Senate
17 October 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 11 a.m.. and read prayers.

page 1555

NOTICE OF MOTION

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

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

That for the remainder of the present period of sittings, unless otherwise ordered. Government Business shall take precedence of all other business on the notice paper except questions and formal motions.

page 1555

QUESTION

CROATIAN MIGRANTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral brief the Senate on the latest situation in the Croatian tensions in the Commonwealth with particular reference to a report in the current issue of Supernost eulogising those responsible for the Swedish airline hijacking? Will his officers obtain a copy of this issue and peruse it to see whether that is so?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am unable on the basis of any knowledge that I have at the present time to give any information to the honourable senator. I will make such inquiries of the Commonwealth Police as would enable me to give the honourable senator some information and I will get it to him as soon as I can.

page 1555

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. On 28th September the Minister advised me that he would give very sympathetic consideration to any request from the South Australian Government to allow Trans- Australia Airlines to operate intrastate in South Australia. Has the Minister now received such a request from the South Australian Premier and, if so, is it his intention to accede to the Premier’s request?

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

– I think I have received a letter from South Australia but I thought rather that it was from the Minister for Transport. I will check on that. This matter is receiving the sympathetic consideration that we said it would receive.

page 1555

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service confirm Press statements that unemployment fell by 8.2 per cent last month, to a figure of 88,800, and unfilled job vacancies increased to a figure of 32,500? If these statements are correct would not the unemployment figure be much less if allowance were made for job vacancies? Further, does not this significant reduction of unemployment by 8 per cent to some 87,800 reveal those people who were forecasting that the number of unemployed would rise to 200,000 as purely prophets of doom?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The figures given by the honourable senator are the figures that were issued by the Minister for Labour and National Service. Those figures show a satisfying trend in the reduction of actual unemployment to the extent of some 8,000 persons. I think that the honourable senator is correct in making the claim that the significance of that figure has to be taken into account in relation to the job vacancies which have increased. These 2 factors should be considered together when assessing the degree of unemployment at the present time.

page 1555

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a fact that figures gathered by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics indicate that up to 15 per cent of unemployed people do not register for unemployment relief, thereby creating a falsely optimistic picture in the figures released by the Department of Labour and National Service? If this is so, can the Minister explore ways and means of including this factor when presenting an accurate picture of unemployment figures and trends each month?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am unaware of any figure which indicates that 15 per cent of the unemployed do not register. I should think that it would be a matter of guesswork for anybody to give such a figure, but common sense would indicate that there is a percentage of unemployed who for various reasons, do not register. I think it is quite unfair and imprudent for the honourable senator to suggest that that factor creates a falsely optimistic appearance in the figures that are issued. The Statistician’s figures have been established on objective studies and consistently maintained, and it would be altogether wrong to suggest, just on guesswork, that the statistics, which have been based on experience over many years, give a falsely optimistic picture. I shall refer the question, as to whether this unascertained element of unemployment can be brought into the record on any reliable basis, to the Department which probably will consult the Statistician to see whether any improvement, as suggested by the honourable senator, can be made.

page 1556

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. In view of the forthcoming Federal election, will the Government remove 2 irritating restrictions upon radio broadcasting and television imposed upon these media many ages ago by a dying Labor administration? Will the Minister consider the repeal of the Calwellian provision against the dramatisation of political material and also the discriminatory restriction which prevents the transmission of political matter for 48 hours before polling day? If the Minister will not go as far as that, does he realise that half way through the Federal election campaign a blanket of silence on Federal matters will descend upon the media in Australia’s most densely populated areas because of a State by-election in New South Wales? Does not the Minister regard this position as farcical?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator puts to me a question - admittedly only in my capacity as the Minister representing the Postmaster-General - which asks, first of all, for a declaration of policy and, secondly, for an expression of opinion. I think the points that the honourable senator has made speak for themselves, but it is a matter essentially for the Postmaster-General and the Government as to whether action ought to be taken in regard to the first matter which he raises, and whether it is feasible to take action in regard to the second matter. I will convey his question to the Postmaster-General for his attention as a matter of urgency.

page 1556

QUESTION

BRISBANE AIRPORT

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Now that the Commonwealth, State and City of Brisbane composite committee has agreed upon plans for the development of Brisbane Airport, when will his Department be advising the owners of properties in the area required for development of the conditions and date of resumption, as these people are becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of information in the matter? When does the Minister expect that Brisbane Airport will be able to handle jumbo jets?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This question would need to be placed on the notice paper so that I can obtain accurate information for the honourable senator. That applies particularly to the latter part of the question about jumbo jets. I am not able to give a precise answer about that. I have an idea, but I want to be accurate about it. The honourable senator has spoken to me previously about the matter which he raised in the first part of his question. What we are trying to do is to finalise all the planning, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, in order to establish what we call the perimeters and the areas where the runway layouts will necessarily have to be located. This will have a bearing on the kind of acquisition programme and timetable involved. I think the honourable senator is entitled to a fairly precise and detailed answer to both parts of his question, and I will get it for him.

page 1556

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Health: Towards the end of August J askedhim why the payment of$1 4 a week to a person caring for a chronically ill relative was to be delayed until March 1973 and why the payment could not be started much earlier.I raised these queries in question No. 2405 on notice. Will the Minister say whether a reply will be available before the lifting of Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I can say, with the confidence of being Leader of the Government in the Senate and having regard to the spirit of cooperation thatI would anticipate getting in relation to the Bill which will deal with this proposal. The Bill will originate in the other place because it is a money Bill and will come here by way of message. Part of the Bill will provide for the payment of $14 a week for old folk who are being cared for at home in a domiciliary sense rather than in nursing homes. As I understand the Bill, the rates will apply from 1st March. We can canvass that aspect during the debate, if we wish, but a whole series of procedures will need to be adopted if we do not get the Bill until approximately the time that we are due to finish the sitting in time to prepare for the general election. In the judgment of my advisers, 1st March will be the appropriate date to enable the Department to do all the things that have to be done to provide this benefit. I feel, with confidence, that the Senate will agree in principle to the provision of the benefit.

page 1557

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of yesterday’s High Court ruling that Miss Lodge, a working single mother, was not entitled to deduct the cost of her child’s day nursery fees for taxation purposes, will the Government urgently consider introducing legislation to allow such expenses as a taxation deduction? Does the Minister agree that because of the increased numbers of working women with children who have to be cared for, such a change in the law would be greatly desirable in the national interest as well as in justice to working mothers who relieve the community of social service payments?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI must admit that I am relying now on what I read in the newspapers and on what I saw on television. A High Court decision was given yesterday. 1 believe that I saw on television an interview with the lady concerned in which she said that it had not been decided whether there would be an attempt at appeal. This is a matter of Government policy. The question is very interesting. Notwithstanding that there may be an appeal against the decision, I will have the question referred to the Government forthwith.

page 1557

QUESTION

TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, refers to representations from State Transport Ministers and the Australian Transport Advisory Council in relation to the affairs of urban, public and railway transport systems in each State. As the Minister will be aware, a request for Commonwealth Government assistance has been made. Is the Minister aware that the State Ministers are now claiming that a crisis situation is developing in relation to both urban and railway finances, and that some urgent assistance from the Commonwealth Government is necessary? Will he pass on these matters to his colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, to see whether an early statement may be made by the Commonwealth Government about assistance for this purpose?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I will pass on the observation of the honourable senator to the responsible Minister who, I am sure, is aware of the public utterances of various State Transport Ministers about what they claim is a crisis in their railway and urban transport systems. I do not think I can add anything useful beyond that. I have some observations of my own about the whole matter which I will be happy to convey to him privately at some time over a sandwich.

page 1557

QUESTION

DUAL EMPLOYMENT

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Does the Minister agree with the opinion that has been expressed that in the Australian community there are more people with 2 jobs than there are people without a job at all? Will the Department of Labour and National Service have an inquiry made into the incidence of dual employment to ascertain the true situation? Could the Department establish relationships with unions and other interested bodies to stop dual employment so as to even out employment in our community?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I would abstain from expressing any opinion of my own on whether or not the number of people in Australia holding down 2 jobs is greater than the number registered as unemployed. But while taking that course as a matter of caution, I readily agree with the suggestion that there is a very significant number of people who, while others are unemployed, hold down 2 jobs.

Senator Milliner:

– How do you know that?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I think that any person who mixes evan remotely with the workers of Australia, as I do, would know that there is a very significant number of unionists and others who engage in dual occupations. To go on to answer the actual question and to ignore further the interjection, I can only say that I will refer the question to the Department so that it may consider whether an inquiry along the lines suggested by Senator Little would be useful.

page 1558

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to the files to be tabled in relation to the acquisition of DC3 aircraft from Jetair Australia Ltd. Will the files constitute a complete disclosure of the dealings between Jetair Australia Ltd and the Minister’s Department? Is it a fact that the files include documents in which other airline operators express concern at the possibility of a third airline licence? Will these documents be included in the files to be tabled?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 have given no assurance that I will table files in this place in relation to any of these affairs. What I have said from time to time is that this is a fairly substantial matter. I think there were something like 60 files in the Department of Civil Aviation which in one way or another had some relation to Jetair Australia Ltd. They cover requests for aircraft import permits, commuter operations, licensing, technical matters, and even parliamentary questions. There was a great scries of parliamentary questions. 1 do not have them detailed here but they went on for quite a long time. They were all answered quite faithfully and accurately, and if any honourable senator wants to direct a specific question to me relating to these matters he will, as in the past, receive a specific answer, in detail and quite accurate.

page 1558

QUESTION

BOMB OUTRAGES IN SYDNEY

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Will he indicate what progress has been made with investigations of the recent bombing outrages in Sydney? Will he accept that the N.S.W. police force has now had sufficient time to carry out its investigations and to come up with a result? Will he accept that it is now time for the Commonwealth police force to act more forcibly in the matter? Will he indicate when this Parliament can expect a report on the matter?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not in a position to say what stage the police investigations into the bomb explosions has reached. The fact, is, as I think is abundantly clear to the members of this Senate, that the investigations are being carried out by the N.S.W. police force. I am not privy to the investigations of that force, nor should I be because, essentially, the State Police Force is responsible for the investigation of crime in New South Wales. It is responsible to the Minister in the New South Wales Government. However, from time to time information is conveyed to the Commonwealth Police Force about matters in which it has an interest. At this time I am at a loss to understand what the honourable senator means when he asks that the Commonwealth police act more forcibly. I know that there is a continuing liaison and Interchange of information between the Commonwealth and New South Wales police. That will continue as it has existed in the past. As a result of what Senator Georges has asked me I shall have some inquiries made but I cannot say whether I will be able to reveal the state of police inquiries publicly because, after all, police investigations may achieve their ultimate result more effectively if the lines of inquiry which they are pursuing are not given general currency. But, as I said, I shall make inquiries and then consider the position as to whether I make a response.

page 1558

QUESTION

PHILIPPINES

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In this question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs I refer again to the recent declaration of martial law in the Philippines and in particular to the detention of prominent journalists and politicians, including Senator Benigno Aquino, a leading candidate for the presidency. Does the Minister have information as to the manner in which these prominent people are being treated during their detention? Further, have any charges relating to criminal activities been laid against these detainees or is their detention simply designed to remove them indefinitely from the arena of active politics?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– A question which ends in the way in which Senator Willesee ends his question ought to be ignored by me but out of respect for the chamber, as the honourable senator touches on a matter of vital interest to the chamber, I simply say, as I said last week, that the events in the Philippines are being followed very closely by the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs. The circumstances of internment are being advised to Australia but, to my knowledge, there is no information about any individual. If any information about an individual is required prudence suggests that an inquiry before question time would be the most useful way of eliciting information. There would be no political purpose on the part of the Government in not adding to the answer which I have given.

page 1559

QUESTION

KEYBOARD ACTION GROUP

Senator MILLINER:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior been made aware of the contents of a circular addressed to honourable senators which is headed: ‘Keyboard Action Group’? Will the Minister examine the contents of such a circular which claims that female employees in the Commonwealth Public Service performing the work of typists, secretaries, accounting machinists, etc., are in receipt of a lower wage than clerical assistants who, it is claimed, are not as highly skilled as members of the Keyboard Action Group? Will the Minister indicate whether such a statement is correct? If so, will he immediately call a conference with the object of effecting comparative wage justice?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As a one finger typist of not great accuracy, this interests me very much. I have not seen the circular to which the honourable senator referred. If he gives it to me I shall see that it is passed on to the Minister for the Interior and that he looks into the questions raised.

page 1559

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator YOUNG:

– Is the Minister repre senting the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of recent debate about the cost to Jetair Australia Ltd of the 6 DC3 aircraft purchased by the Government? Can he state the facts?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is within my knowledge that, during the public debate referred to, a statement was made as to the cost to the company of the 6 DC3 aircraft purchased by the Government. As that fact was part of the discussion by the inspecting officers on 17th and 18th December and was contrary to the statement in those discussions, I requested the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs to contact the management of Jetair Australia Ltd on Friday. Alexander Barton has addressed to me a letter dated 16th October stating–

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is he related to Gordon Barton?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I would not know but Alexander Barton is an executive of Jetair and Gordon Barton is an executive ofIPEC and both have a history of association with airways. I am referring to a letter that came to me this morning from Alexander Barton to the effect that the total cost to the company of the 6 Jetair aircraft purchased by the Government for $275,000 was $579,325. Mr Barton went on to state:

I note that it has been stated that the book value of the 6 aircraft was $100,000. As you can see from the above table, this is totally incorrect. The 6 DC3s were not owned by Jetair Australia Ltd but another company in the Jetair group and in fact were leased to Jetair. The book value of the 6 DC3 aircraft, as stated in the above table, which figures were extracted from the audited figures of the company concerned.

I have further noted that the valuation of the spare parts included in the sale was approximately $18,000. This agrees closely with the price paid for them.

I might add that I have been disturbed at the incorrect statements made under Parliamentary privilege regarding the financial position of Jetair. These statements are totally untrue. The establishment costs of the airline which were anticipated to be substantial, were properly provided for, prior to the commencement of operations, and Jetair is, and always was, in a sound financial position. When it became apparent that the full objectives of the company could not be attained, and because the limited operations that it was authorised to undertake were unlikely to become profitable, the Board decided to cease operations.

In my opinion, the Board acted responsibly towards its Shareholders, the public, and its staff and took the only course that was open to it and you may care to report this view to the Parliament should the matter be raised again.

If I am in order, Mr President, I table that letter and, for the convenience of honourable senators, I ask for it to be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) - 16th October 1972.

The Hon. R. C. Wright, Minister for Works, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.

My Dear Minister:

As requested by officers of the Foreign Affairs department, I am setting out below the costs to the Jetair group of each of the 6 DC3 aircraft. The table shows cost of the particular aircraft, the cost of rebuilding, including all the work necessary to put each plane into service (this work was carried out by Hawker de Havilland Aust. Pty Ltd, and East-West Airlines Pty Ltd), and the total cost:

I note that it has been stated that the book value of the 6 aircraft was$ 100,000. As you can see from the above table, this is totally incorrect. The 6 DC3’s were not owned by Jetair Australia Ltd but another company in the Jetair group and in fact were leased to Jetair. The book value of the 6 DC3 aircraft, as stated in the above table, which figures were extracted from the audited figures of the company concerned.

I have further noted that the valuation of the spare parts included in the sale was approximately $18,000. This agrees closely with the price paid for them.

I might add that I have been disturbed at the incorrect statements made under Parliamentary privilege regarding the financial position of Jetair. These statements are totally untrue. The establishment costs of the airline which were anticipated to be substantial, were properly provided for, prior to the commencement of operations, and Jetair is, and always was, in a sound financial position. When it became apparent that the full objectives of the company could not be attained, and because the limited operations that it was authorised to undertake were unlikely to become profitable, the Board decided to cease operations.

In my opinion, the Board acted responsibly towards its Shareholders, the public, and its staff and took the only course that was open to it and you may care to report this view to the Parliament should the matter be raised again.

Yours sincerely, ALEXANDER BARTON

AB:PD

page 1560

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC MEAT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Federal Council of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union has expressed concern at the sale of synthetic meat in Australia and is anxious to secure the cooperation of all concerned parties on a federal level to formulate a policy to combat the spread in sale of this commodity? Is the marketing of synthetic meat largely confined at the moment to specialist health food shops? Is the Government concerned in any way that it could become a real threat to the meat industry in Australia? Will the Government consider calling a representative conference of the industry, including representation from the Meat Industry Employees Union, for the purpose of producing a plan to meet the possibility of the manufacture of simulated meat in Australia?

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

– The question raised by the honourable senator is very important. This matter was raised in earlier times by the chairman of the Australian Meat Board who expressed himself very strongly in regard to the future of synthetic meat and the dire effect that it could have on the meat industry in Australia if its use developed to the same proportions as synthetics have developed in relation to the wool industry. Concern has been expressed on this subject by the Australian Agricultural Council also. The Minister for Primary Industry has raised this matter at meetings of the Agricultural Council on a number of occasions and has asked all States to co-operate with him and to review their legislation. He has written to State Ministers concerned with this matter and it is my understanding that he has been promised full co-operation from them. In view of what the honourable senator has asked I most certainly will direct the question to the Minister and, if I am able to obtain further information, I shall do so.

page 1560

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As document 11 on the Foreign Affairs file, which is a cable from our Ambassador in Cambodia to the Department of Foreign Affairs–

Senator Wright:

– Can you tell me the date?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 7th January 1971. As that cable has been withheld from the general file in accordance with the criteria stated by the Minister on 27th September, and as clause 2 of the document does not come under those criteria, will the Minister make clause 2 of the document available to the Senate as it could well establish that the American Ambassador notified the Cambodian Government of Australia’s gift of aeroplanes to Cambodia before the date of advertising the aeroplanes and definitely before the date of inspection of the aircraft?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In my statement to the Senate on 27th September I said that from the documents from the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Supply which I tabled some few documents were excluded. I said that these were available for perusal by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party. Senator Murphy, who leads the Party to which Senator Cavanagh, the questioner, belongs has not asked for a perusal of those documents, but they are readily available to him for perusal. Having said that,I want to say that a much more appropriate way to discuss disclosure of any paragraphsin those documents would be by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate with the Minister. I shall be happy to discuss that at any convenient time. I refer specifically to the document that the honourable senator mentioned - a cable dated, I think he said, 7th January. I do not remember it paragraph by paragraph, but it may give some information on the facts about which Senator Cavanagh is concerned. I will have a look at it and advise him at the earliest opportunity whether there is any part of his suggestion to which I think it is proper to accede.

page 1561

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the interest and concern of our Pacific Islands neighbours about the Australian Government’s protest to France about its intention of testing further nuclear devices in the Pacific next year, I ask: Has the Government considered the imposition of economic sanctions to prevent these nuclear tests from going ahead, such as warning that it will scrap its plans to purchase Mirage F1 fighters from France? If the Government will not consider some action as a form of protest, how can the Australian public and Australia’s neighbours be expected to believe that the Government is trying to persuade the French to stop the tests?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAs I recall, Senator Bishop reflected on this aspect last week. I read out last week the line of response which the Australian Government has made. This made it abundantly clear that Australia had used the normal procedures to register its protest. The honourable senator has suggested that the Australian Government should impose some economic sanctions on France. I should have thought that the whole question of trade with France would have been involved in such a proposition because it would not be possible to pick the eyes out of trade in that sense. I have great reservations about the proposals contained in the honourable senator’s question. However, those proposals have been put in good faith and I do not think it is for me to reflect upon them at question time. They concern matters of Government policy. I will have them directed to the attention of the responsible Minister, as is my duty when such a question is posed to me.

page 1561

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerning the document that he has tabled. If, as Alexander Barton has declared in that document, Jetair Australia Ltd was not in financial difficulties, why do pilots of that company still remain unpaid and why was it necessary for the Department of Civil Aviation to ask that $50,000 in ground fees be deducted from any amount paid to Jetair for aircraft purchased from it? Am I to take it from what the Minister has said this morning that the Minister is prepared to take the word of Alexander Barton, who has proved himself to be one of the greatest financial spivs in this country–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator GEORGES:

– . . . rather than depend upon the documents that he tabled, which reveal that Jetair was in financial difficulties?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am speaking in a House of the Parliament and I am giving information that has been given to me. Having regard to the correspondent’s complaint that some information publicised in relation to his company was untrue, fairness demanded that I should read what he had to say in his refutation of that claim. I do not endorse it; nor do I disclaim it. I call to mind that Senator Georges has referred to a facet of the files that shows that the Department of Foreign Affairs called to the attention of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Supply, at the time when the purchase price for the aircraft was payable, that the company owed to the Government not only airport charges but also some PostmasterGeneral’s Department fees and, I think, had other liability to another Department. With business acumen that becomes the Department, precautions were taken to see that those amounts - I think aggregating about $47,000 - were deducted from the purchase price and the balance of the $50,000 that was set aside to meet them was paid to the vendor company. That is an ordinary business precaution. It does not enable me to know anything further about the financial affairs of the vendor company than I have stated. I am not here either to vouch for its solvency or to deny it.

page 1562

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that there is a significant number of international agreements - particularly in relation to drug trafficking - which have been signed on behalf of Australia but which have not yet been ratified by Australia? Can he explain the reasons for the time taken to ratify international agreements?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In the last week or two I have tabled quite a number of agreements that I would have thought brought up to date the list of those that had been ratified. A perusal of the file would show that the procedures to be gone through after a treaty is originally agreed to in principle in order to reduce it to a form appropriate for signature, ratification and then presentation to Parliament is a very long drawn out process. Of course, most treaties require the support and signature of a number of nations which generally move according to the same time scale. I will inquire from the Department whether there are any outstanding treaties which relate to the subject mentioned by the honourable senator - drug trafficking - and whether there are any circumstances that should impel greater expedition in bringing them before the Parliament.

page 1562

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate which relates to a question asked earlier concerning French nuclear tests. In view of the current protests against the French nuclear tests, is the Minister aware that the Chinese share with the French a policy of persisting with nuclear testing? Is there any evidence of harmful levels of radio activity following the last French nuclear tests? If there is no evidence of health dangers, what are the grounds for protest? Finally, will any protests directed against nuclear testing be directed to both nations using nuclear test explosions?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe honourable senator’s question relates to an answer given earlier or, more particularly I think, to a question asked earlier. I am not in a position to say categorically the extent of the testing that has been conducted by Mainland China. Statements have been made through the agencies of 2 departments in relation to previous testing in the Pacific which state in fairly categorical terms that the influence of the tests has not been significant and, in fact, has not been a hazard to health. I am happy to obtain those statements and perhaps produce them tomorrow. As I say, I think they emanated from 2 different departments with an interest in the subject. As to the suggestion of Senator Prowse that if protests are to be made in relation to what the French Government is doing, protests should be made in relation to what the Government of Mainland China or other nations are doing. I could not agree more.

page 1563

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the Queensland Government has withdrawn supplementary financial assistance to many widows and deserted wives in that State because of increases in Commonwealth pensions? Was this action taken on a direction of the Commonwealth Government? If not, will the Minister take steps to investigate the matter with a view to restoration of family financial support?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThis would not be done, as the honourable senator suggests, by the Queensland Government on direction from the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Keeffe:

– I did not suggest that. I asked whether that was the reason.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONWell, the answer is no. It is quite proper - I would have thought that the honourable senator together with all of us would have appreciated this fact - that in relation to any benefit or in any Act relating to social services or repatriation, but particularly to social services, criteria must be established and a line must be drawn somewhere. Where any benefit is provided by an Act of Parliament, a line is drawn and that Act of Parliament states those areas in respect of which it will be effective. That is not a decision of Government. It is a decision by Act of Parliament. In other circumstances, such as taxation, restrictions are applied as to where benefits or allowances commence and finish.

The question posed by the honourable senator is an over-simplification of the facts. It is true that in all Acts of Parliament in relation to such benefits provisions are made for the payment or non-payment of certain benefits. I presume that the question is linked to the fact that, as the result of increased benefits being given at one end of the scale to certain people, those recipients have ceased to qualify for other benefits at the other end of the scale. If I were the honourable senator, I would particularise the question and direct it, perhaps, to the Minister for Social Services. We will treat the question in that way.

page 1563

QUESTION

MOOMBA-SYDNEY PIPELINE

Senator GIETZELT:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the

Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts been drawn to proposals by the Australian Gas Light Co. to pipe natural gas from Moomba to Sydney? Is the Minister aware that the shortest route proposed for the pipeline envisages an easement of probably 80 feet through the Blue Mountains National Park and the important Wollangambe wilderness area? For the information of the Senate, the declaration of an area as a wilderness area is supposed to preclude any construction whatsoever. In view of the Commonwealth Government’s new found concern for environmental matters, will the Minister ask his colleague to use his good offices with the New South Wales Government to ensure that no park lands, least of all wilderness areas, are in any way affected by natural gas activities?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that the honourable senator in his question has acknowledged the fact that it is a matter for the Commonwealth Minister to consult with the State Minister because the responsibility as to where this pipeline is to go, and what impact it may have upon environmental matters, lies with the State Government of New South Wales. The Commonwealth Government has endeavoured to initiate the Australian Environmental Council, under which these matters can be considered from time to time through the liaison which the machinery established by that Council permits. I shall certainly convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister whom I represent with the request that he should look into the matter and take such action as he feels he can take with regard to his New South Wales colleague.

page 1563

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SOCCER TEAM

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the shower of missiles and generally unpopular reception accorded to the Australian soccer team in its week-end game scheduled in Saigon, does the Minister believe that notwithstanding our military and civil aid contributions to South Vietnam we have created an image for Australia of an Asian liberator or that we are regarded as foreign policemen?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I think this goes back to a debate we had in the Senate a long time ago. I always have maintained that the association of sport and politics is a bad mix. I know that I was assailed for saying that on an occasion when we were dealing with another matter, but I still maintain that view. I believe that in the long run the good that will stem from sport is profound and that it will overrun any difficulties concerning nationalism which sometimes arise when sport is played. Perhaps I can move to an area closer to home. In Australia when the souths team plays the norths team, the norths team thinks that the souths team is not so good and the south’s team thinks the north’s team is not so good. If I may digress a little, I did see on television recently a game that is played in Victoria. Whilst I do not have much regard for the game, I thoroughly enjoyed it.I really do not think that we should inject politics into this tour. Anyway, I note that the Australians have been winning.

page 1564

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator BISHOP:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, also refers to the files to be tabled concerning the dealings with Jetair Australia Ltd. Will all the files, including the Department of Civil Aviation files, covering both DC3 and Viscount aircraft, be tabled in either the Senate or another place?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Senator Cotton earlier gave an answer in relation to this matter and it is not for me at question time, off the cuff, to move into that area. I thought that the answer which Senator Cotton gave dealt with the matter which the honourable senator has raised, and at this point, I have nothing to add to what Senator Cotton said. I do not think that the honourable senator has raised any new fact relating to the answer given by Senator Cotton.

page 1564

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. Did the Minister’s Department receive instructions - I believe from the Department of Foreign Affairs - to study the title of every aircraft purchased from Jetair Australia Ltd as the financial position of the company was in doubt, and to ascertain whether there were any liabilities or encumberances on the particular aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I understand that it did, but I want to be perfectly sure; so I suggest to the honourable senator that he place his question on the notice paper.

page 1564

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to the question I asked earlier concerning the tabling of documents dealing with Jetair Australia Ltd. I ask the Minister: Does he not agree that the refusal to give any assurance that all his Department’s files relating to Jetair would be tabled withholds from Opposition senators the information necessary to form a proper picture of the Department’s role in the Jetair affair and thus inhibits our capacity to ask specific questions?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No, I certainly do not. What we will be doing here will be answering, as we have always done, specific questions containing requests for information. We will do that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Prime Minister promised to table the documents.

Senator COTTON:

– Would you mind? Let me go a little longer. In the House of Representatives - I think last week - the Prime Minister undertook to table some relevant material relating, I believe, to DC3 aircraft purchased by the Department of Foreign Affairs and to some Viscount aircraft that were in the possession of Jetair. That material is being assembled and, if some opportunity is given to me to get out of this place and do some more work, it could well be tabled in the House in which it was requested today or tomorrow. I reiterate that I am most anxious to help honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to do their work properly. As I said earlier, I am also conscious of the fact that there are in the Department of Civil Aviation some 60 files relating to various aspects of this matter. Let us look at the administration of this country in a common sense way. Are we to bring all the files of all the departments of State into the Senate, on request? If so, we will turn the Senate into a lunatic asylum.

page 1565

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I regret that I have to add to his work. I refer to the hijacking farce which distressed him so much. Is there any truth in the newspaper report which appeared in Sydney last week that the alarm which was set off by the pilot was caused by the forceful abduction by the Greek authorities of a Greek priest from Sydney on that airliner? Will he give us a full report on this matter as soon as possible? If there is any truth in the report will he take suitable action to protest to those who were responsible?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have not seen that newspaper statement. I would be glad to look at it because it was a serious allegation that the newspaper made. The honourable senator may be sure that the Department of Civil Aviation and I myself will look into the matter very thoroughly. I think I would be more correct in saying that the accidental triggering of a particular switch in the aircraft cockpit, from the information available on the last occasion that I read about this matter, was not by the pilot but by somebody else in the cockpit. I think it would help the honourable senator if I said that we are getting together all the information on the whole matter, from both recordings and ground tapes, and examining it very carefully. What he has alluded to would concern me as much as it would concern him, and I will have it looked at very carefully.

page 1565

QUESTION

VOTING RIGHTS

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minster representing the Minister for the Interior. He will recall that earlier this session I raised the need for voting arrangements to be made for Australians stationed at Antarctic bases. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether arrangements have been made and whether all Australians on the bases will be able to cast a vote at the general election to be held on 2nd December 1972?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I can well recall the question. It was directed to the responsible Minister. I do not have a reply yet. At the same time I point out that Senator Mulvihill also asked me questions about voting. I have asked for information about them also. When question time is finished I shall raise both those matters with the responsible Minister.

page 1565

QUESTION

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Bureau of Meteorology Building, Cloncurry

I ask the Minister for Works whether he is aware that the airconditioning plant in the Bureau of Meteorology building at Cloncurry, Queensland, has never been listed on an inventory.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister has taken notice of the question asked by you on the date he has given. Apparently, in his own judgment, he thinks that the question should be answered. He is perfectly entitled to do so.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator asked:

Has this omission led to the improper servicing of the plant? Can he inform the Senate of the value of the plant and why it has never been listed on a departmental inventory

In reply I stated:

I did not even know that there was an airconditioning plant in Cloncurry so I am unable to inform the Senate on the condition of that plant. I shall refer the matter to the Department of Works and the information will be supplied after we have had sufficient notice.

The following additional information is furnished:

The Bureau of Meteorology has a radar building at Cloncurry. The radar equipment room and a small adjacent room are airconditioned; the plant was installed in 1952 and its original cost is estimated to be in the order of $8,000. The Department of Works records indicate that the airconditioning plant has been listed and subject to regular and proper maintenance for many years. Maintenance was carried out on the airconditioning unit as recently as September 1972.

page 1565

QUESTION

THE SENATE

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

– by leave - I move:

In that event the sitting will be resumed with the ringing of the bells. The motion is tailored so that should the Committees complete their deliberations earlier than 10 p.m. the bells will be rung for the Senate to come back into plenary session.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1566

MILITARY FINANCIAL REGULATIONS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - 1 wish to indicate that I make this statement on behalf of the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter).

The Minister for the Army has studied the 41st Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and has given consideration to the circumstances in which the need for retrospectivity arose in relation to the introduction of the special allowance called ‘Command Money’ to be paid to certain military personnel under regulation 3 of Statutory Rules 1972, Number 127. In initiating the statutory rule the Department of the Army was aware of the Standing Committees 25th Report which dealt with retrospectivity and its quite specific reference to retrospectivity extending beyond 2 years. However, as the personnel involved had a clear entitlement and as there were quite unusual administrative problems in this case it was considered the retrospective application of regulation 3 could be regarded as coming within the terms of the Standing Committee’s Report.

The Minister for the Army has studied the 41st Report and now agrees that the administrative problems involved do not constitute the type of exceptional circumstances envisaged by the Standing Committee and as recently expounded by that Committee.

The machinery introduced in the Department of the Army consequent upon the 25th Report, which was designed to keep matters involving potential retrospec tivity under surveillance, has not been entirely successful. Accordingly further efforts will be made to keep it to the minimum and certainly within the bounds set in the principles enunciated by the Standing Committee. In particular, the Minister for the Army has given an assurance that no proposal for amendment of regulations involving in excess of 2 years retrospectivity will be sponsored in future by the Army unless there are considered to be exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the Standing Committee’s 25th Report.

Speaking as the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) and as Minister for Air I give a similar assurance as it applies to the other Service departments.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– by leave - I inform the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) that members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee do not accept all that is in the statement just delivered by him. However, we are prepared to accept the assurances contained at the conclusion of the statement. For that reason I wish to report that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has presented to the Senate a report recommending the disallowance of the Military Financial Regulations referred to by the Minister. Senator Devitt, the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, has a notice of motion on the notice paper for the disallowance of the regulations. I am speaking on behalf of Senator Devitt and in relation to his notice of motion, which appears under Business of the Senate as notice of motion No. 2. In 1968 the Committee tabled its 25th report which objected to retrospective financial regulations. Paragraph 3 of that report stated:

Delay in the promulgation of regulations providing for the payment of moneys denies to either House of the Parliament the right to approve or disapprove of the expenditure at the time of expenditure and, under these circumstances, the Committee is of the opinion that such provisions should, more properly, be embodied in substantive legislation.

The report was strongly critical of the Service Departments, particularly the Departments of the Army and Defence, which had caused much of the retrospectivity through administration delays and inefficiency. The report set down guidelines which the Committee would adopt. Paragraph 17 of the report stated: 17 The Committee has now formulated guidelines which it will observe In its examination of such regulations. These are:

  1. All regulations, of whatever character, having a retrospective operation will prima facie attract the attention of the Committee.
  2. Where the retrospectivity involved is in relation to payment of moneys the Committee will view the retrospectivity as requiring close scrutiny.
  3. The Committee regards retrospectivity beyond a few months as objectionable. It is recognised, for obvious practical reasons of an administrative character, that some retrospectivity is inevitable. The Committee believes that such retrospectivity should be of the shortest period practicable.
  4. Regulations involving retrospectivity in payment of moneys, if extending beyond 2 years, will be the subject of report to the Senate and unless quite exceptional circumstances are established to the Committee’s satisfaction, will be the subject of a recommendation for disallowance.

The Committee will continue to scrutinise all regulations for payment of moneys which contain retrospective provisions extending beyond a few months, and will regard the retrospective aspect of such regulations as warranting some explanation.

These principles have been supported by the Senate on several occasions. In spite of clear terms of the report and the action taken by the Senate to support those principles, the Army persisted in bringing forward these regulations with retrospectivity of over 2 years. It was a clear defiance of the Senate and its Committee. As the 41st report of the Committee shows, the Department had no good excuse for the retrospectivity of the regulations. It was due to administrative inefficiency. The departmental witnesses admitted this in the evidence which they gave before the Committee. When they were asked by Senator Rae whether they thought that there were exceptional circumstances surrounding the making of the regulations, they admitted that there were not.

The Committee is reluctant to see the men concerned deprived of the pay to which they are entitled for any further period of time. They have already been deprived of their rightful entitlement for over 2 years by the inefficiency of the Department. It is for this reason, and not out of any wish to save the Department trouble, that the Committee is inclined to accept the Minister’s assurance that this will not happen again. The Committee considers that it ought to give the Service departments one more opportunity to put their houses in order and overcome the administrative problems. Therefore, on behalf of Senator Devitt and at his request, I seek to withdraw the notice of motion standing in his name, subject to the wish of any other honourable senator to take over the notice. After the assurance given by the Minister, the Committee and the Senator have the right to expect that there will be an improvement in the area of the retrospectivity of financial regulations. The Senate can be sure that such regulations will continue to be the subject of the closest scrutiny.

Notice of motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 1567

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr President, as this Bill was presented and read for the first time in the other place on 21st September, I seek leave to have my second reading speech on it incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the second reading speech of the Minister for Air is 16 foolscap pages in length. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The second reading speech of the Minister for Air read as follows) -

This Bill is designed to create a wool statutory body to be known as the Australian Wool Corporation, which will bring under a single direction the functions now performed by 2 separate instrumentalities^ - the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission. It is proposed, however, that these functions should be modified in certain respects to enable the new single body to play a more positive role in adapting wool marketing arrangements to present and future needs.

By introducing this measure, the Government wishes to assist Australian wool growers further in their efforts to advance the welfare of their industry. As clearly evidenced by the various measures taken by this Government in recent years, it is very conscious that the fortunes of this great industry are still, and will remain, of crucial importance to Australia’s economic life. This is so despite the remarkable growth of secondary industry and mineral production which has taken place in recent years. Indeed, much of this industrial growth has been made possible by the availability of foreign exchange earned by wool, which helps us to pay for imports of essential materials and equipment.

Last financial year our export income from wool, including woolled sheepskins, was $634m, representing 13.3 per cent of total earnings from all merchandise exported. This has been the lowest percentage ever recorded for wool and reflects, as all of us will be aware, the catastrophic fall which occurred in wool prices last year. In most previous years this percentage usually moved within the range of 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Going back to the 1950s and earlier the proportion of export income earned by wool was frequently around 50 per cent. The effect which wool price variations have on export income is demonstrated by the fact that on present production levels a change of one cent per kilogram means a variation of about S7m in our annual export proceeds.

As some 95 per cent of wool produced in Australia is exported, clearly our vast wool industry depends for its survival on the continued demand for wool throughout the world. This demand, however, can no longer be taken for granted. Particularly in recent years a greater variety and volume of new and improved synthetic fibres have appeared on the world textile market and many of these fibres have succeeded in capturing large sections of the market for wool products.

The availability of these substitute fibres has had the effect of lowering wool prices and their increasing production makes it essential for the wool industry to take all measures possible to combat this competition. This means that greater efforts will be required in all fields, particularly in wool marketing arrangements, wool research and wool promotion. The first requirement in this respect is to create an efficient and unified organisation so that the interests of the wool industry can be advanced in a business-like manner. This is the prime objective of the Bill we are now considering. The merging of the Wool Board and the Wool Commission into a single entity will permit the integration of research and promotion with the marketing of the clip and thus enable a total and fully coordinated approach to be adopted in stimulating the demand for wool.

In amalgamating the Wool Board and the Wool Commission into one body the Government is acting in accordance with the wishes of the industry. In March of this year the Australian Wool Industry Conference submitted to the Government proposals recommending this action. In addition the Conference recommended that the new body should be equipped with wide powers including the power compulsorily to acquire the total Australian wool clip. The Government decided that the proposals of the Conference should be examined by the Randall Committee in the course of its study of the problems of the wool industry in general. The Randall Committee saw the merging of the Wool Board and the Wool Commission as a logical and sensible move but felt that the proposal for compulsory acquisition needed to be spelt out in more detail so that the full implications could be assessed and firm conclusions drawn. In addition, it is recognised that compulsory acquisition can be implemented only through Commonwealth and State complementary legislation and that this legislation can only be drafted and considered when a detailed plan for wool acquisition has been developed.

Rather than delay action on the industry proposals the Government decided to proceed with the merging of the Wool Board and the Wool Commission and specifically to empower the new Wool Corporation to investigate the whole question of wool marketing and prepare a detailed plan for a compulsory acquisition scheme, clearly defined in all respects. The plan will need to be acceptable to the wool industry, the State governments and the Commonwealth

Government. The success of the Australian Wool Commission is seen as a result of its commercial orientation. In its marketing operations, the Australian Wool Industry Conference and the Government are agreed that the Australian Wool Corporation should be similarly orientated. Accordingly, the Government has suggested that the plan should be substantially in accordance with financial safeguards announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 20th June of this year. These safeguards are designed to ensure that the plan is commercially sound.

As I have intimated, under the Constitution the Commonwealth cannot alone legislate to grant the power of compulsory acquisition to the Wool Corporation. To grant the Corporation such power would require the consent and complementary legislation of the States. Providing a satisfactory and acceptable plan can be devised, however, the Government is prepared to develop the necessary legislation in conjunction with the States.

I now turn to the main provisions contained in the Bill. The Bill is divided into 8 Parts. Part 1 deals with the repeal of the legislation under which the Wool Board and the Wool Commission are established. It also sets out the objects of the Bill and lists definitions. Part II provides for the establishment of the Australian Wool Corporation, its principal functions and powers, staff and finances. The Australian Wool Corporation as a body corporate will consist of 9 members comprising a full time Chairman, 4 wool grower representatives, a representative of the Commonwealth and 3 other members who possess special qualifications.

The full time Chairman of the Corporation will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry for a period of 5 years. Provision has also been made for the appointment of an Interim Chairman. This provision is being made in case the person selected for the position of full time Chairman cannot take up his duties immediately. Provision is also being made for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman by the Minister from amongst the members of the Wool Corporation. All other members of the Corporation will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry for a period of 3 years. The 4 wool grower representatives will be appointed on the nomination of the Australian Wool Industry Conference. The 3 members with special qualifications will be appointed after consultation with the Wool Industry Conference and will be persons with experience in the marketing of wool or wool products, in the processing of wool or in the manufacture of wool products, or experience in the fields of commerce, finance, economics or science.

Appropriate provisions are made to cater for the appointment of deputies of members, leave of absence of members, vacation of office of members, declaration of interest by members, resignation of a member, removal from office of a member and the conduct of meetings. The remuneration of the Chairman, the Interim Chairman and members of the Corporation will be determined by Parliament but until 1st January 1974 the rate of remuneration will be prescribed by regulations. This provision has been made because it has not been possible to determine the respective rates of renumeration before the introduction of this Bill. In brief, the functions and powers of the new Australian Wool Corporation will include those which are now performed by the Australian Wool Board and the Australian Wool Commission. These cover wool marketing, wool use promotion, wool testing, wool research and wool stores administration. I shall deal with these functions in greater detail when covering the other Parts of the Bill.

The Corporation is empowered to employ its own staff and the Bill also contains safeguards designed to preserve the rights and entitlements of employees who pre now engaged by the Wool Board and the Wool Commission upon their transfer to the Corporation. It will be more convenient to deal with the financial provisions which are set out in Division 4 of Part II when discussing the other Parts of the Bill. Nevertheless, I should mention here that to give the Corporation the greatest flexibility in its operations, income derived by the Corporation from any source, other than profits from its wool trading operations, can be used for expenditure in connection with the performance of any function of the Corporation. Part III deals with the functions of the Corporation in relation to wool marketing. These in the main embrace the functions of the Australian Wool Commission, the best known of which is the operation of a flexible reserve price scheme for wool. Provision has been made, however, for the removal of the mandatory requirement to operate a price averaging plan for small lots of wool. This has been done to allow the price averaging scheme to be replaced by other lot building arrangements should this be decided upon.

It is proposed that the Corporation be given wide investigatory powers in regard to wool marketing and be empowered to recommend to the Government and the Australian Wool Industry Conference any changes considered necessary in marketing arrangements. Such changes may, of course, include the submission of a detailed plan for a compulsory acquisition scheme. Some other modifications have been made to the wool marketing functions to facilitate the operations of the Corporation in this field. In the main these are designed to enable the Corporation to make voluntary arrangements, with the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry, in connection with the terms and conditions for the sale of wool outside thi auction system and for the programming of such sales. In Division 4 of Part II of the Bill the Wool Corporation, like the Wool Commission, is empowered to borrow funds from banks or other institutions under Government guarantee to finance its reserve price operations and its other marketing activities.

The present provision is also continued for the Government to make advances to the Corporation for working capital in connection with its wool marketing operations. A special fund, however, is to be created to be known as the Australian Wool Corporation (Working Capital) Trust Fund, through which loans made by the Government for such purposes are to be channelled. Repayments of any such loans will be credited to the Trust Account and will again become available to be lent to the Corporation without need for a fresh appropriation. As at present, provision is made for the Corporation to enter into arrangements with wool-selling brokers for the collection of the charge from wool growers’ proceeds on wool sold at auction to finance the administrative costs of the Corporation in connection with its reserve price operations.

The Government will continue to meet one half of the re-handling and brokers’ administrative charges for wool included in the price averaging plan, whilst this plan continues to operate, at rates approved by the Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer. Provision has been made also in the Bill for the Government to meet a proportion of re-handling, administration or testing charges in any new lot building scheme that may replace the price averaging plan. The proportion payable is to be determined by the Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer. Any losses sustained by the Corporation from the purchase and sale of wool will continue to be underwritten by the Government. Profits made by the Corporation must be applied in the first instance to repay any past losses which had been met by the Government. Any profits remaining are to be held as a contingency against future losses. Provision has been made, however, for a portion of the profits to be used for other purposes, if need be, if this is approved by the Minister for Primary Industry and the Treasurer. It is provided in the Bill that the Corporation will take over the accumulated profits of the Australian Wool Commission.

Part IV of the Bill covers the responsibilities of the Corporation in the field of wool use promotion. The provisions contained in this part are similar to those which now apply to the Australian Wool Board. As in the case of the Wool Board, the Corporation will be able to borrow moneys for temporary purposes in connection with . its wool promotion activities. Part V of the Bill deals with wool testing. It has been so drafted as to continue the Australian Wool Testing Authority in existence without disturbance to its operations and, as far as possible, its membership. The provisions covering the operations of the Authority are similar to those contained in the existing Wool Industry Act. Provision has been made, however, for the functions of the Authority to be extended to allow it to carry out tests on non-wool fibres, whether natural fibres or otherwise, and non-wool textile products as well as on wool and products made wholly or partly from wool. This will enable the Authority to meet requests from the trade for the testing of non-wool fibres and nonwool textile products as well as allow it to earn additional income.

As provided in Division 4 of Part II of the Bill, the Corporation is empowered to borrow moneys for purposes associated with the operations of the Authority and such borrowings can be guaranteed by the Government. Part VI of the Bill covers wool research. Again, the provisions in the Bill are similar to those contained in the existing Wool Industry Act which governs the joint industry-Government scheme for wool research. The Wool Research Trust Fund is continued in existence under the same name. Part VII of the Bill deals with the wool stores which are now vested in and administered by the Australian Wool Board. The stores will be vested in and administered by the Wool Corporation under the same conditions as apply at present under the existing Wool Industry Act. The right of the Government to take the stores back in the event of a war emergency is maintained. As it will be well known, these stores were built during World War II and are now in need of extensive renovation and reconstruction if they are to be maintained in good order for future need. Accordingly, provision has been made in Division 4 of Part II of the Bill for the Government to guarantee borrowings by the Corporation for this purpose.

Finally, Part VIII of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters relating to the operations and requirements of the Corporation, as well as matters which are common to the other Parts of the Bill. Included in this Part are the present arrangements under which wool growers and the Government contribute funds for the financing of wool promotion and wool research. The arrangements for the current triennium expire on 30th June 1973 and accordingly, when the arrangements for the next triennium are determined, it will be necessary to amend the provisions which are contained in this Bill. This Part makes the usual provisions for the audit of the Corporation’s financial affairs to be carried out by the Auditor-General and for the Annual Report of the Corporation to be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry, who is obliged to table it in Parliament. To enable the smooth transfer of the functions of the Australian Wool

Board and the Australian Wool Commission to the new Australian Wool Corporation, the Bill will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed.

As I mentioned in the early part of my speech, the Australian wool industry is of vital importance to the national economy and must be preserved. Its importance lies not only in the significant contribution it makes to our export income but also in sustaining the livelihood of much of inland Australia. If the industry is to be preserved no effort must be spared to enhance its viability. This involves an energetic and imaginative pursuit of wool promotion combined with an effective research programme and an efficient marketing system. These activities require substantial funds to be effective and it is in the interests of us all to lend support to the wool industry. In this regard the Government is about to review the future needs for wool promotion and wool research and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on this matter soon. In this context it is appropriate to mention that the participation of the Australian Wool Board in the International Wool Secretariat will become the responsibility of the Australian Wool Corporation. Increasingly, the responsibilities of the International Wool Secretariat in ensuring the competitiveness of wool in the world fibre market are of prime significance in stimulating market demand. Accordingly, the budget needs of the International Wool Secretariat for its activities will also be included in this review.

In view of inflationary pressures, it is increasingly important to cut costs in all facets of the wool industry. A field which has a great potential in this regard is the handling and transport of wool throughout the whole sequence of wool marketing. Good progress has been made in the application of pre-sale objective measurement and the sale of wool by sample. I am convinced that the broader application of this technique, along with other technological advances, will enable new methods to be employed to streamline and reduce significantly the costs of wool selling.

The establishment of a single integrated wool body in the form of the Australian Wool Corporation will make it possible to co-ordinate the efforts in all the fields I have mentioned and so strengthen the position of the wool industry in the highly competitive world textile market. The new Corporation will have a big and most important task. It can rely on the full support of the Government at all times. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1572

WOOL (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Mr President, as this Bill was presented and read for the first time in the House of Representatives on 31st August, I seek leave to have my second reading speech on it incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw to the attention of honourable senators that the second reading speech of the Minister for Air is, in this instan’ce. 5 foolscap pages in length. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The second reading speech of the Minister for Air read as follows) -

The purpose of this Bill is to provide parliamentary authority for the extension of the wool deficiency payments scheme from 1st July 1972 until 30th June 1973. One 20th June 1972 the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) announced that the Government had decided to continue for a further 12 months the positive programme of support for wool growers which operated during the 1971-72 wool selling season. To recapitulate briefly, the scheme which was introduced in 1971 was designed to supplement wool growers market returns from shorn wool for a period of one year to a level equivalent to an average of 79.37 cents per kilogram for the whole Australian wool clip. Some lowgrade, low-value wools constituting about 10 per cent of the clip were excluded from the scheme as were woolled sheepskins. Deficiency payments already made to woolgrowers in respect of the 1971-72 wool selling season amount to just over $50m with a further amount of approximately $1.2m to be paid early in September in respect to wool sold in price averaging plan pool 4.

During the latter portion of the 1971-72 wool selling season the wool market rose to levels at which no deficiency payments were attracted. Nevertheless, the fact that the scheme boosted wool growers returns during the first half of the season by over $50m is positive evidence that the deficiency payments were of very real benefit to wool growers in a time of desperate need. The scheme itself guaranteed a reasonable return to wool growers for a product sold almost exclusively abroad at a time when there was a marked reduction in buyer interest. It enabled many growers to survive. The deficiency payments scheme was part of the extensive programme of Government support which has led to the renewal of confidence in the future of the wool industry. When the scheme was introduced in 1971 it was to have operated for one year only. In moving for the second reading of the Bill last year I stated that the deficiency payments scheme should be viewed in the context of a total approach to the urgent problems affecting wool growers. Its purpose was to assist in preserving the wool industry’s viability and to provide a breathing space so that necessary adjustments in the industry could take place with a minimum of economic and social disruption.

The 1971-72 wool selling season was the first full year of the operation of the Australian Wool Commission. The presence of the Commission, as a strong seller in the auction market operating above its minimum reserve, resulted in the acquisition of stocks of some 930,000 bales of wool by December 1971. Throughout this period the deficiency payments scheme guaranteed reasonable returns to wool growers while the Commission ensured that the clip was not sold at give away prices. At the same time steps were taken to accelerate the application of pre-sale objective measurement techniques and the sale of wool by sample. The recovery of the market this calendar year has justified the confidence of the Government in the industry. The measures now before the Senate demonstrate its continued confidence while marketing changes are being implemented. In the meanwhile the extension of the deficiency payment scheme for a further 12 months will protect the industry against extreme downward price movements while marketing reforms are being introduced.

The scheme is to operate on exactly the same lines as in 1971-72. A notional price scheduled for all the wool types which constitute the Australian wool clip is being prepared to give an average price of 79.37 cents per kilogram greasy over the whole season for the full clip. This schedule will have regard to the average greasy wool prices achieved during the 1971-72 wool selling season. At the end of each auction week the Australian Wool Commission or its successor will calculate the percentage difference between the actual proceeds and the proceeds based on the notional price schedule. This percentage will be applied to the gross value of eligible wool sold by each producer to determine the deficiency payment to which the grower is entitled. The scheme will cover wool sold and delivered by a grower up to 30th June 1973. Wool sold at that date but not delivered will not be eligible for a deficiency payment nor will wool delivered for sale but not sold. Procedures for transmitting deficiency payments to growers will also be the same as those applying for the 1971-72 wool selling season. A new category of persons registered under the Act is provided in the Bill. This category is the merchant who does not purchase wool direct from the grower, but who sells it on commission on behalf of the grower. Such persons who are classified for the purposes of the scheme as registered commission agents will need to apply for registration. The registration of other persons effected under the provisions of the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Act 1971 will continue in force for 1972-73.

The question of deficiency payments in respect of woolled sheepskins has been again examined. After a thorough review of the situation, it has been concluded that during the operation of the scheme in 1971-72 the trade in woolled sheepskins had not suffered adversely by the operation of the Deficiency Payments Scheme. It is likely that when the deficiency rate is of the order of 20 per cent, which was the case during the first half of the 1971-72 wool selling season, there will be some incentive for growers to shear sheep before slaughter. During 1971-72 the number of shorn pelts which could not be used profitably by the sheep skin industry increased markedly. This may have been due as much to the level of wool prices as to the operation of the scheme. When wool prices are at a level which attracts deficiency payments there is an incentive for wool growers to move from sheep to some other more profitable farm enterprises and there is a consequent rise in the number of sheep slaughtered. In 1971-72, despite the increase in shorn pelts, the number of skins with more than 2 inches of wool was only marginally down on the previous year. At this time there is no justification therefore in establishing a complex and costly scheme for the assessment of a deficiency payment on woolled sheepskins.

The Government will, however, continue to watch the situation and, should it become apparent that the woolled skin trade is being disadvantaged by the scheme, consideration will be given to what measures may be appropriate to correct the situation. Wool prices at the opening sales of the 1972-73 wool selling season have been higher than the closing levels of the 1971-72 season. It is expected that they will continue above the level at which deficiency payments will occur and the budget provision has been determined accordingly. The Act provides, however, for the appropriation of whatever funds should be necessary for the operation of the scheme in the event that the market falls below expectations. The extension of the deficiency payments scheme for a further 12 months will provide wool growers with a sense of security and should enhance confidence in the future of the industry. It will mean that those who are wool growers can confidently programme knowing again this year the minimum return which they can expect. The measures are indeed a further positive demonstration of the Government’s continuing confidence in the future of the wool industry. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1574

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade the following matter - Legislative and administrative measures necessary to protect the leather footwear and allied industries and, in particular, their access to Australian raw materials. 1 have moved for this inquiry because urgent action is required by the Government if the Australian tanning and leather industry is not to collapse. The tanning, leather manufacturing and boot trades Eire being gravely damaged by several factors. One is the abnormal demand for Australian hides by overseas markets and the resulting shortage of the raw material for the local industry. Australia is the only major hide exporting country with no governmental control on the export of hides. Because of the controls imposed by the Argentine and the United States of America on their export of hides and the subsequent inflated demand for Australian hides, local tanners are alarmed that they may not be able to obtain sufficient raw hides to service the shoe and leather industries which employ approximately 50,000 people.

Already Australian tanning factories and manufacturing industries have closed down. In Victoria alone, the Australian Leather Goods and Allied Industries Section of the Miscellaneous Workers Union has lost nearly one-third of its membership in the past 5 years. There has been a decline from approximately 4,500 to 3,000 which represents a loss of 1,500 members. Three major tanneries have closed down in Melbourne in the past 3 years with 800 men laid off and other tanneries and manufacturers are threatened with closure. I was told last week that unless there is a change in the position one major tannery will be forced to make a decision on whether it should close down its operations before Christmas. At least 2 others are in a similar position and the tanning industry generally may be faced with a collective decision to close down within the next several months. In the case of one major tannery I have mentioned hundreds of workers could be thrown out of work. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that this is a cumulative problem which would spread rapidly to the footwear industry. The problem could place in jeopardy not only the livelihoods of those engaged in the tanning and leather industries but also the livelihoods of thousands of workers in the associated industries.

The shortage of raw hides is so severe that prices have jumped by 200 per cent since December 1971. Shoe retail prices have jumped by several dollars a pair and more. Sections of the shoe manufacturing trade are dying out because retailers find it cheaper to import shoes. Thus we have this raw hides shortage contributing to the most serious economic problem facing this country today - inflation and unemployment. A second factor involved is the acquisition of one of Australia’s 3 largest hide exporting companies by the British hides monopoly, Barrow Hepburn and Gale Ltd which owns nearly all the other tanning organisations in the United Kingdom. Colyer Watson Pty Ltd, the Australian hides merchant taken over by the British monopoly, operates in all States of Australia. I am told that Barrow Hepburn and Gale Ltd is trying to take over one of the other 2 large Australian companies, Wilcox Mofflin Limited, but so far has been unsuccessful. A third large hide exporting company is William Angliss and Co., a division of the giant British firm, Vesteys.

The acquisition of Colyer Watson Pty Ltd places Barrow Hepburn and Gale Ltd in the invaluable position of having captured a raw hides supply before Britain’s completed entry into the European Economic Community which gives it a major advantage over the other European leather producing companies. If this opportunity is exploited and if the Australian Government’s policy towards the free export of hides remains as it is today, the Australian tanning industry will be unable to compete for the hides because of the trade barriers and duties in the markets of the western world. Because of the monopoly position and Australian interests of Barrow Hepburn and Gale Ltd, together with the Government’s refusal so far to curtail local hide exports, Australian tanners will face duties previously not experienced on their leathers entering the United Kingdom as well as undue competition from the United Kingdom in gaining its own raw material supply at a time of world wide shortage. Both these factors can be influenced heavily by action of the Australian Government. The extent and direction of such action can be investigated and recommended quickly by a committee. Significantly, this request for an inquiry into the need for quick action comes from both employers and the unions. They have co-operated because they realise that co-operative action is the only method by which an important Australian industry and a major employer of labour at a time of high unemployment can be saved.

Both sides of the industry have suggested possible solutions. Firstly, and most importantly, they seek urgent action to restrict the export of Australian raw hides, perhaps with cutbacks of between 30 and 40 per cent, with the remainder to service local industry. Secondly, they believe some action by the Government is necessary for our raw material to be processed to some stage, using Australian labour, together with trade initiatives to be explored for the development of markets in Eastern Europe for ‘crust’ and partly produced leathers. In fact, the industry believes that the best growth potential for the Australian industry is in developing markets for leather in Eastern European countries. The industry also suggests that import quotas should be placed on the imports of finished leather goods. The industry believes that the Government should set up the necessary machinery now to ensure that, if there is any export restraint by the United States or any other country which poses impossible problems for the Australian industry in its access to raw materials, immediate action could be taken to guarantee adequate supplies of Australian raw hides so that the local industry would not quickly collapse.

Further, the Government should seek to remove any discrimination against Australian leathers by Eastern European countries and Japan. It has been stressed that inquiry and action by the Government is extremely urgent. I have been informed by industry representatives that, if the shortage of raw hides becomes much more critical, further tanneries throughout Australia will certainly have to close. As I have indicated, some of the closures arc imminent and many hundreds of persons will lose employment. With seasonally adjusted unemployment at over 100,000, and large numbers of school leavers about to enter a depressed labour market, the gravity of the industry’s case for inquiry and action is obvious. The Government was made aware of the crisis last May, when a deputation of representatives of the tanning, footwear and shoe retail industries called on the Department of Trade and Industry with a detailed submission. Soon afterwards, I addressed a question on the matter to Senator Cotton in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. I gave notice of this motion on 26th May 1972.

A major industry is at crisis point and the Government should realise the deterioration which has occurred even since May. I have been informed that the most reliable and responsible persons amongst the unions and the employers consider that the state of the industry is extremely brittle, because of the acute supply problem, and urgent action is necessary. Any delay in dealing with this crisis will probably cause irreparable harm to the industry. It is open to the Standing Committee to consider recommending that the Government should accede to requests made by industry that the export of hides be placed on Prohibition List of Customs Schedule No. 10. This would enable the Government and the industry to keep a continuing watch over the balance between the export of hides and the supply needs of local industry. Quite reasonably industry leaders are not urging a total prohibition which would perhaps cut down the benefits which otherwise might accrue to the Australian primary industry. Industry leaders ask simply that the free export of hides should not reduce the supply for local processors.

It is evident that action is required. In proposing this motion I am not suggesting in any way that there ought to be a delay in urgent action by the Government to ensure that this industry does not collapse and to ensure that it does not suffer irreparable harm. I am conscious of the fact that the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade has a good deal of work to do. Nevertheless, here is an industry which, with its associated industries, comprises a considerable part of Australian industry and commerce. It is closely related to our primary industries. It is one of the areas in which we want to preserve not only the employment but also industrial opportunities for processing ourselves, either entirely or to some extent, the products of primary industry.

I suggest, with respect, that the industry is so clear in what it thinks should be done - the clear view which is held by the industrialists is shared by the trade union representatives - that it would be comparatively easy for the Committee to establish a sub-committee, which it is entitled to do, to hear the industry representatives and to report rapidly to the Government on what action ought to be taken. Therefore, I commend this motion to the Senate so that this Committee, which has done valuable work, may have this matter brought within its jurisdiction. There may be long terra solutions which could be postponed by the Committee, but it is quite clear that recommendations for immediate action ought to be made in the interests of the Australian community - particularly those who depend upon the industry for their livelihood. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Senate.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– 1 wish to support the motion and to congratulate Senator Murphy on bringing it before the Senate. The 2 industries which are most concerned in this matter are the tanning and shoe manufacturing industries, although also involved is the related leather goods industry which manufactures gloves, handbags, purses and articles such as those, which very often these days are not made of leather. I suppose that it remains one of the peculiarities of modern economics that we have allowed the completely free export of hides for as long as we have. The commodity is in short supply throughout the world today. Probably it cannot be processed to a greater degree in our own country before export because there are available now in many countries cheaper labour forces for processing this type of material.

With the development of a new concept of exporting complexes, particularly in the emerging nations, there is a great opportunity for these nations to bring raw material from countries such as Australia straight to the wharf, which is practically alongside a new government created factory which may be leased to a big international combine, and there to process it and then ship it out from the same wharf, thus eliminating transport and other costs. This gives an advantage to the cheaper labour countries, particularly those in the Asian area in which there are longer hours of work and less beneficial employment conditions, in terms of annual leave and so on. Not having to provide these things, which are unknown in some countries, gives those countries an enormous advantage in the processing of leather and allied products.

Tanning is a peculiar industry which has not changed a great deal over the centuries; the processes used today are similar to those which have always been used. The shoe industry probably is the most labour absorbing industry of all the apparel industries. Far greater labour resources are required to manufacture a man’s shoe than a man’s hat. Although those articles may retail at somewhat similar prices, there is a much greater variety of components in shoes and certainly much more complicated methods of manufacture are involved - even though they in themselves, have been simplified tremendously. One of the challenges to the shoe industry during the past 20 to 25 years has been the simplification of the process of manufacture because shoes do not have to be constructed as strongly as they used to be because people do not walk on wet pavements or through muddy streets, except in the developing areas of the big metropolises where some streets are unmade. Now people use motor cars whereas they once used to walk. So the requirement of the shoe industry has changed.

For many years I have wondered, because I was employed in the shoe industry for nigh on 20 years, about the popularity in countries abroad of some Australian hides which were used comparatively rarely, particularly for shoe manufacture, in this country. Twenty years ago I was doing a research programme in the United States of America. Without question the most valuable and the best hides for leather for the manufacture of shoe uppers were wallaby and kangaroo hides. Shoe manufacturers here recognised it. In America those hides were highly prized and highly priced. In Australia the hides, even when tanned and produced as leather for manufacturing purposes, were comparatively cheap. The shoes were never as popular in Australia as they could have been because of the bramble scratches on the hides which gave them a scarred surface which had healed over but had left a mark on the hide. They were pitted and people did not go for them. Their durability, the suppleness of the leather and their wearing potential, when compared with calf skins or any of the other usual hides used for boot or shoe upper leather manufacture, were probably of the ratio of about 3 to 1. America recognised it. Americans were prepared to pay high prices for shoes with bramble or scrub scratches on them where the animal had scratched itself going through the scrub, as kangaroos and wallabies do. We liked the very shiny calf skin which had been protected in a farmer’s property and did not have very many scars on it, although it had nowhere near the durability of the other.

I have wondered about these tricks of the industry. Why have not we popularised our product in our country more than we have? There seems no reason why there could not have been a complete ban on the export of kangaroo hides to a high wage level country such as the United States of America which is still, as I understand it, the main user of our kangaroo skins. That would have meant that the processing of that type of leather would have had to be done in this country and the processed leather would have been exported. We are not exporting to a country which can process the hide more cheaply than we can, unless it is being exported to American companies which have branches in countries where labour costs are somewhat cheaper than the labour costs here.

The shoe industry has had to face the introduction of synthetics. Their introduction has had a very powerful influence on the industry. They constitute a real challenge. As I understand the position now, from the rather hazy information that I have, synthetics are one of the greatest challenges to the industry. The Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade could examine matters such as this. About a year ago when I was abroad - because of my background, I am a leather enthusiast - I brought a pair of shoes made from a product produced by the Dupont corporation. The product is called corfam I am wearing those shoes at the moment. After 12 months’ wear I would defy anybody to distinguish them from leather. Both soles and uppers are made of corfam They seem to wear indefinitely. I understand that Dupont has removed this product from the market, for some reason or another. I do not know whether it is like the match that never wore out and it is ceasing to be a profitable product to place on the market.

This is the sort of challenge that industries such as our shoe industry, a high absorber of labour, have had to face in this country. They have done it with little complaint to date. They have made their representations. The shoe industry has been granted reasonable tariff protection because of the low manufacturing costs and the low labour costs in many of the competing countries. In spite of that, it has still paid retailers in this country to import from the low wage countries of South-East Asia volumes of the cheaper type of footwear, which is very often made out of leather substitutes, to compete with the Australian industry. It is one of the factors that has had a depressing effect on the industry for a considerable number of years. As more simplified methods of production have been evolved and as sandals have become popular with the people, it has been found profitable to import this type of footwear to the detriment of a section of the industry that was a very valuable adjunct to the Australian shoe manufacturing industry as a whole.

I do not want to go into the matter any further because the only requirement is for the Committee to establish that such an inquiry should be made. I limit myself to that statement, but if one wanted more information one would have to consider only the situation of big companies which were household names in this country, such as Bedggood Shoes Pty Ltd which was sold to an international company which ultimately closed the business merely to realise on the capital asset of the property. We support the motion.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 10.15 p.m.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I listened with great attention to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and equally with considerable interest to Senator Little who has had some experience in the leather footwear industry to which this matter refers. I have some observations from the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) which no doubt the Senate at this stage in the evening will be delighted to hear. Senator Murphy referred to possible loss of employment by members of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia which covers the industry that concerns the honourable senator in this matter. He mentioned that his motion was first put down on 26th May 1972. At about that time the Department prepared some material dealing with this matter. At this stage I do not think it helps a great deal to refer to that but only to the later material which is more up to date and which, therefore, may be more helpful.

A deputation representing the leather tanners, footwear manufacturers and footwear retailers made representations to the Minister for control of the export of cattle hides. The deputation was concerned that current trends in the world hide market would result in the local industry being deprived of raw material. Argentina and Brazil have banned exports and the United States has placed restrictions on exports. The prices on the local market have more than doubled since January 1972. The deputation stated that the industry is prepared to pay world prices for hides. It is concerned with the availability of hides and not the price of supplies. It is also concerned that all hides in Australia might be sold overseas under long term contracts. Footwear manufacturers have announced a rise in prices, as Senator Little observed. This has resulted in increased leather prices in relation to footwear made from local and imported leather. The Department of Trade and Industry undertook to examine the situation as a matter of urgency. The investigations it undertook have shown that hides are available provided local tanners are prepared to pay world prices.

The Department has contacted the Federated Hide Merchants Association which has been told that the Government is concerned about the availability of hides to local industry. The Government prefers to avoid control. It hopes that the industry will make the necessary arrangements to safeguard its own supplies. The merchants have told the local industry that they prefer to sell to the local industry and they have given an assurance that hides will be made available to local tanners provided that world prices are paid. They have denied that they have any long term contracts with overseas suppliers. The question of export control is still being considered. The latest reports from the United States show that the control on the export of hides may be lifted. The authorised removal of control was gazetted for 30th August and therefore should be now in operation. The Minister for Trade and Industry does not feel that it is necessary to refer the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade as suggested by Senator Murphy and supported by Senator Little. This is not the first time that the industry has approached the Government for export control on hides. A similar approach was made in 1966 and the then Minister for Trade and Industry rejected that application.

It is long standing Government policy to be against direct control of industrial transactions and prices. The Government is examining the industry’s request for export controls and is keeping the industry informed. On behalf of the responsible Minister and his Department all I say is that it did not appear to the adviser from the Department of Trade and Industry or to the Minister who read the report of the debate which was given to him that a case had been made out to justify the matter going before the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade which, as has already been observed, has 2 fairly substantial matters before it and they are not resolved. The first matter is:

The promotion of trade and commerce with other countries, the operation of Australia’s international trade agreements, and the development of trading relations.

This is not a light matter. It will probably take about 5 years to deal with it fully. The second matter is:

Determination of prices, measures to prevent unjustifiable price increases, and the establishment of a prices surveillance tribunal.

That is another matter which is not light. That is about a 5-year job, so there is about 10 years work ahead of the Committee. But as F understand this issue the Leader of the Opposition is anxiously awaiting a decision. He is supported by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. On that basis it is a reasonable assumption that the Government cannot win this matter, so the vote can be taken on the voices.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1579

ADJOURNMENT

Unemployment Benefit - Correspondence with Ministers

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– 1 use this occasion to convey to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) allegations which 1 have received from 4 residents of the north coast town of Lennox Head who claim that the rules for establishing eligibility for unemployment benefit seem to be unduly harsh. In essence they were told that work was available in Longreach, Brisbane or at the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd works at Whyalla. They were told that if they did not move on, irrespective of their economic situation, there would be no unemployment benefit for them. I do not propose to debate the issue. I shall give the Minister the 4 letters. I ask him to take this matter up because at this time lots of assertions have been made about the compilation of unemployment figures. 1 think it will be very educational to find out what the guidelines are in relation to eligibility for benefit on the north coast of New South Wales in circumstances like this. I leave the matter there.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not propose to detain the Senate for any great length of time. I assume that my remarks ought to be directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) who represents the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). Today probably every honourable senator on both sides of the chamber received a letter, as I did, from Mr Alan Russell of 37 Bradman Avenue, Maroochydore. Mr Russell has been known as an agitator in the cause of censorship over a long period. There have been occasions when he has written to members of this chamber and of the other place trying to put forward his views. I propose to speak from the angle that I am not defending the views put forward by Mr Russell but I defend his right and the right of every other Australia to be properly dealt with by members of this Parliament whenever representations are made to them. lt appears that the letter which I received today is an open letter to the Prime Minister. From the information conveyed in that letter it appears that over a long time the Prime Minister has constantly ignored Mr Russell and his views. He has a petition which he desires to forward through the Governor-General to Her Majesty the Queen. Whether we agree that a person’s attitude is correct matters little. Every person living in this nation is a free agent. He can put forward his point of view and ho has a right to be heard. Nowhere does he have a greater right to be heard than in the national Parliament. Perhaps I can make my point most adequately by reading a number of paragraphs from the open letter to the Prime Minister. This communication bears the date of 16th October 1972. Mr Russell states:

I register my strong protest at your treatment of representations made by me on behalf of countless Australians who are deeply concerned at your Government’s policy of permissiveness particularly in regard to censorship.

You have treated my efforts with contempt. None of my correspondence to you has been acknowledged let alone answered. I have not experienced such treatment from previous Prime Ministers or even lesser ministers. Do you put yourself above the Governor-General who personally ordered the acknowledgment of the same material which you ignored?

This was more than just bad manners - it was part of a definite plan to stifle my criticism cf your colleague, the Customs Minister. As he treated my correspondence similarly you have obviously conspired wilh rim to ignore my campaign hoping it would die out. This will not happen.

This is a lengthy document so I will quote only the relevant parts. Mr Russell went on to say:

It is in connection with my petition to the Queen that you are at your worst. Before preparing it I checked the feasibility of this move. The right to petition the Sovereign is clearly established in law. Similarly the Queen’s power to dismiss a minister through her representative cannot be disputed (Section 64 of the Constitution says ministers hold office ‘during the pleasure of the Governor-General’). His Excellency for many years had so expressed himself on moral Issues that there was no doubt how he would use bis discretionary powers, if allowed to do so. The evidence against the Minister was overwhelming.

Elegantly prepared and housed in a special cabinet the Petition, was accompanied by a lengthy, supplement containing the fully-developed argument and massive evidence - about forty pages in all. An indexed appendage contained a hundred or so references in the form of press cuttings, television news items and interviews, magazine articles, personal letters and the like.

In all, it was a tremendous effort costing over $200 and proving conclusively to an open mind that the removal of the Minister from office was justified and necessary in the public interest.

Later he continued:

Then you forced the Governor-General to hand tha petition on to you against whose administration it was protesting. Is this justice? How can you claim that you acted properly? Does a judge seek the views of a defendant, let alone accept them, as you have compelled the GovernorGeneral to do?

Two paragraphs later he said:

When ‘in accordance with constitutional customs’ (not, mind you, constitutional law) the petition was brought to your notice you took 6 weeks to inform His Excellency you had confidence in your minister. Twenty-four hours should have been long enough, but 6 weeks!

That, of course, was hard for Mr Russell to believe as it is hard for us to believe. He continued:

This is disgraceful conduct by a Prime Minister caught conniving against an ordinary Australian, not politically opposed to him, but simply doing his duty as he sees it, at his own considerable expense of time and money.

It would appear from those words that Mr Russell is a supporter of the Government who feels that he has been caught out on a subject that he felt he had a right to bring forward to the Prime Minister. Later he said:

You profess to be liberal in your political outlook, defending the rights of the individual and his freedom of speech, yet you have denied me these things. You have acted like a little dictator.

In the third last paragraph of his communication to the Prime Minister Mr Russell said:

I can only hope that the conscience of some Member or Senator, perhaps about to retire, like the Postmaster-General, will be stirred to the point of action. Perhaps someone will put Australia first, above party loyalty or rather subservience, and speak up in the last hours of this Parliament.

Unlike the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme), I am not retiring from this Parliament after this session, or the next session, or the next several sessions.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– What date Is on that letter?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is dated 16th October 1972. This man is not unintelligent. He has been known for his operations in this field over a lengthy period of time. I do not agree with most of the things he does but 1 agree with his right at least to be acknowledged by the Prime Minister and by other responsible members of this Parliament and to be able to put his case. Perhaps we might look into this matter a little further. Today I was asked by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), as the representative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), to help in obtaining information regarding a question associated with Jetair Australia Ltd. I thought that was a reasonable request and I was prepared to go to the trouble of tracing it in Hansard. However, I am afraid that after hearing the Minister quote something tonight and in fact virtually say that a letter he read in this chamber today was gospel, I think he feels that he is on top of the world. I think that Mr Charles Jones, a member of the other place, dealt very adequately with him. Nevertheless I do not feel disposed any longer to look up things the Ministers ought to be able to look up.

Is this what happened in the case of the Prime Minister? Is it a case of postponing something in the hope that it will die out, like Jetair and a lot of other semi-scandals or scandals that have faced this Parliament particularly during the last 2 or 3 years? I believe that under these circumstances Mr Russell has a right to be heard and a right to have his correspondence acknowledged by the Prime Minister, even if the Prime Minister writes to him and says that he cannot do anything about it. Every Australian has the right to be heard by this Government. I leave it with you, Mr President, and I hope that some recognition will be given to the subjects I have raised.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise to acknowledge what Senator Mulvihill said about the cases of unemployment to which he referred. I will have them passed on to the Department of Labour and National Service for consideration.

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

– Senator Keeffe read to the Senate a letter compiled by Mr Russell.

Senator Keeffe:

– Not all of it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is what I was about to say. From what I could see from my seat, the letter covered about 4 pages and he read paragraphs which suited his particular purpose. Apparently the letter was written yesterday, and from what I can gather Mr Rus sell said that he enclosed 100 newspaper cuttings. If Senator Keeffe is prepared to let me look at the documents he has, I will make certain inquiries after I have read them.

Senator Keeffe:

– Mr President–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister has closed the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

page 1582

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 1582

QUEENSLAND: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL REPTILE ZOO

(Question No. 2224)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that a Mr A. Henschel who has established a commercial reputile zoo north of Cardwell, Queensland, has been refused assistance by both the Queensland Minister for Tourism and the Queensland Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen in obtaining Tourist Bureau publicity.
  2. As this project is rapidly becoming a viable project, will he investigate the possibility of giving moral and, if possible, financial support at a Commonwealth level to Mr Henschel.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Minister was not aware that Mr Henschel had been refused assistance for his reptile park at Cardwell, by the Queensland Government
  2. As a result of the 1972-73 Budget an approach has been made to the States seeking their agreement to a programme of development of tourist attractions considered to have particular appeal to overseas visitors. Under the proposed scheme the Commonwealth will match expenditure $ for$ up to a total of$1 million annually. Until the administrative arrangements have been finalised in consultation with the States, it is not possible to state precisely what projects will be eligible for joint Commonwealth-State assistance. Certainly the projects will have to be of particular appeal to visitors from overseas and priorities will have to be established. Bearing in mind the Australian Tourist Commission’s responsibility for promoting Australia’s tourist attractions overseas, I arranged for this matter to be brought to their attention to see if anything could be done to assist in the promotion of the reptile park. When an officer of the Commission is next in the general area, he will visit the reptile park in order that it can be assessed in relation to overseas visitor requirements.

page 1582

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(Question No. 2311)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. How many women occupy senior positions in the Central Office of State offices of the Department of Housing.
  2. Is there a serious imbalance between the sexes employed in the State offices of the Depart ment; if so, what endeavours, if any, has the Minister made to ensure that women are given an equal opportunity to serve in senior positions.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. For the purposes of providing an answer to this question the reference to ‘senior positions’ has been treated as meaning positions which have a maximum salary above the maximum of Class 8 in the Clerical/ Administrative Structure of the Third Division. There are 16 positionsin the Central Office of State offices of the Department of Housing so classified. None of the positions are presently occupied by females.
  2. All senior positions in the Commonwealth Service are open equally to males and females. There is no restriction of the promotion of women to senior positions on the basis of their sex. Under the provisions of the Public Service Act, the promotion of officers to Departmental positions under the Permanent Head is the responsibility of the Permanent Head and the Public Service Board rather than the Minister. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to intervene in Departmental staffing matters or attempt to influence particular promotion decisions.

page 1582

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

(Question No. 2322)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. How many women and how many men are employed at senior levels of the Department of the Interior in the Central Office, Management Services and Property Division, Australian Capital Territory Services Division, the Australian Capital Territory Lands Division and the Northern Territory Division.
  2. How many women and how many men are employed as information attaches or senior executives in the Australian News and Information Bureau.
  3. What endeavours, if any, has the Minister made to ensure that women are given equal opportunity within the Department and the various bodies within the Minister’s area of responsibility.

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

  1. One woman and 123 men are employed at senior levels (above Clerk Class 8) in the areas of the Department of the Interior which now encompass those mentioned.
  2. Fifteen men and no women are employed as information attaches or senior executives in the Australian News and Information Bureau.
  3. Under the provisions of the Public Service Act, the promotion of officers to Departmental positions under the Permanent Head is the responsibility of the Permanent Head and the Public Service Board. All senior positions in the Department and the various bodies are open equally to males and females.

page 1583

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE: TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 2369)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Was Mrs Patricia June Eatock summarily dismissed from the Commonwealth Gazette Office of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts at 4.51 p.m. on Friday, 18th August 1972.
  2. Was Mrs Eatock transferred without notice from the position of Switchboard Attendant in the Office of Aboriginal Affairs to the Gazette Office on 14th July 1972, and was that the same day that she spoke at a Black Moratorium meeting.
  3. Was Mrs Eatock dismissed from the position with the Office of Aboriginal Affairs at the personal instigation of the Minister; if so will the Minister investigate this case immediately with a view to restoring Mrs Eatock to her former position as she was informed that, as a temporary employee, she has no right of appeal against the decision to dispense withher services.

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

  1. My Department has advised that by notice on 18th August 1972 the services of Mrs Eatock, a temporary employee, were dispensed with under Section 82 (6) of the Public Service Act 1922-1972, with effect from 4.51 on 18th August 1972.
  2. My Department has advised that on 14th July 1972 a permanent officer who had been appointed to the position temporarily occupied by Mrs Eatock, commenced duty and that arrangements were then made to employ Mrs Eatock in a temporary capacity in a position of the same classification in another section of the Department.
  3. No.

page 1583

HOTEL/ MOTEL CONSTRUCTION

(Question No. 2370)

Senator McAULIFFE:

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

  1. Is it a fact that of some 8,000 hotel/motel rooms of an international standard mooted for construction in the eastern State capitals only50 per cent are likely to be constructed; if so, will this reduction have a deleterious effect on the Australian tourist industry.
  2. Will the Minister make a statement on the provision of government assistance for the construction of international standard hotels in cities.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Senator McAuliffe may be referring to reports issuing from the Australian Tourist Commission some time ago.

I understand that about two years ago the Commission estimated that during the preceding two or three years, hotel/motel projects promising about 8,000 international or top-class rooms together with convention facilities had been announced for Melbourne and Sydney. Subsequent inquiries apparently revealed that projects in the category of ‘cancelled’ or’very likely to be cancelled’ accounted for about 3,000 of those rooms.

I understand that the Commission, while keeping generally abreast of the trends in the accommodation industry does not presently have precise figures available on the future accommodation construction programme. In the absence of precise and current data, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the adequacy of planned accommodation. However, I understand that there is currently surplus capacity in the accommodation industry particularly in some capital cities.

  1. The Government recently looked at the whole question of financial assistance to the tourist industry. It decided that the best way to allocate its limited resources was to assist the development of tourist attractions such as Australiana and pioneer settlements, the preservation of historic sites and buildings, fauna sanctuaries and the like, considered to have particular appeal to overseas visitors.

It was not considered appropriate to provide general assistance to the accommodation sector at this stage.

page 1583

NORTHERN TERRITORY PRISONS BRANCH

(Question No. 2387)

Senator McLAREN:

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

  1. Are the advertisements inserted in the weekend press by the Northern Territory Administration seeking men for positions as gaol guards for service at either Darwin or Alice Springs the result of complaints that the Darwin Gaol, in particular, is understaffed.
  2. Is the present recruitment drive only for the purpose of replacing staff who have either retired or resigned.
  3. What are the qualifications required by the Northern Territory Administration in theareas of man management and discipline by persons applying for these positions, and what is the period and type of training course to be undertaken by successful applicants before commencing duty.

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

  1. and (2) The advertisements referred to are part of a continuing process of recruiting gaol guards for the Northern Territory Prisons Branch. The Darwin Gaol is fully staffed at present but there are 3 vacancies at the Alice Springs Gaol. It has been the experience of the Northern Territory Administration that other vacancies could occur before the present recruiting campaign concludes.
  2. No formal qualifications in the areas of man management and discipline are required. However, aptitude in these areas and qualities such as good character, relevant experience or an aptitude for training and employment as a gaol guard are looked for in applicants. New staff are trained on the job under the guidance of experienced officers.

page 1584

IMMIGRATION SCREENING PROCEDURES

(Question No. 2404)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a report of a court case involving Mr Mirek Mynar of Bankstown, New South Wales.
  2. Did the police prosecutor in the case oppose ball on the grounds that ‘there is a matter of murder against him in Czechoslovakia in 1959’.
  3. Will the Minister take action to ensure that screening procedures are tightened so as to prevent persons with serious criminal records from entering Australia.
  4. Will the Minister investigate the case of Mr Mynar to ascertain if it reveals any defects in immigrant screening procedures.

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

I have seen an account of these proceedings as reported in a Sydney newspaper.

The caseis still before the Court and is therefore sub judice. In view of this it would not be proper for me to offer any comment.

page 1584

DDL DESTROYERS

(Question No. 2414)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Was the original cost estimate for the purchase of 3 DDL destroyers too low by some $40m.
  2. What is the latest cost estimate forthe destroyers.
  3. What steps has the Government taken to ensure that this project is not subject to the same cost overruns which have so inflated the price of the F111 aircraft.

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

  1. No, this is not the case.
  2. The estimated comprehensive project investment cost for 3 ships is $355m in 1972 prices. This includes $220m (in 1972 prices) for ship construction costs including dockyard overheads, to which are added allowances for design, dockyard improvements, support and training equipment, the establishment in Australia of manufacture and repair facilities, ammunition, ships’ helicopters and spares.
  3. The Government is taking every available precaution to avoid cost overruns on the DDL project. In this regard, special management arrangements are being made for the project by the Departments of the Navy and Defence in association with management consultants. Provision has been made for Cabinet to review the project at important milestones.

page 1584

BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY BUILDING, CLONCURRY

(Question No. 2429)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Has an air-conditioning plant located in the Bureau of Meteorology building at Cloncurry, Queensland, never been included in an inventory; if so, has this omission led to its improper servicing.
  2. What is the value of the air-conditioning plant and why was it not included in the Bureau’s inventory of plant.

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

  1. and (2) The air-conditioning plant which forms an integral part of the building at Cloncurry was included as a prime cost item, valued at about $8,000, when the building was constructed in 1952. It is not therefore included in a separate plant inventory. The plant is regularly serviced by the Department of Works on an annual basis and emergency services are arranged as and when required.

page 1584

QUEENSLAND POLICE FORCE

(Question No. 2474)

Senator McAULIFFE:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Queensland Government refused to provide volunteer members of that State’s police force for service with the Australian Police Unit serving with the United Nations’ Peace Keeping Force in Cyprus; if so, what were the reasons given by the Queensland Government for declining to provide volunteers.
  2. Were representations made to the Queensland Government in an endeavour to have it reconsider its decision; if so, by whom and when.

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

  1. and (2). Early in 1971 the Minister in charge of Police in Queensland advised that on account of the situation with the police strength in Queensland that State would withdraw its participation from the Australian Police Contingent in Cyprus. In May of that year the then Attorney-General wrote to the Minister in charge of Police asking that the decision not to continue to participate be reviewed. In August 1971 the Minister replied confirming the earlier advice that the stalling position in the Queensland Police Force was such that the State was unable to agree to continue participation in providing men for the Australian Police Contingent in Cyprus.

page 1585

ALLIGATOR RIVER REGION: WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

(Question No. 2463)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Does an article in the July 1972 issue of ‘The Northern Territory Newsletter’ state that an area of 1,250 square miles in the Alligator River region will become a wildlife sanctuary; if so, will this area:

be excluded henceforth from any mining operations, and

be not reduced in size to meet the demands of future mining operations.

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

An area of 1,250 square miles of the Alligator River region has been declared a wildlife sanctuary.

It is not proposed to exclude the sanctuary from any mining operations, nor is there any proposal to reduce the size of the sanctuary to meet the demands of future mining operations.

page 1585

TASMANIAN PINK PAGES

(Question No. 2475)

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

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

What additional costs or expenses have to be met by an advertiser who now wishes to advertise in the ‘pink pages’, on a State-wide basis, in Tasmania since the telephone directory for that State was divided into three separate volumes.

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

The rates for advertising in the Pink Pages were increased throughout the Commonwealth in 1971 and, as the former State-wide Tasmanian directory was issued in three separate volumes in that year, it is difficult to directly compare advertising costs in Tasmania prior and subsequent to the issue of separate directories in that State.

Advertising rates are graded according to the circulation of the various directories. With this in mind, and taking a half inch card advertisement as an example, the cost of inserting such an advertisement in each of the three Tasmanian directories is $40.20 a year, as against $24.00 if a State-wide directory were issued. However, in the latter circumstances, the charge of $24.00 would also apply to the many small businessmen who desire to advertise locally and who, under the present arrangements, pay only $15.00 in the 002’ Directory or $12.60 in either of the ‘003’ or 004’ books.

page 1585

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

(Question No. 2465)

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

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

Were the following aircraft purchased from Jetair Australia Ltd VH-EQN. VH-EQO, VH-EQB, VH-BUR, VH-TAI, VH-SBN, if so, on. what dates were each of these aircraft delivered and to whom.

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

Yes. The dates the aircraft were delivered were supplied to the honourable senator on 16th May 1972 (Hansard page 1653). The destinations of the aircraft were:

Nepal- Two aircraft (VH-EQN and VHBUR) delivered on 18th August 1971.

Laos- Three aircraft (VH-EQO. VH-EQB and VH-TAI) delivered on 26th September 1971.

Khmer Republic- One aircraft (VH-SBN) delivered on 5th September 1971.

page 1585

ALIENS ACT

(Question No. 2466)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Have 200,000 aliens failed to register with the Department of Immigration, as they are required by the Aliens Act to do every September; if so, have any prosecutions been launched against aliens for failing to register.

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

No. All aliens entering Australia are registered and the number as at 30th June 1972 was 536,000. Each year they are required to notify their current addresses. For details of compliance with this requirement and the reasons why prosecutions have not been launched see the answer to Question No. 2441 (Hansard, 17th October 1972.).

page 1586

NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 2481)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Did the National President of the Australian Conservation Foundation refuse to make a public statement condemning the recent series of nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean conducted by France.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has informed me that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I have no knowledge of any refusal by the National President of the Foundation to make a statement on this issue.

page 1586

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

(Question No. 2482)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. Did the tabling in the Senate on 27th September 1972 of papers relating to the purchase of 6 DC3 aircraft from Jetair Australia Ltd cause great concern to some senior public servants in 4 Government Departments.
  2. Did Mr K. C. O. Shann, C.B.E. Deputy Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, in a Departmental Minute in 1971, stale that the details of the order given to him by the then Secretary to the Department of Supply, Mr A. S. Cooley, were ‘very disturbing’.

  3. Did a Senior Department of Supply officer in a minute to Mr Cooley ask:

    1. what grounds there were for restricting the purchase to Jetair Australia Ltd; and
    2. what grounds were there for considering $275,00 a reasonable price.

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

  1. No.
  2. Not that expression. The record appears in the papers tabled.
  3. Yes.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 17th August 1972 Senator Mulvihlll asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior:

Can the Minister give any indication of what responsibility the Commonwealth Government is going to assume for finding accommodation for the people who face eviction as a result of the proposed construction of a $50m office block by the Commonwealth at Woolloomooloo.

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

A proposal to construct Stage 1 of a Commonwealth office complex on a Commonwealth-owned site at Woolloomooloo has been examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The Committee has recommended against proceeding with construction.

Because of the high rentals the Commonwealth is required to pay for privately owned office accommodation for Commonwealth Departments that have to be located in the central city area the Commonwealth Government will have a requirement at some stage to locate Commonwealth offices in central Sydney. Until the Woolloomooloo site is re-developed it is not envisaged that action will be necessary to find accommodation for residents remaining on the site.

The Department of the Interior had earlier discussed with tenants and with State and local authorities the question of what arrangements might best be made for the re-housing of tenants who because of their particular circumstances might be unable to obtain alternative accommodation when they might be required to leave the site.

The Commonwealth expects with the cooperation of the appropriate State authorities to avoid undue inconvenience or hardship.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 13th September 1972, Senator Keeffe asked the following question:

I ask the Minister for Works whether he is aware that the air-conditioning plant in the Bureau of Meteorology building at Cloncurry, Queensland, has never been listed on an inventory. Has this omission led to the improper servicing of the plant? Can he inform the Senate of the value of the plant and why it has never been listed on a departmental inventory?

In reply I stated:

I did not even know that there was an airconditioning plant in Cloncurry so I am unable to inform the Senate on the condition of that plant. I shall refer the matter to the Department of Works and the information will be supplied after we have had sufficient notice.

The following additional information is furnished:

The Bureau of Meteorology has a radar building at Cloncurry. The radar equipment room and a small adjacent room are air-conditioned; the plant was installed in 1952 and its original cost is estimated to be in the order of $8,000. The Department of Works records indicate that the airconditioning plant has been listed and subject to regular and proper maintenance for many years. Maintenance was carried out on the airconditioning unit as recently as September 1972.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 20th September. 1972, Senator Bonner asked me the following question:

Is the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral aware of the working conditions of commercial radio announcers? Is he aware that their award wage is less than $50 a week, and that this award wage was fixed in 1956? Is he also aware that announcers sometimes work as many as 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, without extra reimbursement?

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

I understand that the question of award rates for commercial broadcasting station announcers is at present the subject of negotiations between the Actors’ and Announcers’ Equity Association of Australia and the operators of the stations. This matter is entirely one for discussion between the employers and the appropriate union. Neither the Government nor the Australian Broadcasting Control Board have any involvement in the matter.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 10th October Senator Hannan asked a question about the Commonwealth Literary Fund. The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Literary Fund is administered by a Committee comprising the Prime Minister (Chairman), for whom the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts acts, Mr P. E. Lucock, C.B.E., M.P., Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Mr E. G. Whitlam, Leader of the Opposition.

On all literary matters the Committee is advised by an Advisory Board of 7 experts in various fields of literature. At present they are:

Professor G. Blainey, historian and Professor of Economic History, University of Melbourne (Chairman).

Mr G. Dutton, poet, biographer and critic, Adelaide.

Mr F. Eyre, writer and Australian manager, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Professor A. D. Hope, O.B.E., poet and critic, Canberra.

Mr H. G. Kippax, Associate Editor, ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ and drama critic, Sydney.

Mr D. Stewart. O.B.E., poet and critic, Sydney.

Miss Kylie Tennant, novelist and critic, Sydney.

The purpose of the Commonwealth Literary Fund is to foster Australian literature and, in particular, to finance:

Fellowships to enable Australian writers of merit to devote their time to literary work;

assistance to publishers for the publication of Australian manuscripts considered to be of outstanding literary merit;

assistance to publish Australian literary magazines;

pensions to Australian writers in recognition of their contribution to Australian literature: and

assistance to other projects which will encourage the production of works of literary merit and recognise Australian writing.

Applications for the 1973 Fellowships closed on 31st July. They are at present under consideration and should be announced late this month.

It would of course be open to Mr Calwell to apply for a Fellowship next year. However Fellowships are not awarded for published works. Their purpose is to give writers the opportunity to devote themselves full-time to writing for the period of the Fellowship.

The general conditions governing the award of a Fellowship are:

that the recipient must not engage in other full-time activities during the period of the Fellowship (there is no objection to engagement in minor or irregular activities but details are to be supplied);

that quarterly reports should be furnished on progress with the project;

that the continuance of support under the Fellowship is contingent on the quarterly reports being satisfactory;

that at the completion of the Fellowship a copy of the work carried out during the period for which the award was made is submitted to the Fund for permanent retention.

page 1586

COMMONWEALTH OFFICE BLOCK: WOOLLOOMOOLOO

page 1586

BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY BUILDING, CLONCURRY

page 1587

COMMERCIAL RADIO ANNOUNCERS

page 1587

COMMONWEALTH LITERARY FUND

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 October 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19721017_senate_27_s54/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant