitude because the submission of the State Labor Government was not accurate in regard to stocking patterns. This is the point on which the honourable senator does not have the correct story.

In October of last year I, together with the other Government senators from South Australia - Senator Young, Senator Laucke, Senator Davidson and, I think, Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield - put this case to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for National Development (Sir Reginald Swartz). We were accompanied by Mr White from the South Australian Legislative Council and Mr Gunn, the member for Eyre. As a result of that deputation we were able to point towards the changing emphasis in stocking patterns. We were able to show that beef production in that area had increased and that the farmers were genuinely diversifying their activities into other areas so that there was not an emphasis or proliferation of the problems with regard to the wool industry.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for National Development, recognising that the original submission of the State Labor Government was inaccurate, suggested that they could be persuaded to reconsider the project. This was done. I hope that this time the State Labor Government has done a little more homework and provided the statistics that we have suggested. I have recently received a letter from the Minister for National Development which reads:

I refer to your letter of 17th August requesting information on the latest position regarding Commonwealth assistance for the Kimba-Polda Pipeline in South Australia.

The revised submission by the State Government referred to in your letter has been received, and has been the subject of detailed study by the departments concerned. This study is now nearly complete and I am hopeful that it will be possible to make a decision in the fairly near future.

As soon as a decision has been reached it will be conveyed to the South Australian Government.

I support that project wholeheartedly - and I am sure that Senator McLaren will lend his support to it. Finally, 1 want to refer to the question whether the Australian dollar should be revalued. I have heard that Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, supports revaluation, but I believe that other people including Mr Rex Patterson, the shadow minister for primary industry, would not share his view. I should like to read to the Senate some passages from the Bank of New South Wales Review No. 3 of June 1972. This document was drawn to my attention by Mr Prowse, the Assistant General Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, whom I heard speaking on the radio programme PM on Friday last. He made 3 main points: First, that Australia should not revalue the dollar; secondly, that we should encourage Australians to invest overseas; thirdly, that we should lower bank interest rates. I should like to read 3 short passages from this document for the information of the Senate, for I think it is worthwhile.

Senator Wright:

– Did you say who the author is?

Senator JESSOP:

-I think he is the Bank’s economist. I can find out. The first passage on ‘Up- Valuation’ is most interesting. It reads:

Australia’s embarrassment of international riches has added fuel to the argument that the Australian dollar is undervalued. The main force of the argument in favour of up-valuation has not basically sprung from concern about the size of international reserves. In the main, the proponents of upvaluation are concerned about an undervalued currency being a contributing cause of domestic inflation. The up-valuation school would argue, inter alia, that too high a price is being paid for imports.

Thus, at first sight, it might appear that currency appreciation would be an attractive solution both to curb domestic inflation and to reduce the size of international reserves. In simple terms, appreciation would reduce the size of the trade surplus and prevent excessive accumulation of reserves.

However, the situation is not so clear-cut. First, other considerations have to be taken into account - how particular export industries would be affected and what tariff protection would be requested by manufacturers in order to compete against cheaper imports. Second, a detailed evaluation of the current and capital accounts, which make up the balance of payments, raises doubts whether Australia’s trading position is as strong as the figures might suggest.

I was interested in the question which Senator Carrick asked this morning about the proposal for revaluation as propounded by the Leader of the Federal Opposition. I think that question brought out quite forcibly that revaluation would have a disastrous effect on the mining and other industries and on the rural sector. I was interested, too, in what the Bank official whom I have quoted had to say about interest rates. This is the text from the Bank of New South Wales Review:

Despite the high liquidity in the Australian economy, which has resulted in part from the capital inflow, there has been an increasing tendency for Australian companies to borrow overseas. One explanation for this borrowing has been the higher interest rate structure in Australia than in some overseas capital markets.

Until recently, the Australian interest rate structure was to some extent insulated from international trends. However, with the growing sophistication and internationalisation of the Australian capital market, including the ability of Australian companies to borrow overseas, the Australian interest rate structure should become more responsive to changes in the principal overseas money market. If for no other reason, a lower interest rate structure in Australia would be useful in order to contain the more volatile element in the present capital inflow.

In relation to stimulation of capital overseas the author states:

The control on investment overseas, which has operated since 1939, has had a restrictive effect on all external investment other than certain types of direct investment. In accordance with government policy, ready approval is given to direct investment projects involving the use of Australian management and technical skill, particularly where exports from Australia are promoted. The reinvestment abroad of undistributed profits requires further specific approval,

I believe the general question of encouraging Australian companies to invest overseas is supported by a large number of people in the banking area. This question I put to the Treasurer simply to see whether there is any substance in it so far as he is concerned, or whether there is any point in investigating the economic motives behind it. That is all I want to say on the Budget. I believe the Budget will be successful in keeping the Australian Labor Party in political isolation for another 23 years.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I begin by commenting on the final remark made by Senator Jessop. I believe an amazing trend has developed in this matter. All Ministers keep talking about the prospect if and when a Federal Labor Government takes office. The prospect must be worrying them for this syndrome to have developed - and I get a lot of satisfaction from it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Willesee) moved last night a very adequate amendment in these terms:

  1. . but the Senate condemns the Budget because it fails to define adequate economic and social goals. . . .

That is the text that I take up and, with my Deputy Leader, 1 support the amendment. When I read the document that was presented by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson on behalf of the Government and the sequence which it follows, I start with the economy. Trade is emphasised as a vital ingredient of the economy. The ‘Canberra Times’ of 22nd August published a scathing indictment of certain government policies, criticised ‘Australian Foreign Policy’, a Liberal publication, 1972 edition, and then made reference to Australia’s nonrecognition of China and its effect on our wheat exports. In the 6 years that I have been a senator, I have been amazed at the change that has come over this Government. I have commended the Government for having widened its relations with eastern Europe - though I am aware that our relations with eastern Europe have brought tremendous problems with the Ustasha and people like them. But we must be ambivalent.

Still, I am amazed that this Government, particularly the Country Party segment of the coalition, has marked time while the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Trudeau, seems to have beaten it hands down in the field of exports. I do not think that any honourable senator would imply that Mr Trudeau is a pinko or that he is subject to Moscow. You and I know that this is not so: He is the Canadian Prime Minister. All Ministers of this Government, including Senator Wright of course, paid due homage to Mr Trudeau when he was in this country. I should like to tell the Senate a peculiar story. When I listen to the strictures and the hard-hitting comments against Senator Keeffe from the gentlemen on the other side, I think how amazing it is what some people will do as political gimmicks. It happens that I live in the electorate of the Australian Prime Minister; and it so happened when Mr Trudeau was in Australia, he journeyed up the Parramatta River to meet our Prime Minister at a function arranged by a local government council to commemorate a 100-year- old memorial to Canadian political prisoners who were confined for a time in Concord. Of course, the Prime Minister could not get there, and rather than have a socialist senator intervene and be there to receive Mr Trudeau, Mr Bury had to be brought back all the way from the Philippines. Mr Bury was a bit sleepy, but he did the job. But the fact of the matter is that the Government was mean and contemptible in playing politics this way. Let us be honest about it: If honourable senators opposite squeal about our dishing it out, we know of instances where these sorts of things have happened. I am not indicting Senate Ministers, but I am indicting the Prime Minister.

Having got that off my chest, I want to deal with one or 2 other matters. Senator Jessop went to great lengths in talking about taxation adjustments. I suppose that if you refer to what David Solomon said you would get the idea that a wage earner with a wife and 2 children, who receives $67 a week, is getting the magnificent weekly feed-back of $1.20. We of the Labor Party have been arguing that there are 2 great impositions on the average wage earner. The first is the failure effectively to assist State railway systems, which in turn results in the usual biennial increase in fares and freights. What it means to Mr Average Australian is that he does not merely get the first effects of increased fares and freights when he pays for his weekly fares. He then finds that the prices of a multitude of commodities are increased because of the increased rail freights. This is the point that I want to take up particularly with Senator Jessop who is messiah in the transport field.

Some time ago I asked question No. 1805 of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon). I asked for a breakdown of the amount of money that has been fed into the Commonwealth aid road grants scheme in the last 5 years. I do not quarrel with the amount of money that is provided for that purpose, but I wanted to relate it to what had happened to the request to inject financial aid into the State railway systems. 1 found that $800m had been fed into road construction and that only $6Om had been provided for railway projects. The point I am making is that when we entered the diesel era it was quite obvious that loan expenditure would be directed towards meeting heavy repayments. We are probably the only nation in which the Government adopts a Pontius Pilate attitude towards its responsibilities in regard to rail transport.

Even the country that is supposed to be the paragon of private enterprise - and .1 refer to the United States of America - has had to concede that mergers, amalgamations and the creation of transport corporations are necessary in order to carry the load and to ease the burden on railway commuters. That has been done in the United States. I suppose that if one probed the position in Canada and looked at the history of the Canadian Pacific Railways one would find that the Government in Ottawa has played a very effective role in adapting and assisting the railways when they have reached these financial shoals. The point I am making is that as soon as rail charges are increased, the SI. 20 which honourable senators opposite say will be fed back into the weekly pay packet of the average Australian worker is more than obliterated. 1 will take it a little further in this transport field because we are talking about unemployment and job opportunities - those golden phrases which are used by honourable senators opposite. One of my criticisms in this matter has been the slowness of Ministers to act. It may be that I was not helped sufficiently, but I had 6 metal trades union officials with me when 1 met the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), who in turn was to pass on our remarks to the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon). Perhaps if I had had a battery of Liberal senators with me, who knows, with an election coming on we might have won the day. But we did not do so. The point I am making is that this delegation made a simple request to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Firstly, the members of the delegation claimed that if, through the efforts of the Minister for Shipping and Transport, there was a feed in and a systematic co-ordination of railway rolling stock orders - whether they be orders placed with the Tullochs rolling stock manufacturing firm in New South Wales, or with its counterpart in Victoria or South Australia, or even possibly with Walkers Ltd in Queensland - there would not be this ebb and flow in employment opportunities.

That was a simple request. We went even a little further. We suggested that the Minister for Trade and Industry could add to the $17m that was given as a special grant to Sir Robert Askin. The Country Party Minister and Deputy Prime Minister very clearly said: ‘We gave the New South Wales Liberal Premier Si 7m, and that is enough’. We said: ‘All right, if it is enough, why cannot you get all the State Transport Ministers under the chairmanship of Mr Nixon to co-ordinate their activities and spend this money?’ That meeting took place in about June, and nothing has happened since.

A very important point is involved here. I know that Senator Wright takes a deep interest in industrial matters. I do not think that he and 1 reach the same conclusions on industrial matters but, as the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), he espouses the rule of law and the necessity for adopting a reasonable attitude in industrial relations. I will tell Senator Wright what happened on this occasion. After the 6 metal trades union representatives met the Minister for Trade and Industry they came out and said: ‘What are the prospects?’ I said: ‘Look, the dialogue, the communication between Commonwealth Ministers can be very slow. But I think you will help things by agreeing to a reasonable bit of give and take in the industrial field’. I said: T know you have been under provocation at Tullochs works’. They said: ‘There is no overtime ban, but we do resent the fact that overtime has been worked rather than spreading the work over the existing work force’. There were no overtime bans, there was nothing. What was the pay-off? The work force at Tullochs is 300 fewer now than it was 12 months ago. When you talk about industrial harmony, and trade union leaders try to accept what you claim they should accept, you find that at times you are left in the situation: The answer is a lemon - nothing happens. These sorts of things make the trade union movement very doubtful at times about some of these promises. The Government promises that it will do this and that, but unless these promises are met people get very browned off.

I refer again to this industrial syndrome. I have repeated this many times. Honourable senators opposite have argued about the recent agreement concerning the Waterside Workers Federation. They say that waterside workers are getting a snorter working week. Senator Wright refers to increased freight rates. I can give it to him in reverse. I ask him to look at the vast diminution in the waterfront work force in the port of Mackay which handles sugar. The number has dropped from 400 to about 40. But the person buying a couple of pounds of sugar in Sydney or Melbourne does not get sugar any cheaper. This is what mystifies me and a lot of people when we get all this folklore about productivity. Increased productivity does not manifest itself in a reduction in the retail prices of various items. It may well be that under the capitalist economy about which honourable senators opposite talk there should be a curb on the vast expenditure on these stupid advertisements on television which say: ‘If you do not have this variety of soap or if you do not eat these breakfast foods there is something wrong with you’. The average person in a suburb of Sydney or Melbourne sees an agreement made by the trade union movement to contract the work force, but he still sees no reduction in retail prices.

My father worked all his working life at the Mortlake gas works. At one time there was a work force of over 8,000 at the Mortlake gas works. It is now down to 1,000. But despite the use of oil instead of coal, a cubic foot of gas is no cheaper. The onus is on the Government. I do not believe in this system, but the Government does. Perhaps some economists opposite will give an answer to this argument. Unfortunately, Senator Webster is not present in the chamber. This is the sort of situation which we are continually facing. We are getting tired of hearing all these lectures.

I want to go a further stage in relation to this syndrome about an increase of $1.20 for the average worker. From listening to honourable senators opposite, from Senator Drake-Brockman down - he having led for the Government in this debate - one gets the impression that this $1.20 is a sort of an increase in the basic wage; that an extra $52 or more a year being given to workers without going through all the paraphenalia associated with national wage cases. The point which concerns us is that in addition to the incessant increases in fares, there is the other situation concerning hospital and medical contributions.

Yesterday some representatives of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union came to Canberra to see me. I can assure honourable senators opposite that they can rest content - it was not the top echelon of the union. I was not brain-washed by Brother Halfpenny or Brother Carmichael, or even the top echelon of Brother Garland and Brother Devereaux. I met the people in the middle echelon, the people who go out to the work force on a cold winter’s morning and deal with the day to day disputes. The first thing they said was: ‘Of course, you know that a lot of what is defined as militancy is caused because- the era of unlimited overtime has gone’.

I believe that overtime in many instances was a palliative. Often, it dulled people’s industrial senses. However, it was there. The fact of the matter is that, with the limitation of overtime, the employee is far more interested in what he gets in his pay packet for the minimum 40-hour week. Do not run away with the idea that unlimited overtime is the order of the day. It is not. As a matter of fact, the self-same metal trade workers in the railway rolling stock area are the very victims of the situation that I am talking about which concerns the failure of our much-vaunted Minister for Shipping and Transport to coordinate the order capacity of the various Railway Commissioners.

I return to the matter of the $1.20 increase which I have been discussing. We claim that in addition to these violent fluctuations in public transport fares a situation is arising nationally similar to that which occurred in the hospital and medical benefits contributions funds. I know that complementary legislation has been introduced concerning the use of some of the reserves of these funds for nursing home services. The first thing that amazes me about the situation is: How long will the funds continue to live off their alleged fat? I am referring here specifically to the Hospitals Contribution Fund and the Medical Benefits Fund. I believe that the funds in the next breath, within 6 months, will boost their reserves by increasing contributions. The Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) will come in here and say that the funds have spent all their reserves helping to subsidise people in nursing homes. I will limit my remarks on this matter on this occasion because Senator Douglas McClelland will speak on this subject. But I hope to deal with one other aspect of it when the legislation is before this chamber.

We have no assurance in the way that the funds are operated that there will not be another increase in contributions. It may be 70c a week. Do not forget that that is 70c out of the $1.20 that we are talking about. The reason why I and other members of the Opposition have no confidence is that when we turn to the detailed inquiry that was conducted by Mr Justice Nimmo we find that among his recommendations was the proposal that the whole concept of health insurance should be transferred from the Commonwealth Department of Health to a national health insurance commission of 5 members. I notice that one of those 5 members is to represent the interests of contributors and patients’. This is not the only thing that browns people off. Let us take the case of a boilermaker in a shipyard who has a son. That boy in bis earlier years is subject to a number of illnesses. The situation may arise in which the boy goes into hospital for what is initially said to be an appendecitis operation and then something which is different from an appendecitis - perhaps a hernia - but which is not covered by a fund provision is discovered. The secondary effect when the father discovers this is that he himself may continue to put up with some ailment because he does not wish to meet the added costs involved.

Let us be perfectly clear about this. Honourable senators and I probably can sit on our buttocks in this place when we have some ailment, but the person who has to swing a hammer or use some other heavy tool in industry is in a different situation altogether. The problems faced by people of this type are not always recognised. I have pleaded repeatedly with Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and asked when he is going to bring democracy into the operations of these massive fund organisations. Let me give the Senate an illustration. The Government has this law and order syndrome. It talks about defiance and asks why this should be condoned. One of the greatest acts of defiance is to be found in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. As much as I dislike the funds they, together with Senator Anderson, say that if a person goes into a private hospital the day on which he enters and the day on which he is discharged are counted as one day. But not on your sweet life! The hospitals do not accept that proposition. They charge a day’s fees for the day of admission and for the day of discharge. But Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson will reply to me on this aspect: ‘You know, morally we are right’.

The meek do not inherit the earth. That is a fact of life. I do not mind governments ruling by using the big stick. What I resent is that it is used one way. We are always hearing arguments from the Government about the actions of people on building sites striking who rightly complain that some feature is unsafe. They are the people who must do the work. They are the people who must bow to the decisions of a few smooth talking directors of these funds. When their wives being hospitalised are charged fees for extra days, mark you, the operation of these nursing homes and hospitals is a far cry from the days when they were run by ‘nurse so and so’ in a suburb or a country town. Half a dozen people with hot money are directors of these homes and hospitals. They are the people who determine the policy This is the situation that exists and that is what we should consider when the Government talks about this new order, this new era and this feedback of massive reserves.

What we claim in respect of transport applies equally to hospital charges. In 6 months’ time with fund increases these reserves will become massive again. I have been a senator for about 6 years and every time a Minister has introduced new contribution schedules they are treated as though they represent the millenium. We are told that they will meet all requirements. But then erosion occurs. It will happen again. This is the reason why my Deputy Leader in the Senate, Senator Willesee, last night used - the term ‘adequate economic and social goals.’

The Government speaks of a phased-in abolition of the means test. We are talking about what is happening in the national health field. The Labor Party’s attitude on national health is that a percentage of wages should be contributed to meet these needs. If somebody is covered by medical and hospital insurance from the cradle to the grave, he is far better off. I would remind honourable senators of an article that they may have seen recently in the Sydney Morning Herald’ which was entitled ‘The Pensioners Uncommon Market’. Let me select a country at random. In France, after 30 years’ work, a pensioner will receive a pension equivalent to 40 per cent of the basic monthly wage. Other figures are detailed. Probably the situation in West Germany is better.

It amazes me that the Government can talk about these things when in 1939 a man who later became Prime Minister resigned from the Government over the concept of national insurance being rejected. National insurance was not a socialist proposal. I know of the Beveridge scheme and the versions of national insurance in operation in Britain and New Zealand. All of these schemes are more comprehensive and more equitable than what the Government proposes now. The Government’s action is geared to the requirements of the Budget of a specific year. If the Government introduced a clear-cut national health scheme, the people would not find themselves in no-man’s land now because they have insufficient coverage under the present national health scheme. If more was paid in one year, it would be geared to the years when overtime had been worked.

Many Australian people in their early physical prime - I instance Senator Cavanagh and others - follow pretty hard and tough work. When they reach the age of 45 they want work that is a little bit easier with not so much overtime. This can be the time when illness strikes and when the scars of industrial injuries catch up with them. This is the theme that we hammer and hammer. If honourable senators opposite say that this is socialism, are they saying also that Mr Justice Nimmo is a socialist? Are they saying that one of his recommendations was developed in a Marxian mind? Of course not. If the Government refuses to implement this recommendation, this will mean that it is beholden to the bureaucrats of the HCF and the MBF.

The Government talks about people holding society to ransom. I asked Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson on another occasion a question about the HCF in Sydney acquiring a building worth -$4m. That move was never put to the members of the fund for approval. The government talks about rank and file consultation and trade union decisions. There is no difference in my book between democracy in the board rooms, democracy for stock . holders or democracy in the trade union movement. We should have uniformity but the Government has not achieved it. It has been tottering on the brink for a long, long while. At the risk of my colleagues rending me limb from limb, I must say this: Senator Greenwood may have been in a bad temper one day for, as I read it, he became most angry with the hospital benefit funds. Perhaps that is why he was shifted to another portfolio shortly afterwards. I only wish that some of the militancy that he demonstrates against the trade union movement had been turned loose some 6 months ago on the hospital benefit funds. It would have been very interesting. Perhaps in 20 years’ time he will write his memoirs and make a quite interesting revelation in this respect.

The point that I am making is that if we talk about law and order and social justice what we propose should be what law and order and social justice are meant to be. Let us deal with the inadequacies with the hospital contributions and medical benefit funds. Let us deal with so many of these situations that I have discussed. Let us have a better deal for the various State transport systems.

J turn to the remarks by Senator Jessop on the proposed South Australian railway link. I welcome this action. I make the point that this is the sole reference to railway transport in this year’s Budget. We could talk about bulk haulage. It is obvious that the railways have a major role to play. The Government cannot have it both ways. It has criticised my Leader and the future Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam, about his proposal for a more centralised control of the State railway systems. The Government says that his proposal is wrong. But the onus is on the Government to make available adequate finance to the various State railway systems to meet their interest payments. This problem has been compounded by the fact that we have accepted the dieselisation scheme. No doubt in the near future there will be a conflict with the trade union movement over the role of firemen - or observers, to use the American term - in diesel locomotives. Whatever comes from that, the fact of the matter is that the argument advanced was that when we got diesel traction all problems would be solved. The Country Party is not completely blameless in this matter. It loves the railways when it can get freight concessions but it is not so loyal to them when road transport skims off the cream. These are some of the problems.

I am not treating these things in a direct party political fashion because I know that there have been some Liberal State Transport Ministers who share my views and have told me so privately. But I believe that in this Senate we should not hold things back. This is where we should bellow out what we believe that what we say, should be done. However, we are facing some involved problems and probably at a later stage Senator Gair might have something to say on this matter.

I want to deal with 2 other matters. Senator Jessop again referred to tourism. I wonder whether he realises the potential of the tourist industry. I wonder whether he realises how much it expanded when workers were granted more annual leave and more long service leave. The mathematicians on the Government benches say that it will cost the country $Xm for more long service leave and annual leave but I wonder whether they realise that that money is channelled into the tourist industry and that it creates more jobs in the service industries? This is one of the economic facts that should be self evident. One reads the submissions presented by the Australian Tourist Commission about how much more money it wants but the plain fact of the matter is that a lot of the market will develop only when more and more industries get a 35-hour week. The much criticised President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke, has pointed out to the Government the capacity of industries to pay and all the other situations that can and will arise.

I want to move on to the law and order syndrome. In the 6 years that I have been a member of the Senate I often have pointed out what is happening as educational standards rise. Mr Albert Monk and other leaders in the trade union movement had very illustrious careers but the day has gone when a union leader can go out and meet 500 men and dominate them intellectually and physically. I am sure that many of my colleagues, including Senator Cavanagh, would agree with me. I think it would be a bad thing if people got the idea that we belonged here and they belonged there and that we should not meet. When you go to any workshop site today and try to sell an idea to the men, whether it be the acceptance of a log of claims or anything else, it is pretty hard work.

Honourable senators can talk until they are blue in the face about the oil industry dispute. I invite them to read an article written by Fred Brenchley which appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. The Government has not denied that this was one dispute in which the average person realised that the big American oil companies were adopting a form of neocolonialism. Whether the Government liked it or not, the people knew that the companies had the capacity to pay. Government supporters talk about trade union violence but it does not matter what one does, decisions rest with the rank and file individuals, and they must be present and must participate in making those decisions.

There is another angle to this question of law and order, and it does not matter whether one is in the trade union move.ment or is a senator. I am not one of those people who believe that if someone offends me I have to call the police. I prefer to dish it back, insult for insult. Too many people today in all political parties are telling the Press that they have been threatened. Like everyone else, I have received a few insulting telephone calls but I have given the caller a more insulting reply. Everyone can do the same thing. There are plenty of people and Ministers who do not need escorts. When President de Gaulle went to Algeria he did not need an armed escort to deal with the people there. This has happened on . many occasions. I will give another example When the former British Home Secretary, Mr Jim Callaghan, went to Belfast he did not want people from MI5 with him. Some people talk about threats in order to get a little bit of publicity when they find that their case is not as strong as it should be.

I want to refer again to the matter involving Mr John Ducker and Mr Bob Hawke. I thought the Government would canonise both of them for saying that the trade union movement believes, as it always has, that there should be law and order within the unions. During the oil industry dispute Sir Robert Askin did not do a service to democracy by demeaning John Ducker but now, for cheap, snivelling political purposes, Government supporters suddenly put him and Bob Hawke up as paragons of virtue. The plain fact is that their reputations are placed on the line in many disputes. Government supporters should not think that union leaders can go back to the unions they represent and say that they cannot get anything.

The Government’s chickens are coming home to roost. It talks about public interest. It intervened in the national wage case and in the 35-hour week case. If the Government does not intervene directly in such disputes it gets Mr Lynch, the Minister for

Labour and Industry, to make some prophesy of doom. Senator Wright, the Minister for Works, echoes him in this chamber. The Government insists in buying into these disputes and on occasions does gain a short term victory. However, Mr Bob Hawke has to convince a group of unions that he thinks he can get something for them in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission despite the fact that the Government is trying to nobble him. What other avenue is open to the unions, and how much harder does the Government make it for Mr Hawke to negotiate?

I see by most of the faces of honourable senators on the Government side that they remain unmoved by what I have been saying. I wonder about the double standards that the Government adopts. We read some of the dialogue between Mr Snedden, the Treasurer, and Mr McMahon, the Prime Minister, with Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. They said that they regretted the increase in steel prices and that there was a misunderstanding but nothing happened. Nobody talked about- dealing : with BHP. Government supporters might say to me that it is not a registered trade union. I know that. But do they realise that similar situations have occurred in the United States of America? American President, like Mr Harry Truman, put the troops into a steel works to force them, to open so that the employees could get back to work. I have checked the history of BHP and on only one occasion was the State apparatus used against it. This is one of the blemishes on its history about which BHP never speaks. In 1943 it had a dispute with the Federal Ironworkers Association which could have been confined to. one shift but it closed down the blast furnace. It was to the credit of the wartime Labor Prime Minister, Mr John Curtin, that he invoked the National Security Regulations. I invite honourable senators on the Government side to read some of the submissions put to the Industrial Commission in New South Wales, particularly the damaging admissions by Mr Butler and some of the other paragons who received knighthoods and other awards.

We of the Australian’ Labor Party make no apology about unity of purpose, equality and all the other terms used in the amendment moved to the motion for the

Senate to take note of the Budget papers. I say to the Government, on the grounds that I mentioned, that it never dealt with BHP as it did with the trade union movement’s claims on the ground of conflict of public interest. As for the famous $1.20 Which is mentioned in the Budget, I will wait to see the findings of Mr Justice Nimmo which at least will be a halfway house towards getting social justice in the area of medical and hospital coverage.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– This is an excellent Budget from whatever angle it is viewed. It is imaginative and comprehensive. It covers practically every facet of economic, community and social interest. It is generous and, above all. it is responsible. As the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) said when introducing this most important national financial document of the year, it is ‘geared to achieve social and economic goals of significance to all Australians and particularly families’. It would be impossible to present a budget of the magnitude of this one without the background of a basically sound economy, properly serviced and directed by sound governments, and good policies over the last 23 years. To achieve a budgetary capacity in excess of $ 10,000m from a figure of $1,1 68m some 20 years ago, in 1950-51. clearly indicates the terrific growth of our overall economy. That is not fortuitous. It does not happen of its own volition and accord. Such growth has to be based on policies which give incentive to individuals and do not deny rewards for effort to those who make the effort.

I was pleased to see that the Budget embraced Liberal principles in regard to pensions and the abolition of the means test, which is to be implemented within 3 years. In the meantime the means test will be extended. This has been a feature in recent years of the Government’s policy relating to the provision of social services. The elongation of the means test was designed to encourage what is regarded in many quarters today as something that is not to be rated very highly, namely, the virtue of thrift by the individual and the ability of the individual to think for himself and achieve better things through his own initiative. Those basic attributes are being promoted in this Budget. I applaud the Government for its decision to abolish the means test within 3 years. There is to be a major alleviation of the hardship caused by the imposition of estate duty. The statutory exemption rate is to be double that which is now in existence. Estate duty is an area of taxation which I feel is not conductive to the general well being either of the community or the nation at large because of the inherent disincentive implied in taking from the family organisation the rewards of effort over many years during which taxation has been paid year after year by the person or family. Briefly, those are what I regard as being close adherences to the basic principle of assisting the individual to better himself by giving him the initiative and the incentive to do so. That principle is being applied in this Budget.

The aims of the Budget, which are of great importance to every Australian, are, in the first instance, growth and development, lt is true that in recent years there has been a propensity on the part of those persons who can afford to do so to put money aside in savings bank and in the process not create local demands, which has led to a lag in the growth rate of the economy, which is not what we would like to see. Whilst I have applauded before, and I applaud again, the ideal of independence and the encouragement of thrift it is also very necessary that the economy be kept moving in the confident background of knowledge that we have the ability to spend money responsibly and still have savings on which to fall back if necessary or with which to buy those things that we have long term aspirations to obtain. Growth in the economy will come from factors in this Budget which are not in themselves inflationary. This is where I noted with great satisfaction the reductions in income tax rates and the increases in social benefits - in pensions and so on - that are designed to put into the pocket of the individual more immediate spending capacity power. This will lead to growth and development in what is in actual fact the biggest demand area within our economy, namely, the local consumer area of goods and services and the growth and development of industry will follow from a freer spending of money by individuals.

A responsible attitude has been adopted by the Government to defence. The Budget provides for an increased allocation for expenditure on defence generally despite a reduction in the number of those in the armed forces. Industry, which is the very basis of a sound economy, is to be further fostered in many ways. The Budget also provides for an improved and extended social welfare programme. All of these matters are the background to ensuring better conditions for the populace of the nation generally. The overriding purpose of the Budget is to boost the economy back to strong but sustainable growth, which is a very responsible attitude to adopt. The sum of Si 06m is to be provided for the strengthening of our defence. The amounts which have been provided for in the Budget for further fostering industry, which range from the $20m increase to $33.7m for assistance to the local ship building industry to the $20m provided for further financial assistance to rural industry and another proposal which has been referred to could lead to the provision of rural finance in a different way that is of long term benefit to rural industry generally.

It must not be forgotten that our rural industries still supply more than half of our overseas credit. I think we are prone to overlook this very important fact. Rural industry in Australia will at all times play a very important part in the overall economy of the country. It is good to see large increases in the export of minerals and the moneys that come through to us as a nation from those exports and it is good to see our manufacturing industries increasing their penetration of overseas markets with their products, but I feel that we have at all times to retain in our minds acceptance of the high importance of the rural basis of our whole economy.

The fruit growing industry, which is an industry of very great importance to South Australia and which provides decentralised industry in that State, is one industry which I am pleased to see is to receive an amount of $4.6m under the Budget to assist in the removal of surplus trees by growers of canning peaches and pears and fresh apples and pears. The sum of $2m will be spent this year in that direction. The fruit growing industry in South Australia provides directly and indirectly a livelihood for many people. The canning industry, which is an integral part of the fruit growing industry, has been in a very difficult situation for a long time. Its adverse situation has been accentuated by the adverse effects of the monetary revaluations of overseas countries and the benefits which have come to some of our competitors in the process of these variations. With that in mind I would say that it is very essential that assistance to both the canning and the fruit growing industries in this country will have to continue to be provided in the way in which it is provided in this year’s Budget and in the reconstruction scheme until more clearly defined situation emerges.

The amount of money which is to be provided to the States is indeed pleasing to everybody, particularly to those who believe in the federal system of government. The allocation to the States by the Commonwealth this year will increase by $395m to just under $3,500m, which indicates a basic belief by the Government in the continuation of the federal system.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

page 436

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August (vide page 259), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– This evening we will be dealing with 2 Bills concerning New Guinea. This one is the Papua New Guinea Bill 1972 and the second one is the New Guinea Timber Agreement Act (Repeal) Bill 1972. As the Opposition has an amendment to the second Bill I suggest we deal with them separately.

Senator Wright:

– According to the rules of the Senate they will be taken separately.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I merely mentioned that because sometimes we have a tendency - if there is no opposition - to take Bills together. The Senate in its own right can take 2 Bills together if it wants to. There is no opposition to this Papua New Guinea Bill which deals with the removal of the limitation on the number of offices of ministers of the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea which can be created by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Peacock). However in these times of growing development in Papua New Guinea obviously the current base of 17 members is much too low. The Chief Minister, Mr Michael Somare, and his other ministers have suggested that this restriction on the number ought to be removed. They will then be free to add additional members. In the second reading speech in this chamber the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who represents the Minister for External Territories stated:

The Australian Government has for many years adopted the attitude that no obstacle should be placed in the way of a smooth and orderly transition to self government in Papua New Guinea. The Government has consistently maintained that the initiative for constitutional development should lie with the House of Assembly to which it looks to represent the wishes of the majority of the people.

I challenge that statement because in fact it is basically not true. A lot of restrictions have been placed on the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea by the current Government. There has been a lot of conflict inside the Government coalition as to the date when independence shall begin, as to when self government shall begin and as to the powers that ministers shall have. I do not think that anyone will argue with the contention that ministers have had considerably limited powers over a long period. Now as Papua New Guinea stands on the threshold of independence this Bill is right and proper. It is the sort of thing which ought to be done to assist the people. But I cannot let this debate pass without challenging that assertion made by the Minister on behalf of the Government. At this time I do not propose to say any more than that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– Perhaps the best part of Senator Keeffe’s speech was its shortness.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator is getting charitable in his old age.

Senator SIM:

– Yes, I am. I think that one has to be charitable at times. Some people might not deserve charity but we should be prepared to be tolerant and give them charity. This Papua New Guinea Bill is a simple Bill. It heralds a further important development towards independence. But the fact that it is a simple Bill that does not mean that perhaps we should not take the opportunity to say a few words about the development of Papua New Guinea. I do not propose to go into the matter in any depth. Many honourable senators know that in the past I have expressed my concern for the future of the Territory. But I do not believe that this should be a matter of political dispute in Australia. We should concentrate not on the dangers which may eventually arise but on those things which provide encouragement. While I have expressed and still express some doubts whether Papua New Guinea is ready for independence, nevertheless we must face the fact that events make it inevitable.

I have always believed that Australia should never be behind but always one move ahead of, if possible, the demands from, the people of Papua New Guinea. Also we should be very conscious to avoid the terrible lessons of Africa where independence has not brought happiness. As we all know from the events of recent times, it has brought tragedy to many countries in Africa which had far more opportunities to develop a civil service and to learn lessons than perhaps Papua New Guinea has had. I believe that the present Minister for External Territories (Mr Peacock) deserves a great deal of credit for what he has done since taking office. I believe that he has been able to capture the mood of the people of the Territory. The Minister has done everything possible to gain the confidence of the leaders and, by gaining their confidence, to become a confidant of them. In paying what I believe is a well deserved tribute to the Minister I do not wish it to be thought that I am denigrating the efforts of past ministers. I believe that they have always acted in the best interests of the people of the Territory as they saw them. I believe that each one of them deserves credit for what he has done.

It is easy and cheap to be critical but it is different when one has the responsibility - as these ministers have had - to try to guide the people in the Territory towards independence. In saying this I think it useless to deny that there are great divisions within the Territory. Some of them are potentially grave. I have said before, and I think it should be repeated, that today there is no great sense of national unity in Papua New Guinea. This is only to be expected. They are a diverse people in many ways. They have some 700 different languages. No common language binds them. There are differences between the wishes of the people in the various parts of New Guinea. In the highlands the people are conservative and naturally fear - whether they are right or not I do not think matters - that because of their backwardness, which is not the fault of anybody as the country has been almost impossible to open up until recent times, they will be controlled by the better educated and more sophisticated people in the lowlands. This fear has to be overcome.

I think that the Chief Minister has been around and talked to the people in the highlands. They are intelligent people and they are very numerous. They represent a substantial section of the people in the Territory. Some 750,000 people live in the highlands. It is certainly a challenge to the Government of Papua New Guinea to ensure that these people do not fear that they ave going to be left out. But their fear is real. One has only to go there and talk to them to become aware of this fear. This is no longer a real challenge to Australia; it is a challenge to the government of New Guinea. There are, of course, ancient enmities between the various areas of New Guinea - enmities which we all know break out from time to time - but these are problems which have to be faced. It is useless for us to ignore these problems. We must recognise that they exist. However, I believe that with wise and moderate attitudes which will gain the trust and confidence of the people, particularly of the highlands, and to a great degree the people of the islands, we can have at least a degree of confidence that the future of Papua New Guinea will be secure. Another problem is the uneven economic development of the Territory. I noted the other day a report which Mr Hayden of the Australian Labor Party had prepared on his visit to Papua New Guinea.

Senator O’Byrne:

– lt is a good one, too.

Senator SIM:

– I have not seen the report; I have only read the Press reports. 1 do not mention the report in order to criticise what Mr Hayden has said because I believe it is to the good that people are visiting Papua New Guinea, expressing opinions and putting forward their thoughts on Papua New Guinea. Surely what we need today are thoughts. I see no problem if some of those thoughts contradict the attitudes of the people in opposition or views expressed in the past from this side of the chamber. I note also that there has been a report from the economics intelligence unit which was set up by the Australian Government and commissioned to report on the economic development of New Guinea. That body raised a number of important issues and mentioned particularly the problem of uneven economic development. This is a great problem.

Today we are witnessing to a great extent that there is a breakdown of village life because the young people are leaving the villages for the major towns where they think the streets are paved with gold. They come into the towns without training or skills. It is recognised in the towns of New Guinea that a problem of law and order is developing because of this movement. This situation must be faced up to early - otherwise it will be too late. There is a need to develop small industries away from the major centres. In saying this I do not underestimate the great problems that will be involved. This is something that cannot be achieved overnight. It will take a long time. We have these problems which are worrying many friends of New Guinea and which certainly are worrying many officers of the Administration.

I should like to say a few words about the expatriate officers. Despite some comments that have been made here and elsewhere, these men have rendered magnificent service in Papua New Guinea. As young men they went out as patrol officers, health officers and agriculturists into the various parts of the Territory. They lived lonely and at times rather dangerous lives. They are the men to whom much credit will be due when Papua New Guinea finally gains its independence. If the changeover to independence is smooth and the going remains smooth it will be because of the influence of these people who will deserve credit from the Australian people. Nevertheless there are problems for these exptriate officers and it is useless to deny that they are uneasy as to their future. We will have to face up to this problem. Many of the older ones probably will be happy to retire, and there is no doubt that many who are in the 30 to 40 years age group will be needed in the Territory because of their experience and knowledge. There is nobody to take their place. But they will have to be assured at least of security. Unless they have that assurance they will leave the Territory, and if they leave it will be disastrous to development in the Territory. In my view they must be offered some compensation and some form of contract with acceptable terms which will guarantee them, so far as it can be guaranteed, some future in the service of the Territory. Without this guarantee they will leave, and if they leave they cannot be replaced. This is a matter that must be faced up to.

I know that something is being done about this and that it has ‘been in the minds of various Ministers and of the Department. Nevertheless my information - which I believe is accurate as it comes from the Territory - is that there is still great concern among these officers. I believe that we must do whatever we can to ensure that they are encouraged to stay and that they are provided with adequate compensation and acceptable contracts so that they will remain in the Territory.

Senator Young:

– That is quite correct. That was confirmed when I was up there not long ago.

Senator SIM:

– Yes. I think it is fair to say also that the morale of some of these people is becoming low because they are frightened of the future. We should recognise this and see what we can do to ensure that they remain in the Territory to provide the expertise which will be so sorely needed to develop the Territory when it obtains independence.

The final point I mention is that we are encouraging and assisting in the development of the parliamentary system of government. In this respect I think we should sound a note of warning. The lesson from other countries has shown that it is an almost impossible task to implant overnight a system of government which suits a country. Our system took 1,000 years to develop throughout British communities and it had its many problems as it devel oped. We cannot expect this system to work perfectly in the Territory immediately. We must be tolerant in this regard.

Senator Wright:

– You would not say that we have developed the acme of perfection either, would you?

Senator SIM:

– No, I do not think we have, but continually we are trying to work towards it. I think perfection is something that humans will never achieve. Nevertheless I think we should recognise that the system of government that we now have may not be the- system of government that eventually will suit the needs of the Territory. I hope the Territory will be given the assistance and encouragement that are needed to develop a system that will suit its environment and the conditions of that country. If we have not learnt from Africa and other countries that a system of government will not work immediately, the lesson will never be learnt. Therefore, we should not be critical if the people of the Territory develop a system which perhaps we may not like but which suits their purposes and which will act in. the interests of the people of the Territory.

I said earlier that I did not want to speak at length or develop these arguments in depth. Nevertheless I thought that I should make these few remarks. I believe that it would be foolish of us to assume that independence will solve all problems in the Territory. The new leaders of the Territory are going to face a heady experience. We must expect problems and disappointment. Problems do exist and some of them are serious. Surely our objective must be to win their confidence, to provide guidance when they want it and to encourage them by winning their confidence to come to us for guidance so that the Territory can develop in peace and in security, which I am sure is what we all wish the people of the Territory.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I feel that I should give expression to a few of my thoughts on this very important matter. Australia is involved in a part of a new era in history. The views which Senator Sim expressed tonight are symptomatic of a world wide complaint known as future shock. Future shock is the inability of many people to adapt themselves to the rapid changes that are taking place everywhere in the world. Previously changes took place over a generation or more. Now the changes are taking place in months or years. I think that we have to take that view about the transformation of the situation in Papua New Guinea. There has been over 100 years . of the white man’s influence there and 50-odd years of Australian influence there. We have tried to bring the people there to our way of thinking by paternalism, by attempts to change them, by detribalising them, by making them work along the lines we prescribe and by attaching them to the system in which all our institutions, our churches and our philosophy are directed. We have tried to direct them towards our way of living. This change is part of the future shock from which people are suffering.

The system to which we have subscribed for practically the whole period of our history is up against very serious challenge from within. One can imagine the thoughts in the minds of members of a race which has lived and survived for countless centuries as tribal people in certain areas and as ethnic groups which have had a very simple type of life. They are healthy, vigorous and virile people. They have gone their own way and have survived in and often despite their environment. As history shows, we have become involved in their lives for only a short period of time. Now the time has come when they have realised that it is important for their self-respect and dignity to govern their own affairs. I am quite certain that they would have learned that the ultimate goals of our system - the pursuit of profit, individualism, glorification of the millionaire and the inquisitive person - do not suit their background and history.

Senator Sim:

– Are they little capitalists?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It is hard to say, because we do not know what happened to the people who were there before our time. There has been over 50 years of our influence on them. We have detribalised them, brought them to the coast from their tribal areas and found jobs for them under conditions which suited us. We provided in the bottom of the garden a little house for the boy.

Senator Wright:

– Is the honourable senator opposing the Bill?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am making a few observations about the situation that Australia has to face at this historic moment of the transference to these people of their independence and self government so that they can resume, after a rude interruption, their own way of life.

Senator Maunsell:

– Would the honourable senator agree that that statement applies to Australian Aborigines as well?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Exactly. We detribalised the Australian Aborigines. We deprived them of their land, their hunting areas. I am almost ashamed to tell the Senate what we did to the Aborigines in Tasmania. One has only to look at the history of Melbourne to see what we did to the continental Aborigines. But this is a more enlightened age. People can witness what we are actually doing in Papua New Guinea. We were less accessible in the days when we dealt with our ethnic problem. We still have these so-called ugly reminders that we have not finished with the problem. We have not swept our problem under the carpet, as so many of our racist Australians would like to do. ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labor’ and that sort of slogan are illustrations of the feelings of these racist groups.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! The honourable senator is getting rather wide of the Bill, which has a limited purpose. He should confine himself to the Bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:

- Senator Sim said that it took 1,000 years for us to develop the British way of life. It has taken the people of Papua New Guinea - the little tribal groups - longer than that to develop their way of life. They are just as entitled to maintain their way of life, if they wish. There is an Irish song which has these words: ‘The strangers came and tried to teach us their way; they scorned us just for being what we are’. I add my own words: They might as well go chasing after cargo or put a match to their big fat cigar’. I am certain that that attitude is the attitude of these people who are about to obtain their independence. That is their attitude towards our paternalism. Senator Sim paid tribute to the expatriates. During the past 25 years I have been to Papua New Guinea and met some of these wonderful

Papua New Guinea Bill types of men who were part of the Administration. Many have succumbed to the lure of taking up land there and having rights over the land, which is part of the colonial process.

Senator Young:

– That is not fair. They have been creating development.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– We were developing the coffee lands in the highlands.

Senator Young:

– They gave their lives for this country.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I know that many gave their lives. They did so because Australia wanted this area as a buffer. There were a lot of missionary people there. There is no doubt that over the years the Department of External Territories has acted in a very gracious and kindly way towards these expatriates. All that is in the past. The natives have not been able to adapt themselves to something that is in the Anglo Saxon way of life which says that we need this combination of ideals, established habits, practices and the like and a system of law which- is based on the protection of one thing - that is, personal property. All our laws are designed to protect property. In our system property comes first and the person comes second. I do not think these people quite understand those values. They will have to sort out those values for themselves.

In this day and age these people will have to work out their own destiny. This influence by Australian has been continuing since the period after the First World War when the Germans had had their turn. The Germans gave these people the shocking half-baked pidgin English which I believe is a disgrace. That language is almost as bad as the language to which Senator Sim referred - that spoken by Manchester people. They speak with an accent which brands them as coming from a small parochial section of England. Various English accents brand speakers.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! I remind Senator O’Byrne that we are debating the New Guinea Timber Agreement Act (Repeal) Bill 1972.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– We are discussing the Papua New Guinea Bill 1972.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I beg your pardon.

Papua New Guinea Bill 441

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I accept your apology. Senator Sim said that we must be tolerant. I do not think that the word ‘tolerant’ was. well chosen because tolerance is more or less paternalism. The New Guinea people have, chosen the word ‘Niugini’ in their pidgin spelling to describe themselves. There are all these hundreds of little ethnic groups that live there. They have not even known of one another’s existence from one mountain ridge to another. They have engaged in their love life, their war life and their communications over the years in their own quiet way. I think that when someone writes the history of- New Guinea the Australian intervention perhaps will be looked at as a benevolent and beneficial interlude without any important effect on the eventual destiny of the New Guinea people. What we are doing is handing back to them what they really always had for themselves. We are making an Act of Parliament to hand back this power to choose the members of their own Parliament. I do not know whether the Westminster system can ever be fixed on to them.

Senator Milliner:

– I hope . that you do not send a Tasmanian up there.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– If we want something sewn up; we will send a Milliner. I am sure that New Guinea will find its own way of solving its own problems. It has survived to produce a virile and lovable race of people. Having met these people in their own environment and seen them up in the Highlands and various parts of New Guinea, I ‘ can say that they are lovable people. They are simple, humble, cooperative, friendly people. They will find a way. I think that what will possibly brush off on to the New Guinea people will be a cooperative socialist society. The only way in which they will ever solve their problems is to have a co-operative socialist society. I think that they lived in that way until the capitalist society came in and disintegrated them and tried to detribalise and exploit them. Senator Sim has conceded that we have been very good to them and that it has taken us a Jong time to become as good as we are and that it will take a long time for them to become as .good as we are. I am very pleased to support-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

Order! Senator O’Byrne, this is a matter of some seriousness and I would be pleased if you would treat it as such. 24 August 1972

Senator O’BYRNE:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, do you know the Bill that we are dealing with at the moment?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Yes.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– In conclusion, I say this: We are taking part in a new phase of the history of Papua New Guinea. I think that it is opportune that we should hand this authority to the new New Guinea Parliament to enable it to design and direct its own destiny. I am certain that with or without us they will continue to thrive and to prosper, to love, to multiply and to hold their heads up as another race of people with equality under the sun.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– J. have listened with a great deal of interest to Senator O’Byrne’s comments on this Bill tonight. Firstly, may I say that the Papua New Guinea Bill 1972 increases the Ministry in the Papua New Guinea Parliament from 17 members. It is taking the Territory closer to the stage of selfgovernment. Tonight Senator O’Byrne has ranged very widely over many areas including, if I could say so without giving offence to him, areas slightly beyond both Papua New Guinea and the Bill. Nevertheless, I frankly feel that this is a good step forward for Papua New Guinea. At the same time, I must express my own views, which are supported by many people - both indigenous and expatriates - in the Territory. They say that one most important thing to do in this area of the world is to hasten slowly. 1 had the pleasure of talking with the Chief Minister, Mr Michael Somare, not many weeks ago. He expressed this point of view to me. At the same time, he also emphasised the point that as they move towards self-government they would be still relying upon much of the administration and other areas of expatriate activities that have made such a great contribution to the development of Papua New Guinea in the past. He hopes that they will continue to be able to look to these people and others in the future because the people of New Guinea will still be reliant very much on assistance from the outside world in the areas of expertise and experience.

If we go back over the years, particularly the postwar years, and look at the contribution made by people who acted as patrol officers and district commissioners, we in Australia, as well as the people of Papua New Guinea, can pay a great deal of gratitude to these men who have spent their lifetime in some cases and many years of their lives in other cases to assist in the development of this country. They have put up with many hardships and at times many dangers. Many of these men have stayed behind in this country. I was a little concerned when I heard Senator O’Byrne speak rather critically of some of these men tonight because of the fact that they had taken up land in the Territory. I think that they are making a great contribution. For many of these men, this work has become their lives and in so many ways, Papua New Guinea has become their land. They are making an important contribution to this country because, without these men firstly, going in to assist the development and the education of this country and, secondly, taking a stake in it to develop it and get commercial viability in certain areas, this country would not be in the situation that it is in today - moving towards complete selfgovernment and eventual independence.

There are men in Papua New Guinea who have virtually amassed a fortune in real estate there. If they walked out tomorrow, this would stay behind. This is a very important point. They are not amassing a fortune to take out of the country. They have it there and it is staked in the country. In many of these areas today ft will be found that expatriate Australians and others who have gone there have developed primary industry and some commercial industries. It will be found that the indigenous people also are participating in the profit on a co-operative basis. This is helping them to increase their incomes and in turn helping them to develop more economic viability within their own groups. I would not accept criticism in regard to these men. On the contrary, I would extend to them praise for what they have contributed to the development of Papua New Guinea.

I refer to another area, as did Senator Sim tonight, and to many of the men in the Administration. At the present time, they are sitting in rather a doubtful position. Many of them are expressing concern in regard to their future. One can hope only that wisdom and sanity will prevail. Although Senator O’Byrne does not like the word ‘tolerance’ I will go further and say that tolerance, patience, respect and, as I said earlier, wisdom will be foremost and that many of these men will be retained in Papua New Guinea when eventually it attains self-government because they can continue to make a great contribution to the further development of the country. When speaking of increasing the number of Ministers in the Parliament of the Territory, accepting that the Territory is moving towards self-government, one must remember that the country is still a long way from development. It is a country of so many extremes; the climate ranges from tropical to temperate in the highlands. There are areas of high fertility. Some areas have high densities of population; others are sparsely populated. But most important - and therefore we must not overlook it - is the great variation in sophistication of the people. People on the coastal plains have known the western way of life for many years. Others who are still very primitive, though intelligent, will if given time develop and make a great contribution to their country. My hope is that they will not be forced to change but will be allowed to take their own time to change. As I have said, some people in the Territory have never seen a motor vehicle. There are others who have not even been found. All of these people are part of the Territory.

I am confident that if the members of the Territory’s Parliament to whom I spoke recently have their way they will progress slowly and with caution and so give their country time to develop. My hope is that there will not suddenly come into areas of power men of impatience with perhaps extreme ambition who could bring tragedy to the Territory. This has happened in other developing countries. My hope is that tragedy will not befall Papua New Guinea, because the people of the Territory are wonderful people who, given the opportunity, will develop a very great country which will play its part in South East Asia. We must all hope that they will be given time to grow into this situation and that they will not be prematurely forced into it. If they are prematurely forced into it I should hate to think what might happen to many of the people who are making such a great contribution to their own land.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I am grateful to those honourable senators who have contributed to the debate on this Bill. They have given the Senate an opportunity to reflect upon the progress we have made with regard to our trust in respect of the Territory, a trust accepted in the spirit of the United Nations. First our performance was attacked by mischievous people, an attack accompanied by criticism in the United Nations for several years. Now that criticism has turned into almost universal acclaim for the performance which Australia has demonstrated in developing, guiding and assisting the people of Papua New Guinea towards the opportunities of the contemporaneous world. Honourable senators have tonight made reflections which were worth listening to. I do not include in that observation the carping criticism of Senator Keeffe,- who suggested that this Government has imposed limitations and restrictions upon the aspirations of the people of the Territory.

Senator Keeffe:

– As usual.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have begun to know your theme in the bottom of the gutter - and tonight’s performance was no exception. I want to underline the fact that you would like to subvert the Australian Government’s performance which has been marked by a permanent expression of hope that when the Territory asked for self-government and assumed the responsibilities of independence, Australia would have foreseen it, made the provisions that facilitated it and immediately acceded to it on a responsible resolution of the peoples themselves to accept that responsibility.

Turning from that part of the debate, I do want to acknowledge the indebtedness that we all owe to Senator Sim. He derived an understanding of these people as a result of his intimate experience with them as an officer commanding a Pacific Island Regiment in war time, and maintaining an abiding interest and affection for them he has put before the Senate a few considerations pertinent to the Bill that we have before us. The administrative executive council has requested that the provision in the legislation limiting the number of ministerial members to 17 be eliminated. Senator Sim has called our attention to the diversity of these people and has warned us against the error of thinking that there is a developed unity among them. He has called our attention also to the debt which we all owe to the expatriate officers who have established for the Administration in the Territory a reputation for courage, integrity and perseverance in administration unequalled by any administration in the developing countries of the world in the post-war era. It may be satisfying for Senator Sim if I put on record that the Government has already developed a scheme for those expatriate officers who are not acceptable to or who cannot be accommodated by the independent government of Papua New Guinea. Compensation is available to those officers in what has been considered a proper measure up to date. Further, the Government recently appointed a Mr Simpson of Adelaide to inquire into the existing scheme; he will determine whether it is deficient of contemporaneous requirements. He will go to the Territory soon to hear submissions from the Public Service Association which represents the viewpoint of expatriate public servants.

That is the way in which a democracy develops. A scheme which at one time is sufficient but then becomes deficient can be rectified by advice, decision and justice. I say that simply in recognition of the point to which Senator Sim referred. As to our system of government, I heard what he said, and it is not convenient tonight to expatriate upon it except to notice that this Bill and the request that underlies it - a request to remove the limitation on the number of members who should occupy executive office - seem to indicate that the House of Assembly of the Territory is readily following in the footsteps of the democracy by which it has been guided. I hope the Bill will be accepted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I rise briefly to reply to some of the stupid statements made by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). This is a Bill to which there should have been no opposition. In opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition I hoped I would set the tone by spending only 3 or 4 minutes in discussing the Bill. I hoped that the Bill would have had a speedy passage. But if the Minister wants it the other way, he can have it that way. Now he has introduced all sorts of side issues which in fact do not have anything to with the Bill. He has made glowing references–

Senator Wright:

Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of . order. We are past the second reading stage. We are now considering the clauses of the Bill in Committee. I ask that the discussion should be kept completely relevant to the clauses of the Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I asked whether it was the desire of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole, and Senator Keeffe rose in his place. Senator Keeffe, to which clause do you direct your remarks?

Senator KEEFFE:

– In those circumstances, may I speak on the motion that the Bill be read a third time?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Without going into great detail on the relevant clauses of the Bill, as I would have had to do had I spoken at the Committee stage, I feel that the references made by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. He made glowing references–

Senator Wright:

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Oh, for God’s sake.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - A point of order has been raised. Senator Wright, can you identify the point of order?

Senator Wright:

– Yes. The Bill has been through the second reading and the Committee stages. I submit that any debate at the third reading stage must be confined to matters that are completely relevant to the terms of the Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

Mr Acting Deputy President, may I speak to the point of order?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Yes.

Senator KEEFFE:

– What Senator Wright has said is probably technically correct. I had no intention whatever of deviating from that course because I intended to discuss only those questions that have been raised in connection with this Bill. So in the circumstances I respectfully submit that the point of order raised by the Minister is completely irrelevant and that you should so rule.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- ] think that the point of order which the Minister has submitted ‘ should be upheld. He has asked that any speeches at the third reading stage should be made relevant to the total Bill. I would ask Senator Keeffe, when he is addressing himself to the motion for the third reading of the Bill, to make his remarks relevant to the total Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– What I want to say is that the Minister raised matters in such a way as to denigrate any statements made by any member of the Opposition-

Senator Wright:

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Are you all right tonight?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

Order! There will be no discussion on this. The Minister is raising a point of order. Can you identify the point of order, Senator Wright?

Senator Wright:

– Yes. I submit that Senator Keeffe is continuing the second reading debate. Following the practice of this Senate, and with the indulgence and tolerance of the Senate and of the Minister in charge of the particular Bill, often such a debate is allowed to extend beyond the true ambit of the Bill. Mr Acting Deputy President, your ruling has been that the third reading debate should be confined strictly to the terms of the Bill. I submit that Senator Keeffe should be required to comply with the Standing Orders and your ruling in accordance with them, and not to continue the second reading debate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I do not think we should get to the stage where we allow Senator Wright to bluff us into something. He suggests that a precedent has been established and he has referred to your previous ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would like to know what your previous ruling was. Obviously discussion on the third reading debate should be directed to the reasons why the third reading should or should not be agreed to. As I understand it, Senator Wright in closing the second reading debate’ made certain remarks which Senator Keeffe feels justify a reply. If Senator Wright’s remarks were directed to the question as to whether we should accept or reject the Bill, Senator Keeffe, on the third reading, has the right to say that there is no justification for taking the course which Senator Wright has suggested. Therefore; 1.. would respectfully suggest that there has not been a precedent established as to how you should rule. While I agree that the remarks must have some relevance to the Bill, they must also have relevance to what has been said in debate as to the reasons for accepting or rejecting the Bill. As an uncommitted voter on the question that the Bill be read a third time, . I want to hear Senator Keeffe in order to decide whether 1 should support or reject the motion for the third reading of this Bill. Possibly my vote will be influenced by what Senator Keeffe says, together with what Senator Wright might say. I will not reject Senator Wright’s logic, if there is any, despite the statements he has made on this occasion.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. Just for clarification, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like you to rule on whether I would be able to speak to the third reading of this Bill if I followed the advice given by our distinguished Clerk of the Senate, ‘ Mr J. R. Odgers, in the publication titled ‘Australian Senate Practice’. Under the heading Third Reading, Passing, etc.’, he says:

The motion for the third reading is open to debate.

Then he goes on to qualify this.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

From which page are you quoting?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I am quoting from page 223. I am reading the last few lines on that page. Mr Odgers qualifies the remark ‘the motion for the third reading is open to debate’, by saying:

On this motion it is permissible only to advance arguments why the Bill should or should not be read a third time. During the second reading and other stages there is ample opportunity for discussing everything that is relevant to a measure, and that opportunity is also available on the motion for the third reading; but at the thirdreading stage, a senator is not permitted to revive arguments raised and dealt with earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. Fresh argument may, however, be introduced, and misapprehensions arising from the second-reading debate may be discussed at the third-reading stage.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I should like to have your ruling as to whether I could enter into this debate, if I wished, on those grounds.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Senator O’Byrne has ‘been quoting from a very distinguished document, on which we all lean very heavily from time to time. But I return to the Standing Orders under which we are working, and I would say in reply to what Senator O’Byrne has said and to what other honourable senators have said, that looking at the reference which Senator O’Byrne has quoted, if an honourable senator speaking to the third reading of a particular Bill keeps within the points which Senator O’Byrne has raised, he will be keeping to a relevant discussion of the Bill. But I would remind Senator Keeffe and any other honourable senators who speak on the third reading of this Bill that their remarks must be relevant to the total Bill. I think that we have had enough discussion on this point of order. I call on Senator Keeffe to resume his remarks on the motion for the third reading of this Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. At approximately 30 seconds past 8 this evening, this Bill came on for debate. I suggest that it should have passed through all stages not later than 8.15. I hope that I am not held responsible for causing this delay. But I still say that any statement that I make now on the third reading of the Bill is as relevant as any statement that was made by the Minister for Works when he was addressing himself to the Bill. I say again that the reference to the Simpson report is only slightly relevant. Nevertheless, as the Minister has taken the initiative in introducing this matter in the debate on the Bill as a whole, I think that I am being quite consistent in the general terms of the debate in refuting some of the misstatements made by the Minister-

Senator Wright:

– I take a point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Oh, not again!

Senator Wright:

– I suggest that the honourable senator has indicated that he is entering upon a reply to the second reading debate. He is not obeying your direction that his remarks at this stage of the debate should be strictly relevant to the Bill. I ask that that direction be observed by the honourable senator.

Senator Cavanagh:

– On the point of order, with all due respect I think that Senator Keeffe’s contribution is most relevant. As I understand it the honourable senator is replying to something that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said at the second reading stage. In his reply at that stage, the Minister persuaded me that I should support the second reading of this Bill. Senator Keeffe now raises some doubt about this Bill. Before I make a final commitment to the Bill, having previously been influenced by the Minister, I now desire to know what the senator from Queensland has to refute what the Minister has said. In deciding which way I will vote on the third reading, I think I should have the right to that information. It is clear to the Senate from what Senator O’Byrne read out from ‘Australian Senate Practice’ that Senator Keeffe’s remarks are relevant to the Bill. His remarks are’ a complete and definite reply I what the Minister has proposed to us previously and which we accepted as a basis for supporting the second reading. Whether we should support the third reading of the Bill could well rely upon the logic in the argument from the senator from Queensland compared with that of the senator from, Tasmania.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! I call Senator Keeffe again. I would wish to hear him further as he endeavours to relate his remarks to the Bill. I have asked the honourable senator to do this and I expect him to do it. I call Senator Keeffe and I ask him to devote his attention to the Bill bearing in mind that we are at the third reading stage. The honourable senator will remember the argument that was put forward based on Mr Odger’s book and relate that also to the Standing Orders to which we have referred.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. You will not be disappointed. I regret that the Minister has adopted this attitude of trying to chase people around the chamber. At the moment, if there was a fly on the wall and he wanted to chase it I doubt whether he could.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will not indulge in further personalities.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator should return to the Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you. This Bill deals with the removal of the limitation on the number of ministers who may be appointed by the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea. I think that is what we must remember - including the Minister. The long term result of this action, because of inefficiency at Australian Government level, could be far reaching. But at least there are people in Papua New Guinea who will get a far better deal as a result of the appointment of a more viable, more widely spread and democratic ministry in the House of Assembly than they would receive through the administration of the Australian Government. In particular I refer to the expatriates who have served Ions and faithfully in the service of the Administration of Papua New Guinea. Government representatives in the Senate have suggested that these expatriates will be well and truly compensated. Today no plan exists for compensation of expatriates whose employment is terminated in Papua New Guinea as a result of their replacement by local people.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to take a point of order.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Oh, I am sticking to the Bill now. What is wrong with you?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

Order! Could we have a definite point of order?

Senator Wright:

– There is not a word in the Bill as to compensation for expatriates.

Senator Cavanagh:

– From what Standing Order is the Minister quoting?

Senator Wright:

– The Acting Deputy President has ruled twice that remarks on the third reading of the Bill should be relevant to the Bill. It is necessary only to point out that in the Bill there is not a word as to compensation to expatriates. The sole question is as to whether this Parliament should remove the limitation on the ministry to 17.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I take the opportunity to speak on this point of order to point out the hypocrisy of this situation. When I entered the Senate tonight, Senator Wright in reply on the second reading was referring to the appointment of Mr Simpson from Adelaide for the very purpose of determining what compensation should be given to the expatriates from Papua New Guinea. Senator Keeffe’s remarks are a direct reply to something that was used by the Minister in reply at the second reading stage for the purpose of persuading us to vote for the Bill. If there is an alternative answer, we are entitled to receive it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

Senator Keeffe, I again ask you to relate your remarks to the Bill. I recall the discussion that we have had in relation to opinions that I expressed earlier this evening. If you wish to introduce fresh argument to remove misapprehensions perhaps that is in order. But I think you are straying to the point where you are straining my degree of acceptance of your remarks in those limits. Please return to the Bill bearing in mind the restrictions that apply at the third reading stage.

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Thank you. I have 3 sentences to enunciate in conclusion. I believe that the long term result of the removal of this limitation and the fulfilling of the desire of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly to expand its ministry must react in the favour of Australia. That is not new matter, Mr Minister, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The expatriates have been given a poor deal by the Australian Government. But with the change of government in Australia in November and with the new government working in close collaboration with the Pangu Party, a number of these obstacles will be removed. Democracy at long last will have a free go in Papua New Guinea. I remind Senator wheat-growing Young, who is trying to interject, that another Bill dealing with Papua New Guinea will come before the Senate immediately after this Bill is passed. It has a great deal to do with your sell-out of products to your Australian friends in Papua New Guinea. Do not let us be side-tracked. We will get the Minister upset again. We will keep those remarks for the next Bill. I suggest that we close the debate on that note. I hope that I have not stirred the Minister too much and that he will enter into the spirit of the game and now give this Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 448

NEW GUINEA TIMBER AGREEMENT ACT (REPEAL) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August (vide page 260), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– This is a much more involved Bill relating to the Territory of Papua New Guinea. I intend to move at a later stage an amendment to the motion That the Bill be now read a second time’ in the following terms:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert - the second reading be postponed pending the renegotiation of the affairs of the Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to provide for an indigenous equity of at least 50 per cent’.

People who may be listening to this debate will understand the tenor of it when I say that in his second reading speech the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said:

A condition of the sale of the Commonwealth’s interest in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd was that upon transfer of the shares to the Investment Corporation the other major shareholder in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers

Ltd - Placer Developments Ltd - would arrange an amalgamation of all other wholly owned Placer assets in Papua New Guinea with those of Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd. To this end an amalgamation agreement with Placer Development Ltd has been endorsed bythe board of Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers, with the result that the respective shareholdings in the consolidated company, which will still be known as Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd will be held–

This is the punch line - 65 per cent by Placer and 35 per cent by the Investment Corporation.

In other words, 65 per cent is to go into the hands of expatriates and . 35 per cent or less is to go to the local people. The Minister went on to say;

This arrangement is a most satisfactory outcome to the sale of the Commonwealth’s assets in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to the Investment Corporation.

He went on to make a few other remarks. My colleague in the other place, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), when introducing the Opposition’s argument in the second reading debate had this to say: we feel that there is an important principle to be stated in relation to it. In 1952 the Commonwealth and a private company, Placer Development Ltd, created Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd. The Commonwealth and Placer Development Ltd both held 50 per cent of the shareholding in that company. The Commonwealth is selling out its shares and passing them over to the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea, which is an instrumentality of the Government of Papua New Guinea. So far so good. But to this new company will come other interests of Placer Development Ltd so that the Government of Papua New Guinea will have a 35 per cent shareholding and the. private sector of the company will have a 65 per cent shareholding.

Mr Minister , I am referring now to the Minister for Works , in your generosity you are giving away to your friends 65 per cent of the investment in this company. A statement has been made by an expert in New Guinea, Terrence Stokes, in these terms: . . Mr C. E. Barnes . . has given foreign monopolies in New Guinea the following assistance. No restriction on the transfer of profits and capital from New Guinea; credit for taxes paid by companies on profits transferred to Australia; special tax concessions for mining, timber and agricultural production; complete exemption from income tax for a period of 5 years for new operations as, for example, Bougainville Copper together with exemption from tax on dividends paid from income from such companies; tariff protection; duty-free entry of plant and materials used in manufacture and credit available on reasonable interest rates from the Development Bank.

To whom does all that go? To the big business monopolies, the friends of the Australian Government, with the possible exception of one-quarter of one per cent. The Papuans and New Guineans make up 981 per cent of the total population and people of mixed blood and white people make up the other li per cent. Most of the people of mixed blood are of Chinese origin or pure Chinese. Fifty per cent of all industries and businesses established in the Territory are owned completely by foreigners and 95 per cent of all profits made there go to expatriates. Ninety per cent of the land is virgin country so there is a wide open field for anybody who wants to exploit the Territory.

Let us look at primary industry in the Territory. Fifty per cent of the profits goes to 981 per cent of the population and 50 per cent goes to H per cent of the population - that is to people who are not locals. The vast majority of the natural resources are owned by Australia, the United States of America, Japan and Britain, and there are some other foreign shareholders. Let us look at the fields in which expatriates, the friends of this Government, have placed their investments. They own all the private banks. They own all the insurance companies. So much for local investment. They also own all the hotels. I remember saying to a representative of the hotel association in New Guinea: ‘What are you doing with your profits?’ He said: ‘Ploughing them back’. Guess what they were ploughing them back into? Taverns. They do not even have to provide beds to be able to sell grog to the local population. Ninetyfive per cent of export and import companies are owned - do not guess, Mr Minister - by your white friends. Almost every service station In the Territory is owned by the monopoly petrol companies and are operated by white people - -OMO white. Who owns all the shops? White people or Chinese, with an odd shop here and there owned by a local person.

The total value of manufactures to the end of the financial year, as far as can be calculated, is in excess of $100m and the vast share of that has gone to expatriates. Of the land in use, 5,200 square miles are owned by the colonial Administration and 850 square miles plus by Australian lessees and other white people. Copra, cocoa and rubber are dominated by foreigners. Coffee is the only local industry - and to a lesser degree now, palm nuts - in which the indigenous people have a reasonable share. The tea industry - remember this, Mr Minister - is a comparatively new industry in the Territory. Probably close to 8,000 acres in 11 foreign owned plantations are given over to the production of tea. What do you think the locals own? Many of them own a total of less than 1,000 acres in their own country.

Eighty-five per cent of the beef cattle in the Territory are on expatriate owned holdings, and at this moment further holdings for this purpose are being granted by your Government, Mr Minister. In the general field of prospecting, an area of 58,000 square miles is involved. There is no need to guess who owns the prospecting leases. Very few of them are owned by indigenous people. When we consider all the leases - oil, gas and everything else - the area involved is well in excess of 100,000 square miles. Let us consider the example of Bougainville copper.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy President.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Oh, not another point of order. Do you not like listening to criticism?

Senator Wright:

– I do not like listening to you at any time. You are rubbish. But it is not a question of what I like; it is what the Senate has ordained by its Standing Orders, and that is that there must be some relevance to the Bill. During the last 5 minutes of his speech the honourable senator has been completely astray from the Bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - The Bill before the Senate is the New Guinea Timber Agreement Act (Repeal) Bill. On looking at the second reading speech of the Minister for Works I have noticed a number of references to industry. However, I think, Senator Keeffe, that you have been straying further than my interpretation of the terms of the Bill would permit. Therefore I ask you to keep more within the confines of the terms of the Bill.

Senator Keeffe:

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your ruling on a point. I have quoted from the second reading speech of the Minister for Works to show that the Government is giving away to its expatriate friends 65 per cent of an asset in Papua New Guinea. I have endeavoured to prove that this is only part of a pattern which has been in evidence for a long time. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you with all deference whether I am entitled to produce material in support of my argument.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - As I understand it, you are entitled to produce material in support of your argument in relation to the timber industry and other industries but I ask you to confine your remarks to the substance of the Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. You have given me the green light. The sorts of things contained in the Minister’s second reading speech are completely consistent with everything the Government has done over the last 23 years. But the Government is a little scared at the moment because there is a possibility that Papua New Guinea will in the future, although certainly not while the present Government is in office, become an independent country. The Minister for Works fears that if his Government gets another term of office there will be ructions with Papua New Guinea. So he has put sugar coating on this Bill to make it look good.

The Opposition is not asking for a great deal. All it is asking for is that the Bill be postponed. Surely to goodness it would be possible for further consultations to be held with representatives of the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea in order to make sure that they and we know that nobody will be touching them. If members of the House of Assembly were then to state that they were satisfied with the provisions of this Bill then that would be their business. But I think that if they can work out, as I am sure they will be able to do, the manner in which they have been touched by this Government for 20-odd years they will approach this Bill with a great deal more caution. There is nothing in the second reading speech of the Minister that says what royalty will be paid. Is that a close secret? The Minister knows that Japan and other countries have been operating in Papua New Guinea for a long time. He also knows that a large proportion of the Australian businessmen in Papua New Guinea are raping the country. They are taking away its natural assets to line their own pockets.

The Minister knows that most of the trouble in the Highlands has been caused by the planters deliberately fomenting disturbances because they want to hang on to their timber assets and to their plantations as long as they can. If a few of the local people get killed in the process how many planters would worry? None. At least half of the trouble in the Highlands today would not have occurred but for the presence of the planters who have been raping the country for so long and who now object to having to get out. Whom do honourable senators think supported the United Party at the recent election? Whom do honourable senators think found the funds for it to fight ah election? The Central Intelligence Agency and the planters did that. That is how that political party has been able to remain in existence. Its big worry is that the Pangu Pati - the party of the workers-has been able to form a government. I suggest that it is in the interests of the people of Papua New Guinea and the interests of the Government to postpone the second reading of this Bill for long enough to permit an examination of it to make sure that the Government is not just following the old colonial pattern of selling out everything that belongs to people who are black.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Senator Keeffe, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Clerk has suggested to me that the wording of the amendment you have foreshadowed be changed to comply with the forms of the Senate. The amendment you have circulated reads:

Leave out all words after That’, insert - the second reading be postponed pending a renegotiation of the affairs of’ the Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to provide for an indigenous equity of at least50 per cent’.

I suggest to you that it should read as follows:

Leave out all words after’ That’, insert - the Bill be withdrawn pending a renegotiation of the affairs of the Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to provide for an indigenous equity of at least SO per cent’.

I have been advised that that is more in line with the forms of the Senate and would have the same effect as the foreshadowed amendment.

Senator KEEFFE:

– As I believe that this is merely a technical matter, I would have no objection to the amendment being changed, provided I have the concurrence of Senator Murphy.

Senator Murphy:

– I agree with that course being adopted.

Senator KEEFFE:

– In those circumstances, I move:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert - the Bill be withdrawn pending a renegotiation of the affairs of the Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to provide for an indigenous equity of at least 50 per cent’.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-I had hoped that this Bill would receive a speedy passage through the Senate. After all it is purely a measure to give effect to an announcement by the Commonwealth Government that it would transfer its 50 per cent shareholding in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea. If I were to reply to Senator Keeffe I would find it very difficult to stick to the terms of the Bill. I wish to say, briefly, thatI believe that every thinking person in this country is more than satisfied with what the Australian Government has done to bring Papua New Guinea to nationhood. This Bill is only a small part of the overall pattern.

Senator Keeffe complained about the fact that following the transfer the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea will not have a 50 per cent interest in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd. What has actually happened is the Commonwealth Government has transferred its 50 per cent interest in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd to the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea on the condition that upon the transfer of its shares to the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea the other major shareholder in Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd - Placer Development Ltd will arrange an amalgamation of all the other wholly owned Placer assets in Papua New Guinea with those of Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd. The effect of this transaction will be that the indigenous people will be given a say in a much more diversified company than the present company. From what I can gather the Australian Government’s share, following the amalgamation, would represent only about 28 per cent of the whole investment but it is getting 35 per cent as a result of the adjustments which have been made.

We should face up to the fact that even a nation like Australia has not been able to develop its own resources fully because it has not got the know-how and the finance to do so. The same situation applies to Papua New Guinea. Its financial resources and know-how are very limited. It is most important that the capital resources which Papua New Guinea needs should not be supplied by other nations. The resources should be supplied by Australia and not by another country which may have interests in mind other than the interests of Papua New Guinea. We have to assist Papua New Guinea to develop its resources and this Bill is a way to do that. The more that we and Australian companies can assist Papua New Guinea the better. The Territory can be given a part to play itself.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I agree, but is the Bill doing that?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Yes, this Bill is doing that. It is giving to the people of Papua New Guinea the shares which the Australian Government hold. It is up to the people and the new House of Assembly to negotiate with Placer Development Ltd for the rest of the shares. We have no say in that. We are handing over the shares which the Australian people own and that is what this Bill deals with. I ask honourable senators to stick to what the Bill says; never mind about going all over the countryside. When this agreement was negotiated the assets of Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Ltd were considered to be worth about $2.3m. Let us face the fact that this agreement was negotiated before 9th May. By 9th May this year the Opposition was well aware of the facts of this agreement. In the last 3 months I had not heard of any opposition to it until the amendment was moved in this chamber tonight. Now the Opposition has moved, by the amendment, that the agreement should be sent back to the House of Assembly. For 3 months nothing has been said. Obviously the House of Assembly has been happy with the agreement. It was organised long before. Now, at this last minute, the Opposition wants to send the agreement back. What is the reason? The reason is, according to the Opposition, to look after the interests of Papua New Guinea. Or is it because of a certain election which is just around the corner? The Opposition is talking about a 50 per cent ownership.

This Bill is clear cut. It was accepted in the other place once the details of it were completely explained to the honourable members. I do not see any reason why I should take up any more of the time of the Senate. Only a small amount, some $5m, is involved in the whole company, and 35 per cent represents the very small amount of about $2m. But this is very important for the future development of Papua New Guinea in which Australian companies and investment can assist. Let us face it, it is better for Australians to help Papua New Guinea to develop its resources than for countries with doubtful intentions to come in. I support the Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– It is unfortunate that the debate which was initiated by Senator Keeffe has brought forth the expression of a most maudlin understanding of the position. It is quite impossible to refrain from the conclusion that the honourable senator has been the victim of pursuing prejudice and has not even studied the Bill, The New Guinea Timber Agreement Act (Repeal) Bill repeals the original Act of 1952 under which the Commonwealth Parliament agreed to a cooperative agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Bulolo Dredging Co., whose interests were subsequently taken over by a company called Placer Development Ltd. Placer Ltd had interests other than those in the timber agreement. As Papua New Guinea moved towards independence the Australian Government, for the assistance and protection of the investment interests and benefit of the indigenes, created an investment corporation in New Guinea. The Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea has entered into an agreement with Placer so that instead of Placer having various interests in the country it will bring the timber interests and its other interests together as one consolidated company. As my colleague Senator Maunsell has pointed out, an evaluation of the interests in the timber company showed that Placer interests were worth 72 per cent and the Commonwealth Government interest was worth 28 per cent. The Investment Corporation, representing the Commonwealth Government, was able to obtain an agreement with Placer as a consolidated company whereby instead of receiving 28 per cent of the share capital it would obtain 35 per cent. As I think I said, a statutory corporation has been set up to hold those interests in trust for and for the benefit of the indigenes. This has the advantage of bringing all Placer interests under one consolidated company in which the Investment Corporation is a significant shareholder to the extent of 35 per cent. On a true evaluation the Corporation would be strictly entitled only to 28 per cent. The Corporation has the advantage of meeting its partner with all its New Guinea interests in the one consolidated company.

In face of this we have the fatuous, prejudiced nonsense expressed by the speaker for the Australian Labor Party in this Senate when he moved that the Bill be withdrawn so that consideration might be given to it by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly. This amendment is moved in complete ignorance of the fact that the Bill for repeal which I am asking the Senate to pass tonight has been before the Administrator’s Executive Council in Port Moresby and has its complete approval. The arrangement between the Investment Corporation and Placer Ltd - which is substituted for the present timber agreement - already has been approved by the Administrator’s Executive Council in Port Moresby. Is it to be tolerated indefinitely that the Senate should be deluged by ignorance of this sort which gives expression to prejudice and non-understanding of the very fundamentals of the structure by which the Government has built up the Investment Corporation under the guidance of the Administrator’s Executive Council to protect the interests of the indigenes. Yet we have an impertinent intervention by an honourable senator of the Labor Opposition from Queensland. He suggests that this Parliament should produce chaos in the arrangements made in Port Moresby and deny to the people there, with the immediate responsibility, the opportunity of taking their arrangements into effect. Mr Acting Deputy President, can we have the Bill without further nonsense?

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The Acting President - Senator Wood)

AYES: 19

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 453

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August (vide page 325), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WHEELDON (Western Australia) (9.44 - I move:

This Bill is a machinery measure extending the provisions of the existing legislation for one more year. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the passage of the Bill in the event of the amendment which I have just moved being defeated. However, we wish to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Senate once again the policy of the Australian Labor Party relating to the establishment of a pre-school commission. I think it is quite well known that the Australian Labor Party believes that just as the Universities Commission is necessary for the successful maintenance of university tertiary education in Australia, and just as it would be quite impossible for there to be national planning with regard to university education without the existence of that Commission or sime similar body–

This amendment is in no way relevant to the provisions of the Bill which, as I indicated in the second reading speech, is simply for the purpose of enlarging the prescribed period in which certain appropriations of the Parliament already made might be expended. The idea that it should be the vehicle to establish an amendment for a commission would be, I submit, to allow an excrescence quite irrelevant to the Bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Withers) - I am of the opinion that the long title of the Bill is sufficiently wide to enable any amendment to be moved on the second reading. I rule, therefore, that Senator Wheeldon’s amendment is in order.

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I can assure Senator Wright that the fact that the point of order has not been upheld does not mean that the debate will be in any way prolonged, other than for the time it will take to hold a division.

Senator Wright:

– That does not induce any undue exaltation.

Senator WHEELDON:

– It should not induce any great discomfort on the Minister’s part. As I was endeavouring to explain, the Australian Labor Party is of the view that just as the Australian Universities Commission is essential to university education, there should be an Australian schools commission to deal with the problems of primary and secondary education throughout Australia.

Senator Wright:

– The Bill deals with kindergartens.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I thought the Minister was aware of that fact, but I was about to remind him of it in case it had slipped his memory and he had not given thought to the matter, which I am sure he should have done. Similarly we believe that there should be an Australian pre-schools commission to deal with the very great problems of pre-school education. At this late hour on a Thursday night I do not want to labour the point, but T think it is generally accepted by educators throughout the world that one of the most important branches of education is pre-school education. What happens to children until they reach the age of 5 years can determine the subsequent pattern of their lives. Preschool education is not a subsidiary or trivial part of their education, as has often been considered in the past; it is an integral and very important part of their education. It is gratifying at least to know that the Government, following pressure from the Australian Labor Party, has partially acknowledged this fact by the grants which are proposed in the Bill.

We believe that the present provision made for pre-school education is grossly inadequate. To a very large extent the people whose children receive the benefits of pre-school education are middle class and upper middle class parents who are able to afford to maintain by private subscription the kindergartens and pre-school centres in the localities in which they live. To a very large extent the people whose children are most in need of the services of pre-school centres and kindergartens are those people whose children are deprived of that education. We believe that a preschool commission should have as one of its tasks a rational and systematic examination of the needs of the whole community in relation to the provision of pre-school centres. They should not be provided on the piecemeal basis on which they are provided at the moment.

The proposal contained in the amendment is a modest one. We merely ask that a pre-school commission should be established to raise the level of pre-school education throughout Australia at least to the level of pre-school education in the Australian Capital Territory. Although the Australian Capital Territory clearly leads the rest of Australia in the provision of this type of education, pre-school education in the Australian Capital Territory leaves a great deal to be desired. About 52 per cent of eligible children in the Australian Capital Territory at present are receiving pre-school education. The percentage of Australian children of pre-school age who receive the benefit of pre-school education is only 14.8 per cent. The variations in the percentages of children receiving the benefit of education in this very important part of their lives range from 34.6 per cent in the Northern Territory to 3.1 per cent in New South Wales. In the largest State only 3.1 per cent of preschool age children are receiving the benefit of this type of education. In my State. Western Australia, only 12.8 per cent of children receive the benefits of preschool education.

The results of the inability to provide pre-school education can be seen in many areas where working class parents do not have the facilities that are available to their more affluent fellow citizens to provide the sort of home assistance that is necessary. They cannot make provision for their children to be transported some distance to a relatively expensive kindergarten. Throughout Australia, particularly outside the Australian Capital Territory, there is clear evidence that the most depressed sections of the community - the sections of the community most in need of pre-school education for their children, particularly those children of recent immigrants from countries where the language is not English - are deprived of a very essential advantage in the upbringing of their children.

All that the amendment asks is that there should be provision made for the establishment of a pre-school commission. I realise that it is probably unnecessary for me to speak at any great length this evening because in 6 weeks or 2 months, there will be a Labor government in office and it will immediately establish a commission. It would be a pious act if the Government were to accept graciously the wisdom of my remarks and the amendment which I have moved because it would not have the time or the opportunity to establish a commission. I commend the amendment to the Senate. I can see by the attentive faces of my audience that I have convinced a great many senators of this proposition. I anticipate that the Minister will shortly announce that he is prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Senator Mulvihill:

– I second the amendment.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– As has been stated already this evening, the Bill is a machinery one which, in the words of the second reading speech of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), provides for an extension of the prescribed period to enable the programme which the Government has set in motion to achieve its full purpose. The Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 24th May and it came on for debate in August. It is really an extension of a Bill that was introduced some time ago. As all honourable senators know, the substance of the Bill has been overtaken by later events. As has been stated already this evening, it deals with pre-school teachers colleges and it provides funds for the establishment and assistance of pre-school teachers colleges. An amendment has been moved inviting the Senate to express an opinion that an Australian pre-school commission should be established. This suggestion is in line with other suggestions that have been made about the establishment of an Australian schools commission.

I hope that the Senate will not be of the opinion that an Australian pre-school commission should be established. An expression of opinion along those lines does not take into account the federal system. The amendment ignores completely the process of education administration which is well known to be very much the sphere of the States. It highlights the com.plexitiy of Australian Labor Party policy of centralising the whole processes of education, in particular the whole processes of pre-school education, at a central or distant spot, with one standard across Australia, with one criterion, one standardisation and one requirement. It makes no provision for flexibility to meet the needs of various communities in a country as vast as Australia is. I hope that the Senate will not entertain the expression of such an opinion.

The Government’s record thus far in this field indicates that the support which it gives to the States and to the organisations involved in pre-school teacher education is far and away the best one and one which is achieving the greatest degree of success. I remind the Senate of the speech made by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in which he referred to a meeting of the Australian Education Council in May of this year when State Ministers for Education requested Commonwealth assistance for State teachers colleges, particularly to bring pre-school teachers colleges within the advanced education arrangements. As a result of this request the Government has responded and has taken a number of principal decisions. Included in those decisions is the decision by the Commonwealth offering to share with the States from July next year the capital and recurring costs of pre-school teachers colleges under the advanced education arrangements. At the same time the Minister has stressed that existing bodies should continue to play an important role in the pre-school teacher training area. But the Senate has more than just a passing interest in measures of this kind. The subject has been raised a couple of times this week.

The Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts has investigated the Commonwealth role in teacher education. It presented a report to the Senate earlier this year. Senator Wright when speaking, I think on Tuesday of this week, drew attention to the fact that the Government has responded to a great many of the recommendations that have been presented by this Committee. I wish to refer very briefly to some of its findings in the area of the training and education of teachers for kindergartens and what we call the pre-school area’. The Committee received a good deal of evidence concerning the value to the community of pre-school education. It was generally accepted by the people who submitted evidence to the Committee in relation to this area of teacher education that the most receptive learning period in a child’s life is between the ages of 3 and 8 years. Evidence showed that the major limiting factor in the provision of pre-school education is an adequate supply of fully qualified preschool teachers.

In Australia, the training of pre-school teachers ls carried out in colleges which, as I have said earlier, are run by the voluntary kindergarten unions and organisations all of which are associated and affiliated with the Australian Pre-school Association. The members of the Committee were particularly impressed with the quality of teacher education and the sense of dedication which these organisations have. We considered that pre-school education was one of the most vital and yet also one of the neglected areas of education in Australia today. It was pointed out by Professor W. D. Borrie - and the Committee included this reference in the report - that:

By the late sixties the children of the post-war baby boom who have been causing the educational crisis to date, will be the young parents of the next generation, and even if their patterns of fertility remain about the present low level - and assuming they marry in the same high proportions that have recently prevailed - the number of births will rise sharply from about 1972.

This means that there will be an increasing demand. To cope with the projected surge of pre-school age children in 1974-75, as predicted by Professor Borrie, an even greater number of teachers should now be entering courses of training. The Government’s attention to pre-school teacher education is a matter of vital importance. The Committee recommended that the Commonwealth provide capital and recurrent funds for the establishment and mainte nance of pre-school teacher training facilities as part of colleges of advanced education. It further recommended:

That the interest and expertise of the community through the voluntary organisations be maintained if pre-school teachers colleges become part of colleges of advanced education or if financial responsibility is taken for their building and maintenance by the Commonwealth.

As the Minister has said this is only a machinery measure, but even as we consider it we schould not overlook the achievements of the measure before the Senate and the fact that certain events have overtaken the Bill which is before the Senate tonight. I am unable to understand bow the Senate can be expected, in the light of the Government’s announcements on education and its announcement on pre-school education in regard to teachers colleges, to turn back and express the view that we should have a centralised, inflexible unrelated pre-school commission. I hope that , the Senate will give this amendment the attention it deserves and dismiss it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I am obliged for the intervention of my colleague Senator Davidson because, with his intimate knowledge of this subject as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts which investigated the subject of teacher education, his contribution relieves me of the obligation of saying much that I had intended to say. Suffice for me just to underline the brief sentence which, I hope, will penetrate the members of the Opposition. It is that with the concurrence of State ministers for education the Federal Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has agreed to bring within the scope of advanced colleges of education not only teacher training institutions but also pre-school training institutions. Having regard to the fact that that accords with the advice given by the Senate Standing Committee and the fact that the Government acepts all that, how discordant it must be to any honourable senator who understands the theme of events to find an amendment coming from Senator Wheeldon that we should establish a separate preschool commission.

In the few brief moments that have been devoted to the debate I could not help but remind myself how appropriate it was that this amendment dealing with kindergartens should have been initiated by Senator Wheeldon. He inevitably revealed to me one thing and one thing only: That he was unable to rid himself of the itch that comes from commissionitis.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The Acting President - Senator Wood)

AYES: 19

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

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

I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Before putting the motion, I take the opportunity to reply to a question asked of me yesterday by Senator Keeffe. In the question he said that on 16th August he had put 3 questions on the notice paper in regard to disposals sales in Darwin in June arranged by the Department of Supply. Senator Keeffe also asked me to say when he could expect a reply. I point out that the 3 questions asked by the honourable senator covered almost 2 pages of the notice paper. I have made inquiries of the Minister for Supply and I have received the following information:

The reply is in course of preparation by the South Australian regional office of this Department, and comprises approximately 16 foolscap pages. To collate the information required involved a complete dissection of the auction catalogue for the sale in question. It is anticipated that the answer to the questions will be available by 28th August 1972.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I wish to inform the Senate that I am enabled by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to lay on the table of the Senate tonight a letter which he has this day written to Senator Georges in refutation of the accusations made by Senator Georges per medium of a question yesterday. I lay the letter on the table of the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

page 458

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 458

VIETNAM

(Question No. 2160)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

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

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The Government of the United States of America has, with the support of the Australian Government, been engaged in helping the Government of the Republic of Vietnam to withstand armed aggression mounted against it by the communist government of North Vietnam. Parliamentary questions are not a suitable vehicle for the exchange of views on such hypothetical issues as an assumed change in the status of hostilities in Vietnam. I am advised that, in fact, there has been no such change in the status of hostilities.

page 458

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

(Question No. 2248)

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Having regard to the minimal estimated saving of $18,000 in establishing the new system of multiple telephone directories in Western Australia, will the Postmaster-General give earnest consideration to the many requests from Western Australian telephone subscribers for the introduction of a separate directory for country subscribers and another for metropolitan subscribers.
  2. If economies are to be gained by the introduction of a multiplicity of telephone directories, will the Postmaster-General examine the possibility of dividing the metropolitan directory into several sections similar in size to those for rural communities in an effort to effect savings to the Department

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

  1. The figure of $18,000 mentioned in reply to Question No. 1974 asked by the honourable senator earlier this year was arrived at notwithstanding the additional cost of printing extra copies of the 1971 directories for free issue and the inclusion, in each country telephone directory, of a fully classified section allowing for each business subscriber to have a free listing under an appropriate classification. Nevertheless, the question of subscriber convenience is regarded by the Post Office as being of more importance than savings in costs and the new arrangements in force in Western Australia - and elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth - would not have been introduced if it were thought that subscribers were not being adequately catered for. In this regard, most residence and small business subscribers call within their immediate community of interest which can be covered by regional telephone directories. Other subscribers who regularly call outside the area covered by their local telephone directory are supplied with free copies of other area directories on request.
  2. Subscriber convenience is also the determining factor in regard to metropolitan directories. The current Sydney and Melbourne directories are fast becoming too bulky for subscribers to refer to conveniently and inevitably they will have to be produced in smaller valumes. The Perth book has not reached this stage of development and will not be split solely in the interests of cost savings.

page 458

DUTY FREE TRADING

(Question No. 2259)

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

In the light of the Government’s review of restricted trade practices, is it a fact that, in accordance with judgments recently handed down by the High Court of Australia, the Minister is exercising good sense in endeavouring to resolve in practical terms the problem, which has been amplified by 21/2 years of argument and litigation, concerning the monopoly surrounding duty free trading on and off Australia’s air terminals.

Senator COTTON - The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to that part of the question relating to ‘duty free’ trading off Australia’s air terminals:

Since the High Court judgment mentioned in the question, the Department of Customs and Excise has been examining arrangements to resolve the problem referred to by the honourable senator.

New procedures which depart radically from previous systems are at present being thoroughly tested in Sydney and Brisbane. If on completion of the trial it is shown that the new scheme allows the revenue to be adequately protected by reasonable control measures, other firms will be permitted to use the new procedures provided they agree to abide by prescribed conditions.

In so far as duty free shops within airport terminals are concerned these come under my jurisdiction as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Airports (Business Concessions)

Act. This Act requires that no person shall carry on a non-aviation business or deliver goods of a non-aviation nature at airport terminals without an authority issued under the terms of that Act. The Act also requires that in certain circumstances public tenders shall be invited before an authority is granted. The purposes of the Act in so far as business concessions are concerned are 2-fold, first to enable passenger facilities to be operated and second to enable the Commonwealth to obtain revenue to assist in meeting the costs of its complex airports and airways network.

The Department of Civil Aviation over many years has called for tenders for the rights to sell and deliver duty free goods on airports. These tenders have been widely advertised. Trading authorities have only been issued after all the proper processes associated with public tendering procedures have been followed. Because of the trading rights that have been consequently granted, I regret I cannot issue any further authorities under that Act for the right to operate airport duty free shops at those airports, while present contractual arrangements exist.

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How much expenditure was incurred by the Government recently in assisting Australian citizens who were stranded in Singapore by Travel House of Australia
  2. What action is contemplated by the Government to obtain financial compensation from Travel House of Australia?

Senator WRIGHT- -The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Although some special funds were sent to the High Commissioner, Singapore, in the event, it was not necessary to draw on these funds. The stranded passengers proceeding to Europe were able to make private arrangements with Saber Airline and British Caledonia Airline. Passengers travelling to Australia accepted financial arrangements proposed by Qantas for their onward movement. Under the normal vote of the High Commission some passengers obtained small amounts to meet personal commitments in Singapore but accounts have not yet been finalised.
  2. The question of financial compensation is a private legal matter for those concerned.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - Yester.day Senator Willesee asked me a question relating to reports on overcharging by the United States Services which was included in the Auditor-General’s Report. Subsequently in replying to a question from Senator Bishop I gave details in relation to my own Department and indicated how these errors had arisen. I now have the circumstances as the Auditor-General’s Report affected Navy and Army. The situation is as follows: The greater part of the possible overcharges of $US900,000 for all Services related to one order for the purchase of Skyhawk aircraft for the Royal Australian Navy. The billing from the United States, which was offset against advance payments already made for these aircraft pending its certification in Australia, included, incorrectly, costs for services arranged separately by the Australian Government. Adjustment action was initiated when the overcharge was brought to light by the audit check in advance of the Navy check of these billings in Australia.

I am advised that the discrepancies would have been detected in due course under the normal procedures operating here. In so far as the Army is concerned, there has been no overcharging included in the $US900,000 report in the AuditorGeneral’s Report. As I stated in my answer to Senator Bishop my Department was involved in the overcharge to- an amount of $33,485 of which all but $4,720 has now been adjusted. Steps are in hand to examine this particular remaining amount within my Department and my Department is also reviewing procedures to ensure this situation does not arise again.

page 459

TRAVEL HOUSE OF AUSTRALIA

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 August 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720824_senate_27_s53/>.