Senate
27 September 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

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

page 951

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I inform the Senate that the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) leaves Australia today to lead the Australian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in New York and to other international meetings in Japan and France. He is expected to return to Australia on 22 October. During his absence the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) is acting Special Minister of State. In this chamber I shall represent those Ministers normally represented by Senator Willesee.

The PRESIDENT:

– Will that representation be in addition to the representation of Senator Douglas McClelland?

Senator MURPHY:

-Apparently, Mr President.

page 951

NOTICES OF MOTION

Land Acquisition Act

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-( Western Australia- Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate)- I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the notice of acquisition of land by the Commonwealth published in Gazette No. 70A of 1 5 June 1 973 under the Lands Acquisition Act 19SS-S6, authorising the acquisition of land by compulsory process for the following public purpose approved by the Governor-General: The planned development and control of the city of Darwin and its adjacent areas (Ex Min No. 642), be void and of no effect.

Sewerage Rates Ordinance

Notice of Motion

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

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

That section 16 of the Sewerage Rates Ordinance 1973, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance 1973 No. 25 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-72, be disallowed.

page 951

QUESTION

AIRLINE SERVICES

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. He will recall that yesterday I asked him a question, to which he gave me a very good answer, concerning the present airline dispute which is affecting the operation of airlines in Australia. The Minister will recall also that he informed me and the Senate yesterday that a certain conference was to be held yesterday afternoon. I ask the Minister whether as a result of that conference being held he can give the Senate any further information on the present industrial situation?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The conference yesterday proved abortive ; there was no solution. Talks are currently in recess and a representative of the Department of Transport will be attempting this morning to get the conference started again. The union representatives were hard to contact after the conference as they went to Sydney by car, not risking the facilities of Mascot for a return by air.

page 951

QUESTION

REPAYMENT OF COURT FINES

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the question which I asked yesterday and the answer which he gave concerning repayment by the Commonwealth Police of fines imposed upon persons convicted of offences in political demonstrations before this Government came to power. Is it a fact that at the time I asked the question he was unaware that there had been any such repayment of fines? If so, has he made any inquiries and what is the outcome of those inquiries? Have there in fact been many fines repaid? What is the Government’s policy in regard to the repayment of fines?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I recall the question which the honourable senator asked. The practice is that inquiries are instituted as soon as I indicate that they will be. I regret that because of other business that has occupied me I have not been able to ascertain the result of the inquiries. I will endeavour to get the information for the honourable senator during the course of the day.

page 951

QUESTION

DETENTION OF TAIWANESE FISHING TRAWLER CAPTAINS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Following my question to the Attorney-General yesterday relating to the circumstances surrounding the detention of 2 Taiwanese fishing trawler captains in the Perth lock-up, I now ask the AttorneyGeneral whether the Government has taken, or proposes to take, any action to secure their release from goal or their repatriation to Taiwan?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-This is really a matter which, I think, comes within the province of the Minister for Primary Industry. Insofar as it concerns the Attorney-General’s area, I understand that an appeal is being taken by the 2 persons concerned and that will be dealt with in the ordinary course of judicial administration.

page 952

QUESTION

MEAT PRICES

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether the 40 per cent rise in the consumer price index since December is due principally to increased meat prices? Are the higher prices of meat caused by primary producers demanding the increase or by meat buyers paying an amount based on world prices?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

-The recent increase in the consumer price index can be attributed to some significant degree to increases in the price of meat and other foodstuffs. This is the normal operation of the market at the present time. The demand for meat overseas and the prices being paid are high. I think it would be incorrect to say that there is any demand by primary producers for those prices. The market is such that they are obtaining those prices, and the competition is such that it is creating a pressure on prices in this country. My latest information is that the price on the American market has slipped in the last 2 or 3 weeks and there is also a levelling out of prices in Australia. I feel certain that in the next 2 or 3 months we will find that we are over the worst of this period.

page 952

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE: VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the Royal Australian Air Force has been cut back in strength with one Mirage squadron being demobilised? Is it not also a fact that the number of flying hours flown by RAAF pilots has been greatly curtailed? If one of the important arms of our Defence Services has been so restricted in the so-called cause of Government economy, why is it that the Federal Treasurer has been allowed an RAAF VIP aircraft to fly to Nairobi, a trip which will take some 1 6 hours flying time each way and will cost about $20,000, when he could have gone by commercial aircraft.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator knows the rules.

Senator YOUNG:

-Is it a fact that he could have gone by commercial aircraft at a cost of about $1,600? Is this not just another case of the double standards of this Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Most of the honourable senator’s question does not come within the 12 to 15 portfolios that I represent in this place. His question should have been directed to Senator

Bishop who is the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. My understanding is that there are restrictions upon the use of VIP aircraft. In any event, VIP aircraft are used not only for the conveyance of Ministers and others but also to enable pilots to log the required number of flying hours. It is probably a very great convenience for the Minister to be able to take the trip in the way in which he is now taking it. I understand that these explanations were put out very convincingly over the years by Senator Drake-Brockman when he was a Minister in this chamber. He instructed us so carefully in the matter that I am able to remember the explanations myself.

page 952

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: EMERGENCY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. Following your statement yesterday relating to the introduction of an emergency power generating system in Parliament House, are you able to give an assurance that sufficient heating will be available in the Senate to counteract the rather frosty atmosphere which is developing on the benches opposite and which can almost be described as a hoar frost?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will give consideration to the honourable senator’s question and answer it at some other time.

page 952

QUESTION

DEATH DUTIES

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted that in its Budget announced yesterday the New South Wales Government lifted the death tax exemption for members of an immediate family from $30,000 to $50,000? Did he notice that in its recent Budget the Victorian Government doubled its exemption, lifting the amount from $12,000 to $24,000? Does the Minister know that the exemptions in the other 4 States range from as low as $12,000 in South Australia to $20,000 in Queensland? Does he realise that such exemptions are far too low and have no regard to the increased valuations on properties? Will he consider giving financial assistance to the States with low exemptions to enable them to lift their exemption to $50,000 before death taxes are applied.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I thank the honourable senator for the information he has given. We are all aware of the interest which he has shown in this subject ever since he came to the Senate and, indeed, before. Of course the proposal which he raises for the consideration of the Treasurer involves some important matters of revenue and other considerations. I shall pass the honourable senator’s suggestions along to the Treasurer for his consideration. The honourable senator will be aware that the Treasurer is still out of the country, but no doubt he will take the honourable senator’s suggestions into consideration. I say to the honourable senator that the proposal for the introduction of a hardship clause into the general field of death duties at the Commonwealth level has been raised already by me with the Treasurer. The honourable senator may recall that this matter was put to the Senate and, I think, narrowly defeated towards the end of last year.

page 953

QUESTION

RADIATION: ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. I refer to question No. 130 which was placed on the notice paper in my name on 13 March of this year, some six and a half months ago. The question seeks factual scientific information on radiation levels in Australia and other specified countries. I ask: When can I expect an answer to the question? What reasons can the Minister advance for such extraordinary delay in presenting factual information which must be readily available to his scientific advisers?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I suppose that in some respects the honourable senator’s question touches on the matter which was before the International Court of Justice. If the information which he seeks is generally readily available he should not be asking for it by way of question here. If it is available only to the Minister for Science by reason of its being restricted to his scientific advisers, then no doubt he is giving consideration to the question. I have not had a chance to study this question since the honourable senator has just raised it, but I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister. If there is no reason why it should not be answered forthwith, I assume that it will be answered.

page 953

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: ROYAL COMMISSION

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Attorney-General: Did the Rt Hon. J. G. Gorton while Prime Minister, on 5 May 1 970, announce that a royal commission had been appointed to inquire into any damage that may occur to the Great Barrier Reef as a result of oil exploration in the area? When did the royal commission first meet? How many meetings has it had? Has it made a report, interim or otherwise; if not, when can a report be expected? What has been the cost of the royal commission to date?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think that the honourable senator’s information as to the establishment of the inquiry is correct. I will assume it to be. I know that the inquiry has gone on for a long time, but as far as I am aware the royal commission has not made its report. It certainly has cost a great deal of money. However, very great issues are involved and the future of the Barrier Reef is very important to Australia and the world. I will obtain for the honourable senator a detailed answer to his question.

page 953

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHERMEN

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to either the Attorney-General or the Minister for Primary Industry, whoever is responsible. Who authorised a warrant of commitment for nonpayment of fines to be taken out, resulting in the 2 Taiwanese fishermen being imprisoned?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It was authorised by my Department. As I indicated last night in the adjournment debate, the decision to fine the 2 seamen involved or in default to impose 6 months imprisonment was a decision of the Perth District Court. Without going over the ground of last night- I did indicate to the honourable senator that I would take the matter up, as he requested last night- let me say that there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that the laws pertaining to the declared fishing zone in Australia are observed.

page 953

QUESTION

CHILE: POLITICAL SANCTUARY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. By way of preface, I refer to the discussions that apparently have taken place between our Ambassador to Chile and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the information contained in the Australian foreign affairs newsheet that 500 Chileans have sought political sanctuary in foreign embassies in that country, can the Minister expedite an answer as to whether any of these political refugees have approached the Australian Embassy? Have we a determined policy in situations of this nature?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I will have to make specific inquiries into this matter. I ask the honourable senator to place the question on the notice paper; but since in that case an answer could not be given until we come back after next week ‘s recess I will endeavour to have an answer supplied to the honourable senator before then.

page 954

QUESTION

NAVAL PATROLS OF COASTLINE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that Navy patrols of Australia ‘s north-west coastline have been suspended or reduced as a result of defence expenditure cuts. If so, is this long coastline now totally unprotected against whatever activity a foreign power might choose to undertake, including illegal fishing and drugrunning?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As far as I am aware, there has been no such cut-back. I can say only that I will check the position for the honourable senator and let him know it as soon as possible.

page 954

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: EGG PRODUCTION

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Primary Industry seen an article in today’s Canberra ‘Courier’ headed ‘28,000 Birds Join ACT Work Force’ and stating that this number will be doubled soon? As the Minister assured me in the Senate on 23 August that the Australian Agricultural Council was of the unanimous opinion that there should be no increase in the Australian Capital Territory quota for egg production, what effect will the extra 56,000 laying birds have on the long established poultry farmers in the Australian Capital Territory? Can the Minister also give an assurance that in no way will the Australian Capital Territory be used to circumvent the decision of the Australian Agricultural Council on controlled egg production, a decision which has the full support of the industry in Australia?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I understand that there was a newspaper report to this effect. At the last meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council it was agreed- and it was no more than an agreement at the Council- that the quota for the Australian Capital Territory would be 85,000 hens. This agreement was reached after discussions with the Minister concerned, Mr Enderby, who subscribes to the principle that the Australian Capital Territory should, if it can, be selfsufficient in egg production. However, by agreement he undertook to keep the quota at 85,000 hens.

I do not know the background to this article, or the truth or otherwise of it. I will have a look at the matter with the Minister involved. My own view, as I indicated earlier when discussing this matter, is that I would like to see the agreement kept because before the introduction of the quota system the egg industry in Australia was in a shambles. It is because the States have been prepared to undertake an egg production control scheme that we now look like getting some sanity into the industry.

page 954

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PERMANENCY OF EMPLOYMENT

Senator DAME NANCY BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday I asked him a question concerning certain government employees and he said that my question was incorrectly based. I ask him: In what way was it incorrectly based? Are certain parliamentary secretaries not allowed to become permanent members of the Commonwealth Public Service? Also, are quite a number of Commonwealth car drivers and bus drivers not allowed to become permanent members of the Commonwealth Public Service? Is it a fact that the union which is concerned with these bus drivers has taken these employees out on strike on several occasions in order to have this anomaly and unfairness rectified? I ask the Minister again: Will he take steps to have this anomaly rectified?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I said yesterday that I was not sure of the position.

Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield:

– You said that my question was incorrectly based.

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes, that it was suggested that the question was incorrectly based. My impression was the same as the honourable senator: that most of these persons are not permanent public servants. I am not sure of the exact position, whether it is possible for all or for some of them to become permanent public servants. I suggested then that we ought to deal with the matter on an accurate basis and I would still like that to be done.

I recognise the importance of what the honourable senator says. I know that this matter has been a source of discontent, and that discontent ought to be removed, because I would think that if persons have been working for a very long time in areas of the Public Service it seems unreasonable that they ought to be treated as casual or impermanent employees, even when they go on for decades working for the Government.

page 954

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES POWER INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. I preface it by saying that the Minister would be aware that hundreds of thousands of people in New South Wales -

page 955

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Please resume your seat, Senator Kane. I understand that you have an objection, Senator Wood.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, I have. I consider it is wrong that people sitting in this section of the chamber have to wait until practically everybody else has asked a question. I think that we are entitled to ask a question in order of standing; not this business of calling senators from one end of the chamber to the other.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I take no cognisance of seniority. I call Senator Kane.

page 955

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES POWER INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Senator KANE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. I preface it by saying that the Minister would be aware that hundreds of thousands of people in New South Wales have been seriously inconvenienced and upset by the repeated blackouts in New South Wales. As the Minister for Labour has expressed himself in favour of a 35-hour week in the power industry, does he approve of the methods used by power industry union officials in New South Wales to gain the 35-hour week?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– It is not for me, as the Minister representing a Minister in another place, to express an opinion about what the Minister for Labour thinks about the 35-hour week or the current dispute in New South Wales. The Minister and I are aware that there is a campaign by the trade union movement, in part supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the State Trades and Labour Council, to attempt to attain a 35-hour week in selected industries. The discussions between the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, representing all the unions, and the State Government have broken down. The matter is outside the area of our control. I understand that propositions of compromise which may solve the dispute have now been put forward. All I can say is that I hope that these propositions which relate not to a 35-hour week but to another standard of hours will solve the problem. That is the only information which I can give the honourable senator at this stage.

page 955

QUESTION

UNIFORM TRAFFIC LAWS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that the traffic laws now operating in Victoria are causing chaos among motorists and other road users? Will the Minister request the Minister for

Transport to convene a meeting of the appropriate State Ministers to endeavour to have instituted a complete uniform code of traffic laws for the whole of Australia?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know the particular laws in Victoria which are causing complete chaos but the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which includes State Ministers, meets periodically and attempts to get uniform traffic laws and codes into operation. No State can be compelled to put them into operation, but my recollection is that a remarkable degree of uniformity has been achieved by the Ministers. I believe that they have met recently or are about to meet. The laws to which the honourable senator referred are already in operation. If a particular law is causing chaos, it is only a question of drawing it to the attention of the Council. 1 am prepared to intervene and take up the matter so that the Council may consider it

page 955

QUESTION

RADIO EMPLOYEES DISPUTE

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour or to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, whoever is the appropriate Minister. What agencies of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in respect of either conciliation or arbitration, are participating in the radio employees dispute with a view to arriving at an early settlement? I refer to agencies of the Commission in marked distinction to ministerial intervention.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– A series of conferences for the purpose of conciliation has been conducted by the Public Service Board. It is the responsible body. It is holding the negotiations and the conferences.

page 955

QUESTION

DIRECT FLIGHTS FROM NEW ZEALAND TO TASMANIA

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that about one-quarter of Australia ‘s visitors come from New Zealand and that if flights came direct from New Zealand to Tasmania en route to Melbourne or Sydney the total flight distances, in many cases, would not be a great deal longer? As tourism is so important to Tasmania, will the Minister advise whether the Government has recently considered improving the status of Hobart ‘s airport buildings and airstrips so that Hobart would be suitable for direct flights from New Zealand. If the Government has not recently considered the matter, will the Minister be good enough to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation to do so?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-I am prepared to take the matter up with the Minister for Civil Aviation. I doubt whether the airline companies would be prepared to schedule nights to Hobart for those people who seek to visit that city before coming to the mainland. I would have thought that the description of the area which was given yesterday by the honourable senator was such that few would want to go there. However, I will take the matter up with the Minister. If it is at all possible, I will see that the matter is investigated.

page 956

QUESTION

PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION THROUGH THE SENATE

Senator WOOD:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that the legislation for the incomes control referendum was bulldozed through the Senate without proper debate because Senator Willesee was about to make a jaunt overseas? Does the Leader, as a parliamentarian, not consider that such action for such a reason helps to destroy the democracy of the Senate as a very important arm of democratic government in this country?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-There is no doubt that the legislation was put through the Senate by the use of the guillotine. There is no doubt that it is undesirable that legislation should be put through either House of the Parliament in circumstances in which a guillotine or any kind of a gag is used if that can be avoided. There is also no doubt that one of the considerations in putting through the legislation and using the guillotine was the projected departure of Senator Willesee. He is not going on any jaunt overseas. He is leaving Australia to lead the Australian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in New York and to attend other international meetings in Japan and France. He is going on a public matter and it ought not to be described in the Senate as a ‘jaunt’. If there is to be a proper operation of Parliament, especially of the Senate, all its members ought to be cooperating in order to avoid any kind of guillotine being used.

I do not like the idea of debates being guillotined or of any kind of gag being applied. I think that it is highly undesirable and ought to be avoided. But if this is to be avoided, what is needed is co-operation and common sense on both sides of the Parliament. Yesterday, much of the time was wasted by unnecessary votes and what might be fairly described- certainly in regard to the first Bill-as filibustering activity. In this case the proposal was not one to make a law as such but to present a question to the people of

Australia at a referendum so that they could express their wishes on the matter. Nothing becomes operative unless the people of Australia endorse the proposal. So that might be some mitigation of what I agree is an undesirable practice. I would hope that in future, especially if there is to be some rush of legislation at the end of the year, we should do our best to avoid the use of the guillotine. I understand what the honourable senator is saying. He is a great parliamentarian and does not want matters to be dealt with in this way in the Parliament. Neither do 1. 1 should like to see if we can avoid any repetition of the use of the guillotine.

page 956

QUESTION

FORMER NEW SOUTH WALES AGENT-GENERAL

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it true as reported in the Press that the former New South Wales Agent-General in London, Sir John Pagan, has been the subject of investigation by the Department of Customs and Excise? What offence is he said to have committed and what action has been taken?

The PRESIDENT:

-Is this a matter which is before the court?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-No, Mr President. It is true that the former Agent-General was alleged by a Customs officer on his return from his appointment in London recently to have failed to declare to Customs certain alcoholic liquor, furniture and household goods, amounting, in sum, to a considerable value. The allegation was inquired into by the Collector of Customs in New South Wales. Following that inquiry, a proceeding was taken under part 15 of the Customs Act at the election of Sir John Pagan. At those proceedings, which were heard pursuant to the Act, he was found guilty of making in a document produced to an officer a statement which was untrue in a particular. The delegate in the Department of Customs and Excise has considered the matter of the inquiry. As a result Sir John Pagan was fined $500 and the goods relating to the offence were confiscated. That happened in accordance with customary procedures. The matter was heard in accordance with the normal custom relating to these matters and the fine was imposed by the delegate under the Customs Act.

page 956

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: FOSTER CHILD AND TURTLE FARMING

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. On whose authority did Mrs Bryant, wife of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, proceed to

Maningrida in Arnhem Land to interview Nola Garanamba, the 7-year-old Aboriginal girl who was taken from her foster parents in Darwin to rejoin her natural parents in Maningrida? What costs to the taxpayer were involved? Why were experienced officers of the Department bypassed in the inquiry into this matter? Further, is a feasibility study being conducted into the economic viability of the turtle farming projects being promoted by the Department in the Torres Strait Islands? What is the total expenditure incurred so far in these projects? Who are the shareholders of the companies involved in the projectsApplied Ecology Pty Ltd, Aboriginal and Islander Pty Ltd and Islander Marketing Pty Ltd?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Without information from the Registrar of Companies it is impossible to answer that question. I ask that it be placed on notice.

Senator Laucke:

– What about the first matter?

The PRESIDENT:

– If you are not satisfied with the Minister’s answer do you wish to ask a supplementary question?

Senator LAUCKE:

– Thank you, Mr President. I would like a reply to the first part of my question. What were the costs involved in the visit of Mrs Bryant to Maningrida for the purpose of interviewing this little Aboriginal girl? Why were departmental officers bypassed in this matter and Mrs Bryant sent to Maningrida?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I do not know who authorised Mrs Bryant’s visit. I wonder whether anyone can authorise women and be responsible for all they do. As for the cost involved, Mrs Bryant has the usual travelling allowance granted to a Minister’s wife and is free to travel on the airlines anywhere in Australia. Payment for the cost of her fare would be taken from the Department. I do not know all the information but I will try to find out. I want to say that officers of the Department were not bypassed. They were asked for information and gave a report. They are still inquiring into the matter and they are advising the Minister on the Nola Brown incident.

page 957

QUESTION

BUS ACCIDENT IN SNOWY MOUNTAINS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the tragic accident yesterday in the Snowy Mountains in which 18 people from the Brighton area in South Australia lost their lives. I acknowledge the rapid response of the New South Wales Government in conducting an inquiry. Will the Minister communicate with the New South Wales Government and offer any assistance which will facilitate the inquiry and which may also assist the relatives of the victims? Will he ask that such inquiry include a study of safety factors on mountain roads?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The Minister representing the Minister for Transport has handed me a document on this matter which sets out some information. The indications are that the accident was due to brake failure. In February the Australian Transport Advisory Council endorsed recommendations for uniform regulations governing the inspection of long distance passenger buses. I am informed also that although all States have inspection systems, some buses have escaped inspection because they were interstate when the inspection was due or because they were registered as interstate vehicles. There is no suggestion that this particular vehicle was not subjected to the usual South Australian inspections. It is hoped to have further information in this regard from South Australia early today. Other questions raised are the desirability of seat belts in such buses and the desirability of stricter braking standards. The Australian Transport Advisory Council has asked the Advisory Committee on Safety and Vehicle Design to report on these matters. I do not suggest that this request has been made arising out of this accident. The report of the Advisory Committee is expected in February. Inquiries are being pursued and our Minister will be kept advised. I shall pass on to the Minister the suggestion made by the honourable senator about the inquiry to be conducted.

page 957

QUESTION

BUS ACCIDENT IN SNOWY MOUNTAINS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

- Mr President, may I ask a supplementary question on that matter?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Minister stated that the accident was due to brake failure. It seems to me to be a particularly serious matter that the Minister should make such a statement when the bus is still at the bottom of the lake.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I heard what the honourable senator said. In endeavouring to assist the Senate I gave the information supplied to me. I said: ‘The indications are . . .’I think the Senate is entitled to as much information as can be given, however tentative it may be at this stage.

Senator Carrick:

– Is that not a matter for the courts?

Senator MURPHY:

-Of course, if questions of liability arise out of this accident inquiries will be made by the courts, and from my experience these might take anything up to 3 years. In the meantime inquiries might be held by other tribunals. But, if the Senate wishes to have as much information on a matter which concerns the nation- as can be given, taking into account that such information is tentative and that the giving of such information does not preclude any tribunal from determining the matter on evidence which might be placed before it, I think the Senate is entitled to that information. I have given the Senate such information as is available to the Government, even though it is of a tentative nature.

page 958

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Secondary Industry advise the Senate whether the Government has yet decided whether it will be mandatory or only voluntary for the Government to refer any proposals for assistance to industry- primary, secondary or tertiary- to the proposed Industries Assistance Commission? Can the Minister also advise the Senate when the legislation will come into this chamber for the purpose of debate?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am unable to advise the honourable senator as to when the legislation will come before the Senate, but I expect that it will be in the very near future. I think it would be best if the honourable senator placed the question on the notice paper, to allow a proper answer to be provided in relation to the mandatory requirements of the legislation.

page 958

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COASTGUARD

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport give any information further to that given in response to a question asked recently on the establishment of an Australian coastguard?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-After answering a question about this matter on the previous occasion I found out that the establishment of an Australian coastguard falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Customs and Excise. The Government has received a submission on this matter and has it in hand. There will be a full report on it shortly, and possibly legislation.

page 958

QUESTION

HANSARD REPORT

Senator WITHERS:

-My question, which is directed to you, Mr President, refers to the availability of what are commonly known as the Hansard pinks. You will be aware of what Mr Speaker Cope said in this regard in the House of Representatives on 20 September 1973. With your permission, I will read out what he said:

Traditionally the Prime Minister has the right to see the Hansard transcript of any part of the proceedings. Speaker Aston directed that a similar right be given to the alternative Prime Minister, that is, the Leader of the Opposition. When Mr Snedden became Leader of the Opposition the Principal Parliamentary Reporter informed him of this right and Mr Snedden uses it from time to time.

My question, Mr President, is: Would you investigateand I ask nothing further- whether the same right to see the Hansard transcript of any part of Senate proceedings can be extended to both the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in this place?

The PRESIDENT:

– I did have a look at the report of the House of Representatives debate on this matter because it was of deep interest to me. I have carried out some preliminary investigations into it. I wish to assure honourable senators that at the present moment no-one else has the right to look at the pink copies of the transcript of an honourable senator’s speech. But I shall examine this in full depth. I shall take the opportunity of consulting party leaders as to their attitudes and will bring down a statement to the Senate so that the Senate itself can deal with the matter.

page 958

QUESTION

BASIC STANDARDS FOR WAGE AND SALARY EARNERS

Senator WRIGHT:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. For the purpose of the question I refer to the speech which the Minister delivered on the Constitution Alteration (Incomes) Bill yesterday in which he said that the State Parliaments have always had the power, and the New South Wales Parliament in particular has frequently exercised the power, to guarantee certain basic standards for wage and salary earners outside Commonwealth awards, and that under this Bill the national Parliament could guarantee basic standards throughout the nation. Will the Attorney-General instance the basic standards which are there referred to?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-It might be convenient if the question were placed on notice so that one could give references to the specific legislation. Over the years, of course, the New South Wales Parliament, in the general area of wages and conditions and so forth, has passed legislation dealing with automatic adjustment of award wages to deal with changes in the cost of living, quarterly adjustments, long service leave, casual leave and a whole variety of matters. I would like these to be looked at to see how they fit in exactly with the question which the honourable senator has asked. We may be able to get a precise reference to various legislative matters.

Senator Wright:

– At an early date?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes.

page 959

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES: HEARINGS

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

– I wish to ask a question but I am not sure whether I should ask it of you, Mr President, or the Leaders of the parties. It concerns the Budget Estimates. We have had a trial period of 3 years of considering the details of the Budget in Estimates Committees rather than in the Committee of the Whole and I was wondering whether there was any opinion in the House as to which is the better system. I personally prefer the old system. Has there been any chance of honourable senators having a say on this matter? What has been done about it? Under the old system at least we were all together and went through every item. The present system seems to be pretty loose and not very workable.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think it would be improper for me to make any observation on this. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– If I present the views of my own colleagues on this I have to say that they are divided as to which is the better method. An opportunity was presented in a formal way for the Senate to express its view. About 10 days ago, I think it was, I put the motion that we refer these matters to the Estimates Committees. It would then have been appropriate for the honourable senator to oppose the motion or to raise the matter. Perhaps it is fair to say that it was not really indicated that the choice ought to be made then and the motion was put and carried more as a matter of form. I see no reason why the Senate should not be able to express its view on whether it wants to proceed with the Estimates Committees or to return to the old method.

Senator Byrne:

– It could be debated on the vote for the estimates of an appropriate department.

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes, it could be. When the legislative and general purposes committees were established we were in opposition. I moved for their establishment. The then Government moved for the establishment of the Estimates

Committees and we opposed them. But the Senate having established them, we have cooperated in the operation of the committees. I may say that there is a strong opinion that they are not working out as well as they might. I would think that there ought to be some way in which committees ought to be able to look in detail at the Estimates. I think that irrespective of whether we retain the Estimates Committees as such or return to the old system in any event we ought to refer the whole of the Estimates to the legislative and general purposes standing committees so that they may at any time they wish during the course of the year deal with some aspect of the Estimates or the expenditure. That may meet the need for the intensive look at the Estimates and expenditure which we all would like to preserve.

page 959

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES: HEARINGS

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-What the honourable senator says, of course, is correct. But may I qualify that by saying that it is correct in theory but not in practice. Honourable senators feel inhibited in pursuing the former method because of the existence of the Estimates Committees. I think it could not be said that it is fairly working in practice. In practice when the Estimates come back into the Senate honourable senators are inhibited from exercising their rights that they used to exercise, although I must concede that they have them in theory.

page 959

QUESTION

MR KERRY MILTE

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General and I refer to the evidence given by his former counsel, Mr Kerry Milte, in public session of the Senate Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians. Did the Attorney-General authorise Mr Milte to state the facts and evidence which he presented to the Committee? Was Mr Milte ‘s evidence as far as it relates to the conduct of the Attorney-General correct? Why did the AttorneyGeneral refuse earlier this year to give honourable senators asking questions in this chamber the facts and information which he has now authorised Mr Milte to give to the Committee?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I do not propose to answer that question. I do not think it is proper for me to be answering questions here about evidence given before the Committee. Furthermore, may I say that although honourable senators may think that I read everything, whether in newspapers or elsewhere, although I have had some report of the evidence that was given by Mr Milte as well as by others before the Committee I have not in fact read the evidence which he has given.

page 960

QUESTION

MR KERRY MILTE

Senator GREENWOOD:

-I ask a supplementary question. Did the Attorney-General authorise Mr Milte to state the facts and circumstances which he gave to the Committee?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I suggest that the honourable senator should apply a little logic to the matter. I have told him that I have not read what Mr Milte said before the Senate Select Committee on Civil Rights of Migrant Australians so I can hardly be in a position to know whether I authorised what he said before the Committee.

page 960

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL CHILD: RETURN TO PARENTS

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Senate whether Nola Garanamba’s natural father in fact saw his daughter in Darwin? If so, did a government department pay his expenses from Maningrida to Darwin for the purpose of collecting his daughter? Was a government department or officer responsible for the air ticket which was necessary to return Nola to Maningrida?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I shall refer the matter to the Minister to make sure of the accuracy of the report. I was of the belief that a plane was chartered by the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service for the purpose of taking members of that organisation to the particular area but that it was then used for the purpose of transporting Nola Brown and her father back to his camp. This may not be authentic. I shall obtain definite information from the Minister.

page 960

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR: EXCHANGE RATE

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. Some time ago I asked a question of the Minister with regard to the change in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar. I repeat my question to the Minister: What is the Government ‘s attitude towards export incentives? Will the present arrangements be updated to assist Australian exporters by ensuring that the changed situations do not place them at too much disadvantage?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not recall the honourable senator asking this question on a previous occasion. But presumably he did so and I have omitted to follow it through. I shall follow it through and obtain the necessary answer.

page 960

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHERMEN

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, which relates to the imprisonment of Taiwanese fishermen, is directed to the Attorney-General. Since the Minister showed such expedition in deporting the Arab terrorist Abdul Azzam for a serious offence will he show similar expedition in returning to their homeland the Taiwanese guilty of a much more minor offence ?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I did not deport Mr Azzam from this country. Deportation procedures are a matter for the Minister for Immigration. It is not for me to distinguish between the gravity of the offences of which the persons concerned were convicted. But I understand the drift of the honourable senator’s question. This matter is already being looked into. I understand that there was an appeal by the persons concerned and their rights have to be considered as well.

page 960

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, my question is directed to you. Will you describe to the Senate the latest method by which questions are called on at question time?

The PRESIDENT:

– For the interest of the honourable senator I shall put down a subsequent statement when convenient to me as to how questions are being called on. This has been discussed on half a dozen occasions.

page 960

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RECORDINGS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Postmaster-General and /or his staff, when using the telephone, experienced the exasperating use of telephone recordings in relation to new numbers and other service difficulties? Does the Minister agree that this excessive use of recordings was instituted during the period when the Liberal-Country Party Government allowed a deterioration of services in the Postmaster-General’s Department? Will the Minister discuss with the Labor PostmasterGeneral the possibility of reducing the growing use of recordings which require a subscriber to make several calls to reach his original number, causing a great deal of frustration and a considerable waste of time?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am prepared to agree with the honourable senator that any deterioration in any department of government was due principally to the default of the previous Administration. Undoubtedly, there are areas in the operation of the Postmaster-General’s Department which cause exasperation to those using the services, and I would hope that this situation could be corrected. What annoys me about some of the services is that one seems to have to ring different numbers to get, for example, the time in Canberra and in Sydney and there does not seem to be any special reason why the callers should have to be so perplexed. I would hope that we could have a simpler system of recordings. If the honourable senators wants me to, I will add to the undoubted torrent of complaints which reaches the PostmasterGeneral about this and other matters.

page 961

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 961

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– ( New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- For the information of honourable senators I present the second annual report, 1971-72, of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education.

page 961

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table a report prepared by Professor Gordon Hawkins and Dr Robert L. Misner dated 20 July 1973 on the restructuring of the criminal justice system in the Northern Territory. I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MURPHY:

-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks on the resumption of the debate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 961

TARIFF BOARD REPORT

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– For the information of honourable senator’s I present a Tariff Board report on plasticisers of the polyester type (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 24 August 1973.

page 961

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949-1968, I present the twentyfifth annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 961

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE ACT

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– Pursuant to section 22 of the Gold-Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954-1972, I present the nineteenth annual statement concerning the operation of the Act and the payment of subsidy during the year ended 30 June 1973.

page 961

NATIONAL SERVICE BALLOTS

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation and Minister assisting the Minister for Defence · South Australia · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a paper listing the birthdates drawn in the 1 6 national service ballots held from 1965 to 1972, which I have been asked to make available for statistical study purposes. I might say that the previous Government did not publish the birthdates drawn in the first

I I national service ballots.

page 961

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE ACT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– In accordance with the order of the Senate of 25 November 1965 I lay on the table the following paper:

Copy of an instrument dated 4 September 1973 made pursuant to section 5 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-1966 declaring a class of persons to be an approved class of lenders.

I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with this paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have laid on the table a copy of an instrument made by the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) pursuant to section 5 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-1966, declaring religious organisations and associations and other bodies of persons, the principal objects or purposes of which are charitable or benevolent, to be an approved class of lenders. The declaration of this new class of approved lenders is in line with the Government’s belief that all classes of lenders which make housing loans should be permitted to insure their loans with the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation subject to the Corporation’s conditions. The instrument clears the way for the organisations described therein individually to seek approved lender status from the Corporation. After such status is granted the approved organisation will be able to insure its housing loans with the Corporation.

Senator Withers:

– I invite the Minister to move that the Senate take note of the statement. It is a fairly important statement and the Opposition would like to have a look at it.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 962

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR AGED PENSIONERS) ACT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present an interim statement on the operation of the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969 for the year ended 30 June 1973. When the final report is available it will be presented in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 962

CITIES COMMISSION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Cities Commission Act 1972-1973,I present the first annual report of the Cities Commission for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 962

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the financial statements on Commonwealth Railways operations for the year ended 30 June 1 973.

page 962

NEW CITIES PROGRAM

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Cities Commission Act 1972-1973,I present the report by the Cities Commission on a recommended new cities program for the period 1973-1978.

page 962

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1973

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to certain trade practices.

page 962

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business?

Senator Murphy:

– Yes.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That Government business, notice of motion No. 1 , be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government Senate · ALP

– by leave- I move:

There is a lot of urgent business and we are trying to evolve a way to deal with it without any controversy. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has suggested that it is desired to conclude the debate on the report relating to Australia-New Zealand trade and that that will not take a great deal of time. The Government wishes to deal with certain urgent legislation, including the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill, and it is intended that that urgent legislation, because of the budgetary considerations, should be dealt with before this evening so that it would not be necessary for the Government to propose that Government business take precedence over general business this evening. If any difficulty arises, I will seek leave to move a motion later in the day. We will proceed to deal with the report on Australia-New Zealand trade and then with this urgent legislation. Also, there is a good deal of legislation to be introduced during the course of the day and, pursuant to the leave which was granted to introduce a Bill, I hope to introduce a Bill on trade practices later in the day.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– by leave- Mr President, as I have always stated in this chamber, we will give reasonably speedy passage to those Bills which we do not oppose, but we will fight tooth and nail those Bills which we do oppose. We understand that it is the Government’s desire to get the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill through today. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and I are trying to make some satisfactory arrangements for the rest of the day. We want to dispose of the debate on the report on Australia-New Zealand trade. I understand that there will not be a great number of speakers in that debate. Then the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill will come on for debate. But at 8 o’clock this evening we would like to dispose of Senator Hannan ‘s motion. It is a matter of national importance that persons should be suffering in the way in which Senator Hannan said that they are, and we would like the debate on that motion concluded this evening. I understand that a number of messages have to be put down, and we will co-operate as far as possible in that regard. As I have said previously, we are not just here to be obstructive.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You could have fooled me yesterday.

Senator WITHERS:

-Except on those Bills to which we are opposed. In regard to those Bills to which we are opposed we will use every device of the Senate to make our opposition felt, and that is the normal parliamentary practice in which an Opposition engages. Senator Cavanagh, when in Opposition, engaged in that practice, and I make no criticism of it. We do not resist the motion that the report on Australia-New Zealand trade should be debated now. Has that motion been put?

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator WITHERS:

-After it is put I will move another motion in order to allow Senator Hannan ‘s motion to be debated at 8 o’clock tonight.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that the motion relating to the postponement of business be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Withers moving a motion relating to the placing of business.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That at 8 p.m. this day intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of general business, order of the day No. 21.

page 963

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 2. IS p.m. on Tuesday, 9 October, unless sooner called together by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.

page 963

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Murphy)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Willesee be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

page 963

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Australia-New Zealand Trade

Debate resumed from 30 August (vide page 347), on motion by Senator Wilkinson:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– When the debate on this matter was adjourned we were dealing with the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I had been discussing certain important aspects of the Agreement, which are designed to assist in the development of trade between Australia and New Zealand. In my concluding remarks on the previous occasion I had been dealing rather critically with the area of import licensing by the New Zealand Government which, in itself, had been rather restrictive, particularly upon the imports of Australian goods into New Zealand.

The former New Zealand Government stated its intention of removing licensing over a period of 5 years and replacing it with certain tariffs. I personally was pleased to see that this was going to be done because I feel that one had to be critical of the area of licensing as it exists at the present time under NAFTA. The present New Zealand Government has now confirmed the intention that this licensing aspect will be removed over a 5-year period; that the Government will continue to use it for quite some time and gradually phase it out and replace it with tariffs. It is hoped that the policy of removing these licences will be carried out because it has disadvantaged many aspects in the development of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. But at the same time I hope that the new tariffs which will be replacing the licences will not be too restrictive and again place a prohibitive effect upon the importation of Australian goods into New Zealand. The fact that New

Zealand has continued to operate import licensing on goods listed in Schedule A, which is the free area, has disadvantaged Australian trade. At the same time, New Zealand has been able freely to expand its trade to Australia through Schedule A duty reductions without any quantitative restriction in Australia. Some duties may apply on goods in Schedule A, but they are being progressively phased out once they are put on the Schedule.

I emphasise that one thing has to be made very clear, that is, if NAFTA is to work and bring mutual benefits to both Australia and New Zealand by a greater expansion of trade between the 2 countries both countries must make every endeavour to assess trade on the basis of general mutual advantages and not on the basis of one country perhaps seeking an advantage over the other. I was pleased to see that on 10 September there were further discussions between Australia and New Zealand on areas of improvement within NAFTA. It has been reported that the Australian delegation of exporters expressed grave concern about the restrictions placed upon Australian exporters by import licensing. The delegation pressed for a greater emphasis on and opportunity for Article 3.7 to apply so that they could gradually expand trade in the New Zealand market.

Senator Lillico dealt at length, and critically, with the industry panels. 1 quote from a Press report in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 1 1 September of this year. The article states:

Australian and New Zealand manufacturers have announced their agreement to set up a series of joint industry panels.

These groups covering specific industries from carpets to car components will work together to increase overall sales in both countries.

That statement, to me and, I am certain, to other members of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, was most heartening. There must be more discussion between the exporter and importer groups of both countries to try to get a better understanding in many of these areas, to develop trade further and not to try to develop trade so that one section is disadvantaged when compared with another section.

I must refer again to the recent 25 per cent cut in Australian tariffs generally. Clearly this will affect Australia’s trade with New Zealand because it will put New Zealand ‘s manufacturers in a substantially more favourable position than Australian manufacturers because Australian tariffs will be lower and New Zealand imports will be more competitive. I refer to that part of Senator Lillico ‘s speech which dealt with the problems associated with peas, beans and meat, particularly the possibility of lamb, coming into Australia. New Zealand tariffs will remain at relatively high levels and domestic manufacturers will be protected. If New Zealand could be persuaded to reduce its tariffs, particularly on Australian goods, it might be feasible for the Australian Government to negotiate tariff reductions within NAFTA. By persuading New Zealand to put vastly increased numbers of products on Schedule A, which is the free area, the Australian move to reduce tariffs could be seen as an extremely worthwhile move towards freeing and expanding trade between the 2 countries.

I refer to the motor industry as one example of the rationalisation and expansion of trade between the 2 countries. Originally, Australian manufactured cars entering New Zealand did so under the licensing system, which I mentioned earlier, and on a monetary basis. That applied both on the completely built up basis and completely knocked down and assembled in New Zealand basis. These licences were issued on an annual basis and allowed for some expansion of trade each year. Quite frankly, in real terms they allowed only a minimal increase in the entry of Australian manufactured cars into New Zealand. Because it was on a monetary basis also, it allowed for a greater number of small cars as against the bigger and more expensive cars which, naturally, used up the monetary quota more rapidly. In December 1971 New Zealand changed the method of granting import licences to a sales replacement system. This new approach to the importation of Australian manufactured cars had a marked effect upon both the availability of new cars and models and the supply and price of second hand cars in New Zealand. The drop in price of second hand cars was amazing when the scarcity aspect was removed from the market. Evidence given to the Committee shows that the waiting time for a new car dropped. Not only did Australian manufacturers and exporters benefit by this trade to New Zealand but New Zealanders benefited because it brought down the price of second hand cars and it gave a greater availability of new cars to the New Zealand public.

I return to Article 3.7. It has been of benefit to the motor vehicle industries of both countries because motor vehicles and parts have represented more than 50 per cent of the value of Australian exports under approved Article 3.7 proposals. The use of Article 3.7 has led to a degree of rationalisation between the 2 countries within this industry or, more accurately, between firms in the industry. Admittedly, the total volume of trade on this basis has been relatively small. It remains to be seen whether it will survive and develop now that the New Zealand sales replacement system, which is the new system I mentioned, of import licensing for motor vehicles has removed much of the incentive for contra arrangements on motor vehicles and parts. One is encouraged by the fact that New Zealand is manufacturing more and more of the components used by the motor industry, and the Australian car manufacturers are using many of these components in the manufacture of vehicles. Here again there are benefits all round.

I think it would be remiss of me not to comment on the shipping service between Australia and New Zealand. Shipping freights and services between Australia and New Zealand, to me- I have been interested in shipping services and freights for quite some time- has been an important aspect of NAFTA. No matter how close the countries might finally get to free trade freight costs and services will always play a dominant part. At present shipping services between Australia and New Zealand are provided almost entirely by the Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand, with some specialist cargoes such as timber being handled by the Australian shipping companies. Complaints were made to the Committee about the capacity and frequency of services on the Australian-New Zealand route. We had quite a bit of evidence on this aspect. I would like to quote some of it to the Senate. Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd claimed that roll-on roll-off vessels were not the most suitable for the shipping of their products to New Zealand and that, therefore, freight costs were higher than they would be for the more suitable conventional vessels which New Zealand manufacturers employed to ship similar goods to Australia. Associated Pulp and Paper Mills was concerned about the difficulties in ensuring sufficient inducement cargo to obtain direct shipments from Burnie in Tasmania to New Zealand. Other witnesses were critical of the fact that we had only a single shipping line and that freights between Australia and New Zealand were extremely high in comparison with freights to other international markets. There was also criticism of the fact that in some areas, it was clearly shown, the freight from New Zealand to Australia was at a lesser rate than the freight from Australia to New Zealand. It was claimed that this anomaly was placing some Austraiian exporters at a complete disadvantage. Some witnesses told the Committee that on some sea legs- for example, Japan and other places to Australia or Australia to Japan- the freights were proportionately cheaper than many of the freights from Australia to New Zealand.

I hope that overall we will see a change in the system of imposing freight charges between Australia and New Zealand. The Union Steamship Co. is New Zealand based and is the only shipping company which can operate between Australia and New Zealand. On odd occasions another shipping line can take exports from Australia to New Zealand, but those occasions are not very frequent. One of the great problems has been that New Zealand wharf labourers have flatly refused to load or unload any vessel operating between Australia and New Zealand which is not a Union Steamship Co. vessel. This places great restrictions upon the use of any other vessels.

Senator Wright:

– The unions will not work on a vessel unless it is owned by the Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd.

Senator YOUNG:

– That is right, it must have a New Zealand flag. That has been their policy all the way through. This has created grave problems. We have had examples of overseas vessels passing through Australia on their way to New Zealand which could have picked up quite a bit of cargo from- Australia and taken it to New Zealand. This would have assisted because there have been problems and delays in freighting cargo. The other aspect that shows up clearly is that because there is only a single shipping company operating on this run between Australia and New Zealand there is a monopoly situation. Of course, this is a problem that always has to be overcome. Questions were put to witnesses and suggestions were made to the effect that Australia should be looking closely into this position. The whole concept of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement is to encourage and develop trade between the 2 countries.

Trade is expanding between the 2 countries. In this regard it is felt- I feel very strongly about this-that as trade expands there will be need for an increased tonnage of shipping to operate between Australia and New Zealand and we, as Australians, should pick up this tag and enter into the shipping run. We should not leave it to New Zealand to expand its shipping line. I am pleased to say that the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, has taken up this matter with his New Zealand counterpart. My understanding from a Press report is that the Government is now trying to get a share for the Australian National Line of the shipping trade between New Zealand and Australia. I will not say that it should be the Australian National Line that has this share. It could be some other Australian line. But I emphasise the fact that it is essential that we, as a nation expanding trade with New Zealand in both directions, should also have a ship on the run. This will give us an opportunity not only to expand our own services to New Zealand but also to have some competition in the run and to get away from the monopoly situation existing at present. As I say, I am very pleased to see that the Minister has been having discussions with his New Zealand counterpart on this aspect of trade and hope that Australia eventually will have a ship on this run. I think that this is essential.

I have been very critical of many aspects of this Trade Agreement. I am critical of the fact that, although the Committee heard much evidence from many people covering a wide range of aspects and encouraged representatives of New Zealand industry to give evidence unfortunately, with the exception of one person it received no evidence from New Zealand representatives. I think that it was a pity. The opportunity was provided. Quite frankly, I feel that representatives of New Zealand interests should have given the Committee their view point on the Trade Agreement. Having said those things and made those criticisms, I hope in a constructive way, I consider this Trade Agreement has done quite a deal to expand trade between the 2 countries even though I feel that in some areas Australian industries have been disadvantaged. This Agreement if it can be made to work as it is intended it should work, can be of benefit to both Australia and New Zealand. I look forward to an expansion of trade between the 2 countries and a more beneficial operation of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This committee report is one of the examples of the Senate’s behaviour in a committee style. Members of political parties meet together to do a job in what might be called a ‘ bipartisan style’. I think that it is always appropriate that honourable senators who did not take part in the meetings of a committee should look at that committee’s report and judge its merits. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade on Australia-New Zealand trade is, I believe, one of the very good reports presented by Senate committees. It is a thorough, excellent and authoritative work. Together with Senator Young, I think that it is a great pity that New Zealand, for its part, did not see its viewpoint was presented to the Committee more fully and in more detail. The Committee was comprised of members from right across the political spectrum and met to deal with a matter that is important to both countries. I regard its report as an excellent work and I thank the members of the Committee for the work they have put into it.

I have had a long association with New Zealand over many years. I am very fond of the country and its people. I am very impressed with its opportunities and with some of its levels of performance. Prior to entering the Parliament I was involved as part of the negotiating operation for this Trade Agreement as it affected the Australian forest industries. We found ourselves then dealing with our New Zealand counterparts in a very happy, co-operative and productive association. There were some differences of opinion and sometimes quite substantial arguments. But as 2 industry groups- the New Zealand group and the Australia group- we were able to resolve our differences and to come to an understanding that allowed both of our Governments to operate in that field. It has been said that, to quite an extent, the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement rested on the general consensus of views in both countries that the forest industries formed an integral part and, indeed, one of the foundation planks of NAFTA.

I should observe also that this was not an easy agreement to consummate. The economies of the 2 countries are in many ways competitive. They are not necessarily totally complementary. The report of the Committee brings out this fact. It is pointed out on page 1 1 of the report that the major institutional factor in the trading relationship is whether or not trade occurs in items within the free trade schedule. It is the main vehicle within that area for the eventual achievement of rationalisation of the resources of the 2 countries. Quite properly, the Agreement is the product of the development, economically, of the resources of both countries and, in particular, certain aspects of that development of resources. There has been a substantial trade imbalance through the years. It has been rectified in New Zealand’s favour to some extent since this Agreement became operative.

An observation is made on page 15 of the report of the Committee which I think it is important to bear in mind. It is stated that as at 31 December 1971 the population of New Zealand was officially estimated at 2,889,000. This compared to an estimated Australian population at the same date of 12,88 1,000 people. Between 31 December 1966 and 31 December 1971 the New Zealand population grew by 6.7 per cent whilst the Australian population grew by 10.07 per cent. But our manufacturing sector is much larger than that in New Zealand. Of course, the ratio of population varies across industry styles. The concept of the Agreement and the original work done on it was on the basis that while the countries had competitive economies to some extent, there are great advantages in merging the total abilities of the 2 countries to give each country access to the other’s domestic markets. In effect, this would combine the efforts of the populations of the 2 countries. I think that these are sensible goals in a multilateral trading world in which we have to operate against much larger population blocs in other parts of the world.

Reference is made on page 4 of the report to the fact that over quite a wide area it is a limited free trade agreement and that the imbalance in trade has narrowed in favour of New Zealand. I suppose that this was one of the great factors in bringing about the agreement. Trade has not increased very much during the 7 years in which the Agreement has operated. There is no indication that trade between the 2 countries is becoming freer. I think that that fact needs to be looked at consequentially as long as protection exists for specialised industries in both countries. I have paid regard to Senator Lillico ‘s observations in this report as they affect Tasmania. It seems to me that that area of NAFTA needs much more clearing up. In effect, if we have operators who are established in an industry both in New Zealand and Australia and those areas of activity are not clearly separated, they will operate with the best of both worlds and with the penalties of neither. I think that in the interests of Tasmania particularly, that situation needs some further examination. I refer particularly to the frozen vegetable industries. Tasmania has been placed at a disadvantage in this respect.

It is stated that there has been some caution in nominating articles for schedule A. There is some feeling that New Zealand, for its part, has tended to evade its responsibility under NAFTA by the adoption of import licensing arrangements which have tended to draft off some of its obligations. One would have been grateful, as Senator Young observed, to have New Zealand ‘s own view on the accuracy or otherwise of that complaint which was made to this Senate Committee. I think also that we need to look a little further into whether the protective device for injury to specialised industries has been taken up adequately in order to defend those industries. I speak personally on this matter, having been involved long before I came here in the forest industries. In that section we had a consultative arrangement to try to resolve problems before they got to the point that government had to legislate to fix them. That arrangement was successful.

The Committee made observations across the general area of manufacturing, dairy products, peas and beans, and the general industry panels and safeguards which I do not think I need advert to further. Consultation is one matter that I am concerned about. The obvious comment appears in the report under the heading ‘Consultation Provisions ‘ and is as follows:

Given the amount of official and commercial consultation which occurs, there is a surprising apparent lack of understanding of the aspirations of some competing industries in both countries.

The 2 governments concerned should introduce new initiatives to make many of these areas much clearer to people. I agree with the comment. Equally I agree with the observations on co-operation and competition in third country markets, the chance of developing tourism, the hope of freer trade and the need for rationalisation of the shipping programs. The recommendations seem both wise and sensible. I conclude by saying what I said at the beginning: I would like to compliment the Committee and all those who took part in the work. This is a first class document and I hope that it gets wide circulation.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– In concluding the debate on the report on ‘Australia- New Zealand Trade ‘ by the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade I want to say that there is not much which has not been covered by the various speakers. I am particularly pleased that so many of the past and present members of the Committee spoke about the report. I am more than pleased that Senator Cotton, who was not a member, spoke in appreciative terms of the report. This indicated that he had looked at it very carefully. He appreciated a number of the points made and in general he was in agreement with the conclusions reached. I feel that I should pay a tribute to the past Chairman of the Committee, Senator Prowse, for the work that he did. I mentioned this point in my opening remarks some months ago. He was very closely concerned with the operation of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement and what it meant to Australia. He spoke in appreciation of the work of the Committee members. I found that their efforts continued and that they displayed devotion to their work to see that something was done.

I want to make passing reference to the reservation which Senator Lillico added to the Committee ‘s report and to the speech that he made the other day. In view of the increased importation of peas and beans in recent years he was quite entitled to stress this point in the Committee ‘s work and in the speech he made.

Senator Devitt:

– What was the point that he made?

Senator WILKINSON:

-The ‘ point he made was that imports from New Zealand were affecting Tasmanian producers. He thought that that matter ought to be given considerable emphasis. While I and the Committee agree with that point we felt that it should be taken in the context of the entire Agreement. Senator Lillico and the Tasmanian producers are quite entitled to express their view but I think it is important for us to remember that the trade in peas and beans represents only about 1 per cent of the total trade between Australia and New Zealand. Therefore I think we should keep that matter in perspective when looking at the entire Agreement. The honourable senator, in bringing down his reservation, stressed the composition of the panels. I think it would be a good thing to bring to the notice of the Senate, particularly if honourable senators have glossed over this point, the statement made at page 77 of the report about this particular panel. The report states:

It is a matter of concern to the Committee that the NAFTA provisions have apparently stultified and prevented the Australian pea and bean industry from expanding at the rate it should have during its early years of establishment. There is evidence to suggest that the Agreement has not greatly benefited the New Zealand growers either, but that the benefits have accrued to the processors. There is no evidence to indicate that the ultimate consumers have benefited from competitive retail pricing.

The report goes on to state:

The Committee also notes with concern the basis upon which membership of the industry and joint panels is established and believes that it is inequitable that processors should have a majority interest in the deliberations of both panels. It is also of great concern that, through mergers and inter-company arrangements, the same companies may be represented on the panels of both countries. The Committee is of the opinion that the two Governments should examine this aspect to ensure that such dual representation does not occur.

The Committee was emphasising the point that Senator Lillico made in his reservations. I think what I read covers the objections that he raised to the report. His point was that this matter had not been properly emphasised. I think the report covered this point.

Turning now to the Committee’s recommendations, three of the 14 recommendations specifically refer to the pea and bean trade. I think that reveals that a very fair emphasis was placed in our recommendations on the whole of the trade covered by NAFTA. In addition to the 3 recommendations I mentioned, the Committee also made this recommendation:

That procedures be instituted to provide for swift consultation on imports where a potentially damaging situation arises.

I think that that was the main point emphasised by Senator Lillico and we brought it out in the report. We recommended that if any producers or any industry was going to be disadvantaged by the operations of NAFTA the matter should be looked at straight away.

This report having brought down, I think it is worth while considering whether any implementation of its recommendations has taken place. It is pleasing to note that specific observations and recommendations of the Committee have been acted upon one way or another by the Government. I want to refer specifically to a few of these matters. The Government adopted the practice of publishing details of proposed arrangements under paragraph 7 of Article 3. The Committee sought this action as a means of informing industry of what is happening in this area and of encouraging other companies to engage in this trade. Both the Australian and New Zealand Governments have announced their desire to promote a further organisation of trade through more effective operation of NAFTA and through the use of resources. A review of NAFTA is being undertaken with a view to introducing new transitional positions. The Ministers of both countries have announced that a common rule of origin will be adopted and implemented from 1 July next year. It will be based on a 50 per cent area content criterion. These, I think, are very important methods of dealing with the matter, and the Government has adopted them already. They are mentioned and emphasised in our report.

Senator Young mentioned the position in relation to shipping. Shipping presents a continuing problem in that it is basically inefficient. Also, it is undesirable for a monopoly situation to prevail in the trans-Tasman trade. The Trade Ministers of both countries have drawn attention to this factor. Recent reports have been to the effect that the New Zealand Government is planning to establish its own national line to counter the monopoly of the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand Ltd. Ths move might be even more disadvantageous to Australia unless the Australian Government adopts the same procedure and arranges for and Australian flag carrier to enter the trade, whether it be the Australian National Line or some other carrier.

I want to draw attention also to the 25 per cent across the board tariff reduction. It was designed to alleviate pressures of demand in Australia. Nevertheless, it has given New Zealand an added advantage over Australian manufacturers in the Australian market. This happened after the Committee had completed its report. It seems to me that the New Zealand Government should make a move to bring in a compensating tariff reduction applicable only to Australian goods. In this way the tariff cuts in Australia would be seen too as a significant move towards the freeing of trade between the 2 countries. This point is more relevant when it is considered that the New Zealand Government now proposes to continue its use of import licensing as a means of protection.

The Committee sees its work as having added materially to the total knowledge of AustraliaNew Zealand trade and as a worthwhile -

Senator Lillico:

– Will you comment on the interwoven companies sitting in judgment on their own exports to Australia?

Senator WILKINSON:

-Senator Lillico interrupted me in the middle of a sentence in which I was dealing with the Committee’s work as the Committee saw it. I have already drawn attention to the fact that in our report we made mention of these interacting companies which are operating on the pea and bean panels of both countries. I had mentioned that matter before the honourable senator came into the chamber. We emphasised it in the report and I have emphasised it again in this speech. I am not decrying what the honourable senator said at all; I am agreeing with the emphasis that he places on this matter because of the particular interest of Tasmania. But I do not think there is any need to deal with that matter further. The Committee’s report emphasises this point. Before I was interrupted by Senator Lillico I was saying that in our report we have tried to make a worthwhile contribution towards NAFTA. This Agreement comes up for renewal in another 3 years. It has only 3 years to run. It definitely is not working as well as it was hoped it would. It has a number of very important advantages, but it has not worked out as it was hoped it would.

In conclusion- I do not think anybody has done this, with the exception of Senator Youngas the Chairman of the Committee, I pay a tribute to the very good work that has been done on our report by our secretarial staff. They have assisted us in every possible way and I think that our thanks are due to them in particular. I commend the adoption of the report.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– by leave- I want to speak only briefly on this matter. I think it is important that the record be put straight on a number of questions which have arisen during the course of this debate. When the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement first came to light it was negotiated between Mr Marshall of the New Zealand Government and Mr McEwen, as he then was, of the Australian Government. It covered a very wide range of goods being traded between the 2 countries. At the time this Agreement came to light, the Australian Labor Party- the official Opposition at the time- agreed in the main with the proposals contained with the Agreement, but it had reservations. Those reservations related to peas, beans, cheese and pigmeat.

This was a very lively issue in Tasmania at the time. Arising out of the fears that were entertained by people engaged in primary industry, a quite large public meeting was held. This was to give the political parties which would be making the final decision on whether the agreement was ratified and the people engaged in primary industry an opportunity to express their views. I can recall that the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator McKenna, attended that meeting. Mr Davies, the member for Braddon, and I, as a candidate in the Senate election at that time, also attended. I recall that Senator Marriott and Senator Wright also were in attendance. At the time Senator Lillico was overseas. At that meeting on that night the opinion was expressed very strongly that everything possible should be done to oppose the implementation of that section of the Agreement which facilitated the importation into Australia of peas, beans, cheese and pigmeat. Those who were students of the scheme at the time will recall that the Agreement contained provision for a cessation of the importation of those goods where it could be assessed that there was a likelihood of damage or that there was damage to the Australian producer.

When we returned to the Parliament and the Agreement came before the Senate for consideration, we immediately strongly urged that those 4 commodities be removed from the terms of the Agreement because we could see that their inclusion would result in an immediate threat of damage to those sections of primary industry. We exhorted the Government of the time to support us and to join us in deleting those 4 items from the Agreement.

Senator Lillico:

– With respect, now that you are in government why not remove them now?

Senator DEVITT:

– Wait a moment. Do not provoke me, Senator. I am going along quite moderately and I want to stay in that mood if I can. There are some things which maybe I ought not to say, which maybe would be better left unsaid. But the long and the short of the matter was that when we came back to the Senate and voted on this Agreement every member of the Labor Party in this chamber voted against the inclusion of those 4 products in the Agreement, and every other member of this chamber -

Senator O’Byrne:

– We sent telegrams.

Senator DEVITT:

– This is the matter on which I asked Senator Lillico not to provoke me. Every member of the Labor Party voted to delete those 4 items from the schedule to the Agreement, and every other member of the Senate voted in favour of retaining them. If one looks at the Hansard record of the time one will see that day after day questions were asked by Opposition senators as we then were about this matter. We then asked the Government for the invocation of the protective clauses of this Agreement so that those industries, which are so terribly vital to Tasmania, could be given the protection which the Agreement was supposed to have embodied within its terms. We could not move them. At no stage was any concession made to the fact that damage was likely to occur. We said at the time of course that all it was doing was facilitating trade in motor vehicles and things like that to New Zealand, because it was the situation then and it is still the situation that New Zealand has very great difficulties owing to its lack of a steel industry and of any resources upon which to base a steel industry in order to make and to provide for its own people these sorts of goods. So the Agreement was to facilitate trade between the 2 countries which would broaden the range of goods that could flow back and forth.

At the time we were very conscious of the problem for New Zealand stemming from the fact that the balance of trade between our 2 countries was substantially in our favour and an endeavour was made, and quite properly, I think, to try to even up trade between the 2 countries. We pointed out, of course, that this would only make the gap in money terms greater, that the deficiency in New Zealand would be greater than it then was. However, we recognised that basically that was what the Agreement was all about; to give New Zealand an opportunity to sell in Australia the goods it could produce so that New Zealand in turn could buy our goods. I remember the argument at the time very clearly. It was pointed out that the climatic and soil conditions in New Zealand were very much more favourable for the growing of peas and beans than those in Australia. Also of course there was a freight advantage. The difference in the freight cost between New Zealand and Sydney and between Tasmania and the mainland States was so small as to be negligible. So this was a substantial advantage to New Zealand exporters of these goods. Further, New Zealand has produced a partially dehydrated pea- the Surprise peawhich we heard so much about years ago. It was a very good product; there is no question about it. As well, of course, New Zealand had a labour cost advantage and this was a tremendous factor weighing in favour of New Zealand when it entered into this Agreement.

We were conscious of all this, conscious of the tremendous range of advantages that New Zealand had in this area of its operations and of the fact that immediately the Agreement came into operation they would pose a threat to the then existing pea and bean growing industries in Australia. Also of course- and this was a very vital factor in the whole thing- once the processors of peas and beans in this country became aware of the tremendous advantage to them of importing these commodities- in fact it was argued at the time with some validity and justification that they could import the commodities which they were then processing in their factoriesthey could import them cheaper than they could buy them from the Tasmanian farms. So there was again an immediate disadvantage and an immediate economic threat to the viability of the industry in Tasmania as a consequence of the negotiating of this Agreement. I repeat that despite all the representations and requests which we made to the then Minister for Trade, Mr McEwen, these were just wiped off without any consideration whatsoever.

I think that in these circumstances it is important for me to stand up in the Senate and say that the damage which has been done to these twin industries in Australia is the direct consequence of the actions of the former Liberal-Country Party Government, and that should be placed on the record. Senator Lillico asked me why this cannot be reversed now. As I understand, and I have not read the Agreement in recent days, there was to be a phasing out over a period of about 8 years- this may or may not be correct and I stand to be corrected on this -

Senator Lillico:

– It is correct.

Senator DEVITT:

-It is correct, is it? The situation has now been reached where there is complete freedom of trade, as we understand it, between the 2 countries without any protective barrier being available to the Australian industry. I thought I should make that position clear, because it is an important consideration when we are talking about trade between these 2 countries, that in the interests of the Australian primary industry the Labor Party to a man voted against the implementation of those provisions which it believed posed a threat of damage or serious harm- whatever term one would use- to the Australian industry. We saw as a consequence that our representations and pleading on behalf of that section of primary industry went completely unanswered and without any response at all by the then Minister for Primary Industry- and now we see the industry in the difficult situation that it is in today. Producers of these commodities in my State are at present producing almost at cost. If one went into all the problems of growing and harvesting these commodities and the need for the weather to be just right and for some other conditions to be obtaining at the time, one would understand just what a chancy and dicey sort of industry it is. I know that if seasonal conditions and other factors important to it turn out to be favourable the farmers can make some money out of it, can show some return. But there is a constant threat hanging over them all the time from an adverse run of seasonal conditions which can completely destroy any prospect they had of an income from the crop, and the processors in this country have held them to such a very slight margin that it is hardly worth while growing it.

I say that if we had not taken that precipitate action which was taken at the time to invoke and to implement the provisions of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement the people in that section of primary industry in Australia would not be in the situation they are in today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 971

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 8 1 8 ), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bills be now read a second rime.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Three Bills are joined for the purposes of this debate, namely, the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1973, the Post and Telegraph Regulations Bill 1973 and the Post and Telegraph Bill 1973. They were introduced into the House of Representatives in the first place because that is where the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) resides, and therefore many of the inequities and injustices and what might be called the unevenness of the charges were brought up and debated there; and because of that the Government agreed to make certain consequential changes, and after discussion these were accepted by the Opposition and this is therefore to be regarded as assent by the Opposition to let the matters go forward to the Senate at that level. I say that only because it appears to me that this whole subject is becoming a mass of increasing confusion. It is fair to observe at the outset that any member of the Opposition who has been involved in any way at all with this legislation has been inundated with protests and complaints from people who are confused and upset. There is great unease among them and- I use the word again- confusion. While some often make the accusation that these people are serving self interest, I did not find this to be so. One receives complaints and expressions of concern from many genuine people in the community and even today I am unable quite clearly to elucidate just what is the level of justice achieved in the House of Representatives and what level of injustice remains. Therefore this is going to be a very difficult operation to sort out in the Senate and I would think that the hope expressed by Senator Murphy to have this legislation passed through all stages by 6 o’clock tonight will be very hard to realise. If this is not possible the Government will have to face up to the fact that it needs to do a lot better than this if it wants measures of a revenue nature dealt with objectively by the Senate. In the House of Representatives the original 3 Bills were supported by 3 properly constructed second reading speeches. In particular the second reading speech for the Post and Telegraph Bill 1973 which covered more than 5 pages raised matters of some importance and concern.

I now refer to the second reading speech delivered on these Bills by Senator Murphy on Tuesday of this week. Senator Murphy made a particularly strange speech on these Bills. The second reading speech he made covered the Bills in a great hurry and left out entirely matters of concern to honourable senators. It left out those matters which were dealt with in the second reading speeches made by the PostmasterGeneral in the House of Representatives. I say to the Government that this sort of approach to the Senate seems to me to be one of great discourtesy and shows an attitude of unconcern for matters which would be of interest to the Senate. At least we ought to be given the opportunity of seeing what the current view of the Postmaster-General is in his reconstructed Bill- if that is what we really now have- following upon the debate in the House of Representatives where there was an agreement for adjustment.

Senator Murphy most obviously was discomforted in reading the second reading speech. He was clearly conscious of some of these problems. At the end of this very loosely prepared second reading speech he offered some comments of his own. These comments are recorded on page 818 of Hansard, and for the benefit of honourable senators I will quote that section of his remarks so that I can make it clear where we all stand on this matter. Senator Murphy added the following remarks to the second reading speech which was given to him to deliver:

I want to draw attention to the other matter lest it should escape the attention of honourable senators. This matter does not concern money. It concerns clause 13 of the Post and Telegraph Bill and relates to the search of suspected persons. This provision in the legislation, which is directed towards providing protection for postal officers who engage in searches and also the protection of the mails, may contain aspects of civil liberties. I think this clause would warrant some consideration by honourable senators at the Committee stage rather than at the second reading stage when we are dealing with all aspects of the Bill. I simply draw this aspect of the legislation to the attention of honourable senators and propose that perhaps there may be some need for the consideration of the clause in Committee. I put before the Senate, assuming that this legislation reaches the Committee of the Whole, the matters which seem to me to arise and I ask for the assistance of honourable senators in arriving at some clause which would be satisfactory from the point of view not only of the public in regard to the protection of the mails and investigation officers who are dealing with them, but also from the civil liberties aspect.

I pay Senator Murphy a compliment for the fact that he expressed his own concern at the end of the second reading speech which he delivered for someone else. But nonetheless the concern which he has expressed must be taken as the concern he expresses on behalf of the Government because he is the Leader of the Government in this place.

It is clearly not the function of the Opposition in the first place to correct a Bill which the Government itself through its spokesman in this place admits is defective and needs adjustment. In my view- others may wish to speak after methe Government has a responsibility which it cannot abandon to bring forward now for the consideration of the Senate a new clause or series of clauses to set aside at least for the moment the concern expressed by Senator Murphy. In addition, the Government owes it to the Senate to present with this changed Bill, or proposed changed Bill, an extension of the second reading speech which will amplify the additional details which the Senate needs to have explained to it as representing the Government view of these additional matters. This courtesy was paid to the House of Representatives. Why should it not be paid also to the Senate?

I said to Senator Murphy that I was contemplating asking for leave to continue my remarks to allow him time to go back to the PostmasterGeneral and make the necessary adjustments or to concern himself with looking at this whole matter. As I observed from his remarks this morning his wish to have this matter disposed of I am telling him on behalf of the Opposition, for whom I would speak in the first place- others, as I have said, will have other views and will want to express them because this is a matter of very great concern- that if they want this measure to go through this place it is his and his Government’s responsibility to clear up all of these misunderstandings and confusions. So rather than seeking leave to continue my remarks I think it would perhaps be fairer to Senator Murphy- although fairness is not a quality which we have had a lot of around here lately, although I think that this is perhaps the right way to behave -

Senator Milliner:

– You could not be fair.

Senator COTTON:

– Do you want to observe something, senator? Do you want to say something?

Senator Milliner:

– I said that you could not be fair.

Senator COTTON:

-Senator, I think that is a remark that is unworthy of you. Perhaps you might go outside, walk around and see whether you might improve slightly because there is room for that. In view of the Government’s wish to have this matter cleared up today I am happy, Senator Murphy, if you wish me to do so, to seek leave to continue my remarks. Would you like me to proceed and give you time?

Senator Murphy:

– I would like you to proceed.

Senator COTTON:

– Thank you very much. In view of the Government’s wish to have this matter cleared up today it seems to me that instead of seeking leave to continue my remarks as I had intended to do I should adopt the course of saying to the Attorney-General that he has a responsibility and an opportunity to indicate an amendment to clause 1 3 on which he has expressed his great concern for civil liberties- I understand and respect this concern- before we deal with this legislation at the Committee stage. I hope that he will bring forward something reflective of what would be a better position in the Bills, particularly in regard to clause 13 of the Post and Telegraph Bill, that would meet his concern and the concern of the Senate. We will await with great interest that opportunity to hear him. As I said, he could do that when he is replying during the second reading stage of the debate. In addition he also could indicate to us in greater detail the further matters which the House of Representatives had to consider when it saw the second reading speeches in a more amplified style.

The Bills before us cover an immense area which is, as I said, not easy to understand. I will outline to the Senate my understanding of the legislation. I will spell this out so that Senator Murphy may be able to help us later today and inform us of the true position. As I said, the matter was discussed very very seriously in the House of Representatives. The Opposition in the House of Representatives indicated its view to the Government. After discussion and deliberation it is the understanding of the Opposition that the Postmaster-General made certain adjustments and certain changes in the proposed increase in rates, changes in metrication and so on which would relieve some of the people, but not all, of the burden of these increased postal charges. That was an agreement. As I understand it this agreement was incorporated in Hansard. This was the Opposition’s understanding of the state of play when this Bill left the House of Representatives. But not long ago this morning I received a series of 3 amendments to the Post and Telegraph Bills. What I am unable to elucidate clearly, because there has been no time to consider the matter, is whether those amendments represent the agreement reached in the House of Representatives by the PostmasterGeneral and the Opposition on the changes they both accepted there?

Senator McManus:

– Was there a deal?

Senator COTTON:

– This is what appears from Hansard.

Senator McManus:

– Surely the Opposition and the other side would not make a deal with Mr Whitlam? I do not see how a mangey deal like that could take place.

Senator COTTON:

– The point is well taken, senator. But what I am seeking to do- it might be hard for the honourable senator to understand this- is to try and proceed with a revenue measure which is becoming most confused.

I again refer to what I said earlier. The Opposition put forward a wide range of objections in the House of Representatives debate on this matter. These were taken by the Government. In the Hansard of the House of Representatives there is recorded an agreement by the Government to change many of the increased rates and charges. That is recorded. That was accepted by the Opposition. What we now have in the Senate is a series of amendments. I indicate to Senator Murphy that what I want to know in due course is this: Does this series of amendments which we have here represent the House of Representatives view of the changes agreed to between the Government and the Opposition at the time the Bill proceeded to us? Are these amendments the same as those spelt out in the agreement which was recorded in Hansard or does it represent a new series of amendments which the Opposition here or in another place has not had time to consider?

Senator Murphy:

– My understanding is that what has come forward represents in its technical form the exact agreement which was entered into and recorded. This would come from the Government. Probably they were unable to formulate the exact form of amendment to give effect to what was agreed to in the House of Representatives.

Senator COTTON:

-I thank Senator Murphy for the observation. This is what I would expect to be the case, but because of the very brief time that the Opposition has had in this chamber to look at the series of amendments there appears to be some confusion in the minds of people as to whether this is what was actually agreed to. Senator Murphy must understand that one is not making any accusation. One is seeking clarification as Senator Murphy would be doing, I imagine. We do need to be precise about this. Are the circulated amendments the precise form of what the House of Representatives transmits to us? If that is the case then I understand that the Bill which was passed in the House of Representatives is still in our hands in an untouched form and that the amendments which we have are to be added to the Bill to bring it to the stage of agreement which was reached before it left the House of Representatives.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes, that is right.

Senator COTTON:

– I am sorry but one needs to do this in order to be clear.

Senator Murphy:

– The Bill which left the Horse of Representatives is the original Bill. The amendments are those which will give effect to what was agreed upon. That is my understanding. I cannot pretend to follow all the technicalities either, but that is my understanding.

Senator COTTON:

-Later we might be able to have a conference with someone, because we are anxious to get this undertanding. This is a confused matter and it will become more confused as the debate proceeds. It is not true that the measure does not affect many people. It affects a tremendous number of people throughout the community. Every Opposition member has received an immense range of protests and expressions of concern about this matter. It affects a lot of people. It affects not only country newspapers but also newspapers originating in the city. The proposal is very grave for country newspapers. This is recognised by the Opposition and it is one of the areas of adjustment which the House of Representatives has transmitted to us.

It is worthy of observation that the Post Office, in its evidence to the Australian Post Office Commission of Inquiry, has pointed out that increases in charges in many of these areas tend to be counter-productive and do not solve the problem. Of course the Commission of Inquiry is still sitting. I am sure it will be observed in debate by many honourable senators that as the Commission of Inquiry has been established it might have been better to allow it to finalise its work. In order to be fair, the only observation I enter against that proposition is that we do not know how long it will be. This is a Government revenue raising measure which the Opposition wants to treat with respect, but it wants it to be adjusted where it is unfair and discriminatory. It has already had some adjustment in the House of Representatives. The Post Office also made the observation that a better way to approach this whole matter might be to have some form of subsidy or interest relief. Again these are matters which others will raise in debate but they are not matters which can be fixed today. They are matters which are a distance away and which can be fixed only after a number of things has happened.

Mr Lionel Bowen, the Postmaster General, is on record as having stated in March 1973 that he would do nothing about postal charges until a commission of inquiry into the Post Office brought in its findings. Mr Lionel Bowen is not the only one in a state of confusion. Many of us who have had to deal with this matter are already slightly confused. There was a statement in the Budget that these increases were not very great. But let us look at some of them. One comment was that the 7c rate would remain unaltered. In fact, because of the change to metrication the 7c rate now applies to the first 20 grams in weight only as against 28 grams or 1 oz previously. The extra 8 grams is to be charged for at 8c so a letter of 28 grams will now cost 15c as against the old price of 7c. Letters weighing between 20 grams and 28 grams will cost 15c as against 7c. Between 28 grams and 50 grams the rate will increase from 12c to 15c. Between 50 grams and 56 grams it will increase from 12c to 20c. So 7c for the first 20 grams is a logical price. There are many examples of this. Most honourable senators have information about unsealed mail, postal rates for country newspapers, etc.

The effect of the increased postal charges in many areas will mean a reduction in the dissemination of information. Charities, voluntary organisations, business associations, religious groups and trade journals are all facing increased charges which will make it more difficult for their members to be informed. This really is not a good idea if we are to have open government and public understanding where people can obtain information freely and read it freely. I suggest to the Government that it may have made a mistake if it wants a more informed community. It is discouraging people who are setting out to provide information. Clearly I think the possibility has also to be contemplated that this may well lead to decreased Post Office revenue because of the decreased demand by business publications and because of the use of alternative methods of delivery.

There are many observations which one cannot precisely check out, and one cannot make sure that the arithmetic is totally reliable. But things like this have been said: The cost of posting a letter could rise by more than 100 per cent by 1 October, and the cost of mailing millions of Christmas cards could go from 7c to 15c each. I do not know how true this is but I have to say that no one has countered those observations which are increasingly being made by people who are concerned. I have some concern as to whether there has been discrimination between what I call employee and employer publications. In the current provisions relating to category B publications the following words occur.

Other newspapers. Other periodicals including those published by social, recreational or motorists organisations, organisations of employers or employees or organisations of persons engaged in, or connected with, a business or a profession.

That appears to be the current situation. But when one reads the new provisions one finds that as from 1 March 1974 the following are to be transferred from category B to category C:

  1. newspapers and periodicals issued more than 3 times weekly.
  2. newspapers and periodicals published by employer and professional organisations.

From that it appears that the employer organisations are being discriminated against when compared with employee organisations. If that is indeed true it seems to me to be unfair. That is the only conclusion one can draw from looking at these 2 references.

Undoubtedly a great part of this proposal seeks to increase Post Office revenue by increasing Post Office charges. The Postmaster-General has stated that he seeks to raise $49m in 1 973-74. Of this amount $31m will come from telephone and telegraph charges and $ 1 8m from postal service charge increases. As far as one can identify it, it looks as though the area about which we are now talking will account for $ 10m of that $ 1 8m. But there again one cannot be precise about the arithmetic because one is not the PostmasterGeneral at the moment. The information I have been able to gather from reading Post Office material and by looking at other material is that the registered newspaper and periodical service would have lost about $ 10.5m in 1973-74 and this would increase because of the concessional rates which apply. It was proposed that progressivelyover a 3-year period- this service be placed on a different basis. I understand members of the Coombs task force were concerned about this area of the Post Office losing money.

I think that it will be agreed that we as an Opposition are trying to achieve some clarity on this matter in order to try to be objective in the debate. In its submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Post Office, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department confirms the loss of about $10m in this section. The Post Office suggests that this area be subsidised by the Government rather than by the Post Office. The Post Office makes the statement that discounts on registered publications are a serious worry. It states that the growth rate of registered publication categories is negative because of increased tariffs over the last few years. The discrimination between employee or trade union publications and employer publications appears to have been established fairly clearly on the evidence made available to me. If that is not the case, I would be glad to hear about it. I understand from representations that have been made that some trade unions are in a state of confusion as to whether their publications are affected. Perhaps that question can be cleared up at the same time as the other one.

In relation to the area with which we are concerned there are people who say that the problem of the Post Office is that it has not identified its loss factors correctly; that it has attributed to this area a loss that is not a proper loss. They say that the Post Office has not taken into account many other factors and has not necessarily come up with what might be called a strict cost accounting proposition. They contest that the $ 10m loss is a true figure. They say that it does not take into account members’ posting, date rationalisation, quantity predictability, addressee concentration and sophisticated pre-sorting by postcode. It is very easy in cost accounting, as those who have been involved in it know, to come up with any figure one likes in order to prové one ‘s case, if one has a big enough business. Therefore, there are people putting tests on these statements about the loss in this section. The point is made that concessional rates are needed in this area, otherwise we will end up having a competitive system of distribution which will take business right away from the Post Office and therefore the Post Office will not make any real gain. Business publications are volume traffic, not individual mailings.

Perhaps there is some wisdom in referring to the Post Office submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Post Office. It is stated on page 155 that if the Post Office wishes to keep tariffs down to what the public would think is a reasonable figure it will need to have reductions in Treasury indebtedness, like in the British Post Office, where some debts are written off if they do not pay or subsidies provided to some of the uneconomic services. That is an observation by the Post Office that may well be usefully debated in about 2 years time when the report of the Commission of Inquiry is made; but it will not fix the problem today. The problem today is a series of increased charges to recover a loss in a section of the Post Office which many people say is not a true loss anyway. Many people say that the increases will be counter-productive and will not really overcome the loss because revenue will decline through lack of use. Many say that they are discriminatory as between all kinds of organisations. As a result, in the House of Representatives the Government made consequential and substantial adjustments which have come to the Senate in a slightly confused form. The reference to this matter in the House of Representatives Hansard is on page 1255, for those who wish to look at it.

The other observation I make is that it is very easy to be a critic when in Opposition. The present Government is now finding out that it is not all that simple to translate its Opposition dreams into governmental reality.

Senator Devitt:

-We are doing all right.

Senator COTTON:

-Perhaps the Government is. I propose to quote from a few letters of which I have photocopies and which I will be quite delighted in due course to table. On 30 September 1970 a letter was sent to Mr Egan, the President of the Australian Monthly Newspapers and Periodicals Association, in Melbourne. It read:

Dear Mr Egan,

Thank you for your recent letter concerning the savage increases in postal charges.

You may be assured that the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party strongly opposes these increases and will take all possible action in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to defeat the Bill to impose the increases.

Best wishes,

Yours faithfully,

LIONEL MURPHY.

Then there was a letter to Mr Egan from Mr Keith Johnson, the honourable member for Burke. It read:

Thank you for your letter dated 19 May drawing my attention to some of the inequities of the Postal Regulations and the booklet you enclosed titled ‘ Bulk Postage Rates ‘.

My ALP colleagues and I have argued this matter vigorously in the House at every opportunity.

I have had many discussions with personnel from the Suburban Newspapers Association and have vigorously supported their case to Postmaster-General Sir Alan Hulme but all to no avail.

My colleagues and I cannot understand why a single enterprise like the Post Office is divided at Budget time so that the excess income from telecommunications is divorced from the less profitable mail carrying side of the operation.

This action only leads us to believe that the Post Office is cynically used by the Government as a taxation machine.

The Post Office is not used equally by the community, although its services benefit all, and only those who use the facilities pay the tax.

We do not regard this as equitable.

Another letter is from Mr Clyde Cameron.

Senator Murphy:

– Was that last one from me?

Senator COTTON:

-No, from Mr Keith Johnson to Mr Egan. Do not worry, I shall put them all on the table. I have a great number of these letters. It demonstrates what I said earlier, namely, that people such as Senator McAuliffe would be well advised to remain silent because one day their remarks will be held against them. Mr Clyde Cameron said:

In reply to your letter concerning the proposed increase in postal charges for newspapers and periodicals, I wish to advise that my party has opposed the increases.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Labor Party joined with the government in letting the proposed increases go through.

Then there is a letter to Mr Egan from Dr J. F. Cairns, which read:

I have received your recent letter, and I am aware of the impact of the increases in postage on organisations which publish newspapers and periodicals registered at the GPO for bulk postage.

It seems the increases were thoroughly planned by the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Depanment, and despite the opposition of the Australian Labor Party to these proposals, they were successful in passing through the House of Representatives and the Senate. In such a situation as this, it is the numbers that count, and we could do nothing more than speak and write against the proposals, and vote as we did.

There are great numbers of other letters. Among them is one from Mr Tom Uren, which read:

Dear Mr Egan,

Thank you for your letter concerning postal increases.

My Party took a firm stand on this matter during the Budget discussion in the Federal Parliament and the matter is being dealt with by the appropriate committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party.

It is only by continual agitation that we can hope to achieve any results which can be of benefit to the community.

What we have before us is a proposition by me that I lay on the table these various letters- there are many more than I have read- for the benefit of honourable senators who wish to further inform themselves on this interesting series of correspondence. I seek leave to table these letters.

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

Senator COTTON:

-I am trying to let a little light into this very dark scene, for the benefit of Opposition senators. It seems to me, from interjections I have heard, that this would benefit Government senators equally. I do not think any useful purpose was served by honourable senators interjecting on what I would call a most inconsequential basis, when what I was seeking to do was to obtain for the Senate, for both the Opposition and the Government, some clarity in a very confused area.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Why did you not read some of Mr Nixon’s speeches? You would have been put on the right track.

Senator COTTON:

– You see what I mean, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is a great problem here to be able to make a serious speech on a matter of serious concern. I again say to Senator Murphy that I am quite happy now to seek leave to continue my remarks. What would he like me to do?

Senator Murphy:

– I would like you to continue your remarks. In response to your suggestion about having a discussion, I say that one of the officers of the Department will talk with you over the lunch period.

Senator COTTON:

– That would be very much appreciated. On that basis we will have further opportunity to talk about this matter in Committee. I think we will all be taking up that opportunity. Senator Murphy might be able, in his reply to the second reading debate before we go into Committee, to indicate the form of clause 13 which he feels is better- I did take note of his objections- and to raise some of the matters which were mentioned in the second reading debate in the House of Representatives but were not raised here. I think that if he did that the Senate would be paid a proper courtesy and we would have some respect for him. When that is done we can proceed to debate the legislation in Committee on the expectation that we will go as far as we possibly can to try to have it discussed adequately and seriously.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I rise to second the amendments moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). The amendments that he moved are to 3 Bills -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Durack)- Order! There are no amendments before the Chair at this stage. We are debating the second reading of the Bills.

Senator McAULIFFE:

– Then I will debate the question that is before the Chair.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I would be grateful if you would do that.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Thank you, Sir. Three Bills have been introduced into the Senate. They are the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill, the Post and Telegraph Regulations Bill and the Post and Telegraph Bill. But before proceeding to deal with them I must comment on the remarks of Senator Cotton. He said that the whole chamber is in a state of confusion and that no one knows what the Bills are about. I submit that the only one who is in a state of confusion about the whole matter is Senator Cotton. He has had ministerial experience and he is a senator of long standing in this chamber but, with due respect, it is quite obvious that he has failed to do his homework on these Bills or he has not read his brief. He could have got a speedy briefing by reading the remarks that were made in another place by Mr Nixon.

It must become obvious to anybody who has read the Bills and the second reading speech of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the underlying factor in these 3 Bills is to gain added revenue for the Post Office. Without additional revenue from tariffs, the Post Office would have little or no profit at all to reinvest in 1973-74. Those who know anything about the activities and workings of the Post Office realise that profits from revenue and borrowings from the Budget are the main means of finance and the way in which the Post Office can undertake new capital investment. Therefore, reinvested profits enable the Post Office to meet the demand for service at a higher level than would be the case if the Post Office depended solely on the finances made available to it from borrowings from the Budget. Surely that must be a simple exercise in arithmetic. If you have the additional assistance of profits from revenue, coupled with the borrowings from the Budget and the Treasury- if you have those 2 things working for you- you must be able to meet the demands for service at a higher level than would be the case if you were left solely to depend upon finances from the Budget.

This is the main reason behind the alterations contained in these Bills. They are to give additional revenue to the Post Office so that it will be able to reinvest profits in its works. With the revised charges that are proposed, a profit of $50m will be available for reinvestment. This is to the order of $42m that was available in 1972-73. In 1972-73 approximately 57 per cent of the funds needed by the Post Office were provided through Budget borrowings and approximately the same amount will be provided through the Budget borrowings in 1973-74. That gives one some idea of the finances that will be available. It has long been established that the revenue derived by the Post Office from tariffs and from Budget borrowings approximate the same amount; the ratio is roughly 50/50.

The Budget borrowings have been provided for in the Budget, but of course the Bills to enable the revenue to be raised by the Post Office have to be passed by this chamber. When the Bills were being introduced I noted that they are required to receive royal assent by 1 October. I am wondering whether the submission made by Senator Cotton was designed to delay and frustrate, which has been the pattern followed when this Government has endeavoured to pass urgent legislation in this chamber. I prefer to accept his explanation that his submission was made for the purpose of clarification. I hope that during the suspension of the sittings for lunch he will be able to do some more research into and make some more study of this matter and then come back into the chamber later and take part in the debate at the Committee stages as a more enlightened senator, and I say that advisedly.

If any government does not want to take certain action alternatives are available to it. The alternatives available to this Government were to increase the Post Office share of the Budget. But if the Post Office were to get more from the Budget some other programs and projects of the Government would have to suffer, and this was unacceptable to the Government. The Cabinet gave due consideration to these matters and arrived at the view that no additional borrowings for the Post Office could be provided for in the Budget. The only other alternative open to the Post Office was to reduce the amount of capital investment and surely no honourable senator, whether on the Government side or the Opposition side of the chamber, would advocate that, because it would have a detrimental effect on satisfying applications for telephone services, which already are lagging behind.

Sitting suspended from 12.4S to 2.15 p.m.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had pointed out that 3 Bills were being discussed by the Senate, that their main purpose was to raise additional revenue for the Post Office and that the raising of such additional revenue was the main issue for debate. Senator Cotton had offered the opinion that confusion seemed to reign everywhere. I can understand that he would feel that way because after the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1973 had been passed by the House of Representatives Mr Nixon and the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) had consultations regarding revised amendments and reduced tariffs which would be charged. It was agreed that as the Bill had been passed in its original state the proposed amended tariffs would be incorporated in the Hansard of that place and that when the Bill was before the Senate the necessary amendments would be proposed.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate cannot take cognisance of private arrangements between members of the other place.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– With respect, Mr President, it is recorded in Hansard and I am only repeating what is recorded.

The PRESIDENT:

– I realise that, but I make the point that this chamber cannot be a party to or acknowledge arrangements made in the other place.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I accept your guidance, Mr President. I just mention that fact to show that there was nothing underhand or no intention of confusing anybody in the other place. It would be interesting for me to quote from page 1257 of Hansard of the other place of 19 September 1973. Mr Nixon said:

I would like just in passing to thank the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for his co-operation on this legislation. It has been very difficult legislation to handle. I am sure that the people outside in the community will recognise the value of the acceptance of the amendments that the Minister has agreed to. 1 would like to thank him and also the officers of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for their assistance in achieving a Bill that is acceptable.

That was the tenor of the whole debate in the other place. I think it is to the credit of the Minister that he approached these Bills in the conciliatory manner in which he did. He listened to the proposition advanced by Mr Nixon. After the Minister and his officers studied it, he decided to accept it. That is the attitude of the Minister whose portfolio charges him with the administration of the Post Office. He has shown initiative and has introduced new and exciting ideas. I venture to say that he will make his mark in the nation as the most progressive PostmasterGeneral that we have had for a very long period.

As I said prior to the suspension of the sitting, it became a question of raising additional revenue. The Post Office had to raise additional revenue by way of profits. It could not depend entirely upon borrowings from the Budget if it wanted to invest in capital improvements for the future. Certain alternatives were available. One was to get increased borrowings from the Budget, which would have meant that other Government programs would have suffered. The other alternative open to the Post Office was to decrease the amount of capital investment in which it would engage. If it did, it would result in an unsatisfactory delay in dealing with applications for telephone connections. That was the stage I had reached.

No senator on this side of the chamber or on the other side cf the chamber wants to see introduced any legislation which will delay the servicing of the tremendous number of applications for installation of new telephones. The Minister having decided that he could not get this additional revenue from Budget borrowings, started to look elsewhere to see where he could get it. I think he is to be complimented for doing so. In deciding which charges should be adjusted this year, he, as we now know, gave priority to reducing the losses incurred by a number of concessional and uneconomic services. Among them were concessional and uneconomic services provided to country areas and the media. They were 2 avenues at which he looked. He decided to reduce the losses in those areas rather than to accept the traditional course, which had been the policy of the previous Government each year when looking for additional revenue, of increasing the postal charges by lc and of increasing telephone charges.

Senator Little:

-What will these Bills do?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– If the honourable senator listens he will find out what they will do. The Minister, instead of taking the easy way out of increasing postal charges by lc and of increasing telephone charges, as Ministers before him had done, has looked at areas in which the Government was losing revenue on account of inequitable concession rates and uneconomic services.

One aspect of Post Office business was highlighted. The postage concessions on newspapers and periodicals came under close attention because the Government was losing roughly $10m a year because of the very generous concessions which it gave. Figures show that registered publications in the general postage area were losing $lm a year and that registered publications on the bulk section were losing $8.4m a year. In that area $9.4m was being lost each year. The Minister very wisely and correctly said: ‘Let us look at this area of our revenue raising and the subsidies’. So he looked at the concessions on newspapers and periodicals. The subsidy on registered newspapers and other publications is not a burden that any reasonable senator would expect the Post Office to carry when they expect the Post Office to be run as a correct and proper business undertaking. If we want the Post Office to be a business undertaking and to be run as a government business undertaking we cannot say that it has to carry the burden of these subsidies that go to various sections of the community. Nor is it appropriate that the Government should subsidise daily newspapers, commercial magazines and professional and employer associations when there are so many other demands upon the Budget. To me, that decision seems a reasonable conclusion.

Let us look at who is being subsidised. The Government, through the agency of the Post Office, has to subsidise daily newspapers. Nobody recognises more than I do that the Press fulfils an important role in society. It plays a very important part. It has a public duty and provides a public service. Surely no honourable senator would deny that the motive behind the daily newspapers is, first and foremost, to make a profit. I do not think I have to enlighten any honourable senator about the fact that the newspaper industry today is regarded as a highly profitable business. Yet the Post Office is expected to subsidise it.

Senator Little:

– What about subsidies for the newsagents? They have to deliver 6 papers a week to earn 5c.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Senator Little would know that newspaper companies are profitable businesses. Of course they are. Let us examine the profits of some of them. Herald and Weekly Times Ltd made a profit of $ 18m for 1972-73, according to its annual report. News Ltd made a profit of $8m. John Fairfax and Sons Ltd made a profit of $5m. Queensland Press Ltd made a profit of $5m. Advertiser Newspapers Ltd made a profit of $5m. Surely no one who applied common sense to the debate, including Senator Little, would deny that these companies should be able to absorb all the increases. By the same token, what about the subscribers to foreign owned magazines such as ‘Readers Digest’ and Time’? Surely people who can afford to buy these sophisticated magazines can afford to pay an increased subscription rate. So the same situation applies in relation to journals that are produced by employer organisations and professional organisations. They are all in the one category. If we are to be honest with one another, we should admit that they all should be able to absorb these increased charges.

Many honourable senators will know as I do that many country newspapers are owned by metropolitan daily newspapers. Again, these companies should be able to absorb any of the increased charges. So that it cannot be said that it is a figment of my imagination that many country newspapers are owned by metropolitan daily newspapers, let me give quickly examples of the ownership of some of the country newspapers. For instance, Australian Consolidated Press Ltd owns the Maitland Mercury Newspaper and Printing Co. Pty Ltd, the Manning River Times Pty Ltd, the Cape Hawke Advocate Pty Ltd, the Gloucester Advocate Pty Ltd and Central Coast Newspapers Pty Ltd. Let me give another example: John Fairfax and Sons Ltd owns Illawarra Newspapers and the South Coast Times Pty Ltd. There are a whole host of examples. Honourable senators could take any of these daily metropolitan newspapers I have mentioned and will find that together they own the majority of the country newspapers.

Honourable senators on this side of the Senate are not like the ostrich with his head in the sand. We try to look at these things fairly and squarely and to be honest and honourable about them. We know that there are many small country newspapers that are privately owned in these areas. In fact, some of the proposed charges might be a lot harder for them to absorb than for the companies I have mentioned. But, of course, the position has been blown out of all proportion by Opposition senators. We have been told by Opposition senators and by Opposition members in another place whose statements have been given wide publicity in the Press that the percentage increases are too large. But they only appear to be too large. I hear some honourable senators opposite laugh. I will give some figures which will enlighten them and perhaps change their opinion. The increases appear to be so large because the gap between the concessional rates that are being offered and the normal rates was too great in the first place. One was a charge and the other was a giveaway. So when anything is done to remedy the position it appears to be an increase out of all proportion if it is magnified on a percentage basis.

Let us look at some of the proposals. Opposition senators are saying that what I am saying is not right. They are saying that the charges are excessive. There is only one thing to do: Let us come to the core of the whole situation. Let us coolly and sensibly analyse some of the amended proposals. Most of them are to take effect over a 3-year period. The cost of mailing a weekly country newspaper weighing 50 grams will increase by one and a half cents a week or 78c a year between 1972 and 1975. In the case of a newspaper weighing 100 grams, the increase will be only $1.25 a year. These are the tremendous increases that will wreck the economy and put every country newspaper out of business. Let us examine the position further: A monthly magazine weighing 200 grams will cost an extra 30c a year to post by 1975. The light weight monthly category B publication -

Senator Young:

– Would the honourable senator mind repeating that one again?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Under the amended proposals to take effect over 3 years the cost of mailing a weekly country newspaper weighing 50 grams will have increased by one and a half cents a week or 78c a year between 1972 and 1975. In the case of a newspaper weighing 100 grams, the cost will increase by only $ 1.25 a year over that period. A monthly magazine weighing 200 grams will cost an extra 30c a year to post by 1975. Publishers of light weight category B publications who presently pay 35 per cent of normal printed matter rate will pay extra postage of 24c a year for each publication by 1975. Again, this will be introduced after a 3-year period. I am indebted to Senator Young for taking such an interest in the figures that I am citing to the Senate. So that they can be recorded for future researching, I seek the permission of the Senate to have this document incorporated in Hansard. It is one that the Government Printer could handle easily.

The PRESIDENT:

– I accept the honourable senator’s assurance. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document reads as follows)-

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– It must be recognised by all honourable senators that a continuation of this concession, which is costing the Post Office roughly $ 10.5m a year- I think that that was the figure submitted by Senator Cotton- must hasten the time when the basic postage rate is increased. As I said earlier, the Postmaster-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, is to be congratulated that he did not fall into the same old traditional course that is adopted when revenue is required of putting up the cost of a postage stamp by lc or by increasing the telephone bill. He looked elsewhere. That is only right. If concessions are to be granted, they have to be paid for by other Post Office customers.

During the course of Senator Cotton ’s remarks in this debate he said that these amendments have come under very severe criticism from the trade union movement. I think it is only fair and proper that we should have a quick look at how the increases affect trade union journals. The records show that there are 280 employee publications registered in respect of the category B rate. Annual postings total about 7 million items. The postings of one union in Australia, the Australian Workers Union, represent about onethird of these annual postings. In other words, the union posts approximately 2.6 million items a year. Honourable senators can see that if we are to look at how the increases affect the trade union journal position we have to examine an organisation which is involved in this field in a very big way. The Australian Workers Union publishes 2 newspapers. In the southern States it publishes The Worker’ and in Queensland it publishes The Northern Worker’. It is given to us in the schedules and information supplied with the Bill that the average weight of a union journal is 58 grams. ‘The Worker’ weighs 56 grams.

Under the amended proposals, postage charges for a single copy union journal weighing no more than 50 grams will be as follows: There will be no increase in the present cost of 2.5c on 1

October 1973 after this Bill receives royal assent: on 1 March 1 974 the cost will be 3.5c, an increase of 26c, a year for a fortnightly publication; on 1 March 1975 the cost will be 4.5c, an increase of 52c a year for a fortnightly publication. For a monthly publication, the increase would be 24c a year. This is ail shown quite clearly in the table that I have had incorporated in the Hansard record.

Let me return to deal with the journals of the Australian Workers Union. That Union claims to have over 140,000 members. Eighty-five per cent of its membership receives a union journal every fortnight. Those union members who want to receive ‘The Worker’ or, in Queensland, ‘The Northern Worker’, make application for it. But there is a levy in the union dues whether or not the union member takes the newspaper. This union sends out about 106,000 journals every fortnight- 62,000 copies of ‘The Worker’ in the southern States and 44,000 copies in the northern States. The union relies heavily upon the mail service for distribution of its journal. I am still referring to the Australian Workers Union and I am endeavouring to make a comparison of the charges existing now and those that will be in operation after the Bill is passed. The cost of the journal is a levy on the union membership and therefore it is only correct and proper that we consider the increases in membership dues during a given period. In 1968 the annual subscription to the Australian Workers Union was $8. This year it is $16. The subscription has increased by $8 and the amount is calculated on adult rates of pay. The membership fee has increased by $8 from 1968 to 1973. If the same progression is to apply in the next 3 years there will be a considerable increase in that union’s membership fee.

I want to analyse now the increases in the postal charges. After 3 years, in 1975, the extra annual postage on ‘The Worker’ will be 52c. That is a very small amount in relation to past and expected increases in wages and union dues, [t might be appropriate at this time if I relate the position regarding average weekly earnings since 1966-67. In that year average weekly earnings were $6 1 .70. This year the figure is $ 104.50. That means that there has been an increase in that period of about $40 a week. Yet the postage of the union journal is to go up by 52c a year.

Certain information has been made available to honourable senators since the luncheon adjournment. It has been indicated that it is likely that this Bill will receive support and will be passed by this chamber so that it can receive royal assent by 1 October and so that the increase in revenue will be available to the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department.

Senator Wilkinson and I made a submission to the commission of inquiry into the Post Office which is sitting at present. The main theme of our submission was that if the Post Office was to be run as a business undertaking it could not be expected to subsidise all the services that it provided. If these services are to be provided by the Post Office then it should be subsidised from the Treasury or in some other way by the Government. The Post Office should not be held responsible for carrying the burden of providing these subsidised services on the one hand and also be expected to run as a business undertaking. If the Government, irrespective of its political persuasion, is to continue to run the Post Office in its present state as a departmental authority, to require it to pay interest on its borrowings and to run services uneconomically, the Post Office has no future as a business concern. It would be best for the Government, irrespective of its political persuasion, to remove the Post Office from the control of the Public Service Board, as it is presently run, and make it a statutory corporation, operating on business lines and accountable to the Minister. If the Government believes that telephone services and extensions are required in rural areas, that concessions are required for sporting, religious or recreational journals, and that these things are in the national interest, the Post Office should be subsidised from the Treasury. The Postmaster-General should not have the responsibility of carrying that burden.

The question of payment of interest by the Post Office again comes up. The Post Office should not be asked to pay interest on money used in providing non-viable propositions. There is no harm in requesting any business which borrows money to pay interest on that money. That is all right if the propositions are viable. But if the Post Office has to provide unprofitable services as a result of Government direction or instruction and it becomes involved in expenditure that the

Government knows at the outset is going to be unprofitable, it is not right that it should have to pay interest on its borrowings. If the Post Office has to pay interest in order to provide non-viable services each year then any government, whether formed by the Liberal-Country Parties or the Labor Party, will have to bring in increased tariffs to maintain the present system of administration in the Post Office. That cannot be avoided.

I think that the Postmaster-General has done a first class job in a very difficult situation. I congratulate him on getting out of the old traditional habit of increasing telephone charges and postage charges by lc when extra revenue is required. He is to be complimented for what he has done. He is having a deep study made of the whole of the administration of the Post Office. He is trying to save revenue for the Post Office by cutting out uneconomic services and not charging too low a rate for the concessions that presently apply.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-In view of the Government’s previous attitude we have just heard an extraordinary speech from a Government supporter, Senator McAuliffe. In previous years when the Liberal-Country Parties formed the government and we had to raise extra revenue such moves were opposed to a man by the then Opposition. In fact the then Opposition even brought the Senate back on one occasion towards the end of June for a special meeting in order to disallow some regulations designed to put up charges. Now that the Labor Party is in government it realises that many charges have to be increased in order to keep the Post Office going. I do not think it is fair to say that the Post Office should be a 100 per cent business proposition. That is one of the things which I object to about the 3 Bills which we are considering. There has been pretty vicious discrimination in all charges against people who live outside the capital cities and the big provincial cities. I think that everybody would agree with that statement. Senator McAuliffe mentioned that the Post Office should be run as a business undertaking. However I point out that it costs the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department about $ 1 to deliver a letter to Birdsville, in Queensland, the State which he represents. Is he suggesting that a $ 1 stamp should be placed on every letter going to Birdsville? That would make the delivery a business proposition.

Senator McAuliffe also mentioned that the Post Office needed more revenue. It does need more revenue to keep going in view of the escalation of costs in that Department. But as I have pointed out already, many of the increases selected by the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) discriminate against people outside the metropolitan areas. I want to refer firstly to the postage of country newspapers or newspapers which circulate in the country. The House of Representatives has agreed to certain amendments to this legislation and consequential amendments are to be agreed to in the Senate in order to make them fit in with the proper set-up of the Bill. I want to refer to the situation of people living away from the metropolitan areas and the big cities. The printed word in a newspaper which they can sit down and read at their leisure, even though they receive their newspaper perhaps only once or twice a week and whether those newspapers are printed in the country areas or in the city, means much more to them than a fleeting word which they hear on the radio or on television. One cannot be sure that one has picked up what has been said on the radio or on television, and it can be confusing. One cannot be sure of all the facts in these cases. One likes to see things in print. That is why having a newspaper to read, whether it is printed in the country areas or in a metropolis, means so much to the residents in the rural areas and those who live away from the big cities, such as in the mining areas.

Newspapers means so much to the people who live in those areas that any extra postage charge will hurt them more than anyone else. Very few of the newspapers published in the metropolitan areas are sent through the post. They are sold in news stores and delivered over the fence by news boys at a cheap rate, as Senator Little pointed out. But, if a city resident has some doubt about what he thinks he has heard on the radio or on television, he simply has to go down the street and buy a newspaper and he can see it in print. So he can check the facts easily. In country areas where one receives one mail a fortnight, one mail a week, or perhaps even 2 mails a week, the position is much different. Newspapers mean a great deal to the people living in distant mining camps, and the increased postal charges on newspapers, wherever they are published, will hurt them more than anyone else.

Although the Government has agreed in the House of Representatives to make some concessions and although consequential amendments will be moved here, the postal rates will still be increased. Senator McAuliffe, who preceded me in this debate, mentioned at great length the case of the Australian Workers Union journal. He said that because of the large increases in union dues the increased postal charges will not mean very much to that union. That may be so; but not everybody is in the position of being able, because of compulsory unionism, to increase dues to such a tremendous extent that the increase outstrips even the current rate of inflation in this country. This particular case does not quite fit in with what we are discussing here. Most honourable senators have received stacks of telegrams and lots of circulars from people who will be hit by the increased postal rates and who will have to pay very dearly because of them.

In connection with these increased charges, I want to mention the rent paid by country radio stations for the use of landlines. The radio stations in metropolitan areas or big cities pay very little for the use of landline facilities unless they wish to take an interstate relay. But, when a country station has to use a landline that is 400, 500 or 1,000 miles in length, it is a different matter. Country radio stations use these landlines to bring news, sporting results and so on to the country areas. If the increase in rent prohibits the stations from hiring these landlines, it not only will have a detrimental effect on the residents in those areas but also will have an embarrassing effect on the finances of the stations concerned. Already they have suffered somewhat from the Government’s policies in relation to tobacco advertising and so on. This extra impost could put out of business some of these country stations which are running very close to the wind now. I suggest that the Post Office has been a little ruthless in relation to some of these matters. I would like to mention also the rents paid by telephone subscribers, particularly in the country areas which have a continuous service. These rents are to be increased viciously. The PostmasterGeneral made this statement in the Parliament:

Telephone subscribers in metropolitan areas have paid much higher rentals than people in country areas, although the costs of providing service in country areas are much higher. It is recognised that a telephone service is valued by all sections of the community and it is not appropriate to perpetuate this difference in rentals.

In another part of his statement the PostmasterGeneral said:

Cheaper rentals have applied historically in the country. The reason given has been that a subscriber in the country has access to fewer subscribers than his metropolitan counterpart at the local call fee. However, this ignores the great difference in the average cost of providing a telephone service in country areas- and especially in rural areas- than in metropolitan areas.

Under this new policy of the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department people in this country will be penalised because of the place in which they live- just by accident of location. If they happen to live away from the great metropolitan areas they will be penalised because it costs more to provide them with a telephone service. We believed that this was a commonwealth in which everything was shared, but obviously that concept has changed. No longer is it so.

The Government is increasing rentals on telephones connected to country telephone exchanges with 40 subscribers and a continous service. I might mention that a telephone exchange has to have a minimum of 40 subscribers before it can have a continous service. These subscribers probably live a long way from the big centres. I would say that about 95 per cent of their telephone calls would be trunk line calls. This is why they receive a telephone rental concession. Now they are to pay the same rental as a person living in Sydney, Melbourne or any of the other bigger centres where 99 per cent of calls would be local calls; very few of them would be trunk line calls. So the Government is taking away an equalisation measure that has helped the country areas for a long period. I believe that this is another vicious attack on the people who live away from the great metropolitan areas. The excuse given for taking away this concession, as I said, is the higher cost of installing country telephones. So the people who live in those areas are to be penalised further. They need not be primary producers; they could live in a mining district, they could live in some other area in which goods for export are produced to help to keep the country solvent. Those in the primary producing areas produce food and other materials. We no longer have a true commonwealth as far as the sharing of costs is concerned. As I mentioned, I do not know how the postal rate to places such as Birdsville, which has been quoted, has been overlooked.

The previous Government brought in a new policy on constructing and maintaining country subscriber lines. This policy was brought in partly because of the Government’s intention to install automatic exchanges in all centres and it wanted the telephone lines to be of a certain standard. It was considered that if they were constructed privately the standard would not be high enough and the lines would not be maintained. Apparently that policy is to be changed. The conversion of exchanges to rural automatic telephone exchanges is to be slowed down considerably. If the previous rate of conversion had been continued a little longer, nearly all exchanges would have been operating on the automatic system and would have had continous service. Now the position will continue indefinitely where those second class Australian citizens have to hang up their telephones a little after sundown and not use them again until after breakfast the next morning. I believe that this is one of the greatest discriminations against those people who, by sheer accident of location or because of their work or avocation, have to live in a certain area. They are forced to be second class citizens as far as telephone services are concerned.

I have always advocated that all our citizens should be on the same basis. We should have continuous service on automatic exchanges for everybody as soon as possible. Although only 5 per cent of the telephone users may be affected, it looks as though these people will be in this situation in perpetuity. Although some of them do live in the backblocks, others are in sight of the big cities. But they are not able to have their telephone service upgraded so that it is continuous. They have to suffer because they are not able to use their telephone all day and all night. People who live in more remote areas still have to suffer. In case of accident or sickness, in many cases they cannot get help because the telephone exchange is not open to answer their call between Saturday afternoon and Monday morning. A thunderstorm might develop or a road might be out of order, and this is one of the penalties inflicted on country people who reside away from big cities.

Next, I should like to deal with the question of making the Post Office a business undertaking. Is it a business undertaking when the people who use the telephone must subsidise those who use the mails? This is what has been happening for some time and is still happening under the new policy of this Government whereby it is hoped that the losses on the mails will just about break even compared with previous mail losses. But the Government has not allowed for increased claims for wages in a very high labour content service. So in the remaining 9 months of the financial year that budgeted surplus could be completely absorbed. The telephone service as a result of its automation has proved a shrewd business undertaking and is able to show a profit. Therefore increased charges have been put on the telephone service rather than on the mails. This means that when you use the telephone now you are subsidising the person who posts a letter.

Another postage matter which ought to be watched comes with the change to the metric system. There is nothing wrong with the change to the metric system provided it is not used as a camouflage to increase postal charges. The metric system fits in with world arrangements and when one travels the world one can see what we have missed all these years by not having the metric system. Be that as it may, until now the basic postage rate for a letter has been 7c an ounce. One ounce equals approximately 24 grams and I understand that under the new setup the charge will be 7c for 20 grams. Many Christmas cards of less than an ounce could weigh between 20 and 24 grams, and I am afraid that many recipients of Christmas cards this festive season will not be very happy when they have to pay a tax on the cards. I do not think that is in the best spirit for the festive season. Most Christmas cards have probably been designed and printed now but I would hope that they have been kept to a weight which will not attract a tax or that the senders will not have to pay a lot extra to post them. Senator Little interjects that he thinks this will be so.

Many features of these charges make it appear that the Postmaster-General’s Department wants to price itself out of business. It is a monopoly and the Department says that it does not want some of this business, that it does not want to accept newspapers and that it does not want to do anything else. This is all part of the overall turnover of the Department whether it be running at a loss, as a borderline activity, or at a profit. It is part of its turnover and if any business with a pretty big turnover loses some of that turnover this will affect the business itself because it must then employ fewer staff or make adjustments of that nature. It would seem that these increased charges and all the increased rates which are set out in this Bill mean that the PMG’s Department is determined to lose some of its business.

I would like to comment on a couple of other matters. One thing which I do not think is quite warranted at present- it might be later- concerns the STD service. When more STD services are available- and many places in Australia cannot yet use STD- people will be charged for them. If STD is available but a subscriber asks for a call to be connected manually he will be charged an extra 20c. It is not made clear in this list of charges whether that applies to persontoperson calls.

Senator Devitt:

-What was that?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– If you dial a person on STD you cannot get a particular person call. So what do you do if you do not want to waste money on the call? You book it through the manual operator. This document does not say clearly whether that extra 20c charge is to apply in those cases, in addition to the particular person call fee. I think that ought to be clarified. Many other things in these Bills could be mentioned. One matter that was mentioned, I think, in the second reading speech concerns clause 13 of the Bill which affects civil liberties. However, I notice that an amendment to clause 13 to be proposed by the Government was circulated a few minutes ago. It reads:

Where … a person in a post office has, without lawful authority, a postal article or anything unlawfully taken from a postal article … the authorised officer may, without warrant, detain that person for the purpose of searching him . . .

Here is a case of a civilian being given power to detain. Apparently provision was not made in the Bill- I cannot see it anywhere- for an officer to have the power to detain a person and search him and for that person to have redress. If he sees a civilian trying to do that and punches him or something like that, he is in trouble. I think this is an interference with civil liberties. A police officer or somebody of like authority should be authorised to do this. We should look again at the Government’s proposed amendment to clause 1 3 which deals with civil liberties. .

Senator Murphy:

– It is a very troublesome area because we are trying also to protect the civil liberties of persons who send articles through the mail. It is quite difficult.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It is difficult to get a police officer in quickly enough to do the arresting or searching, whatever it is. But to have a civilian lay hands on another civilian without any time for identification or without any warrant or anything like that is wrong in principle according to our way of life. That is what I believe and I think we should have another look at that particular set-up. I could mention many other things connected with these Bills. I have mentioned the construction of country telephone lines. The PMG Department had a policy of providing these lines but it has changed that policy and has put the cost on the person concerned- land owner, mine owner, whoever he might be- to build his own telephone line. At the same time the task force headed by Dr Coombs in its report to the Government on the review of the continuing expenditure policies of the previous Government, has suggested that in addition to making these people construct their own lines, for which they were previously entitled to a tax deduction, they should lose that right to the income tax deduction. This is to apply when they have to provide their own telephone services which were previously provided by the Government. Previously when they had to provide any section of the telephone line, they got a taxation deduction for it.

I believe that when we reach the Committee stage we should have a good look at many clauses of these Bills, particularly clause 13 which I have mentioned. We should also examine the provision for land lines for country radio stations and other matters of that nature and particularly the telegraphic services to country newspapers. We should look at everything contained in this set of Bills. The Opposition here takes the view that this is a Government set of charges. Whilst they have been particularly vicious and selective charges against people who live outside the big cities, we do not propose to oppose the Bills. But we will have a look at some amendments during the Committee stage.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I want to enter this debate for a few moments to present some points of view that I believe are important. As a former employee of the Post Office I understand quite a few of the problems and appreciate the difficulties probably better than do most other senators. Whilst I support the 3 Bills before the Senate, I do so with some feeling of doubt about what would be the best procedure to follow. I would like to outline to the Senate the proposition that I see facing the Post Office at present. We want the Post Office to give to the people of Australia a considerable number of facilities and at the same time we expect that organisation not to increase its charges in order to provide those facilities, which in many cases are almost a gift. At the same time we expect the Post Office to operate as a business concern and to cover its expenditure by income. But the Post Office cannot do this if it is to provide the facilities for which everybody is asking. I would like to outline some of these facilities.

Senator Lawrie mentioned at the end of his speech that the Post Office provided country telephone lines within a radius of 15 miles from an established exchange. When this scheme was introduced by the previous Postmaster-General a tremendous expenditure was added to the normal operations of the Post Office. This decision has resulted in a tremendous backlog of connections for would-be country subscribers, because the Post Office just has not been able to cope with the problem of providing this service to all the country subscribers who require a telephone. The number of deferred applications has increased. I have made a number of approaches, as I am sure other honourable senators have, on behalf of primary producers asking why their applications which may have been in for a couple of years have not progressed any further forward. If one talks to the engineering sections of the Post Office, as I do because I know them personally in my State, one is told that the cost of providing the bulldozers and heavy equipment that is necessary to clear a route to take out one pair of wires a distance of up to 15 miles to an area that has no other telephone on the way reaches tremendous proportions. They say that it costs a minimum of $1000 to install a telephone over the easiest route. The installation of these telephone lines has increased tremendously the cost to the Post Office.

The same thing applies to other services that are asked for by subscribers. We have the same situation on the postal side when we talk about trying to give every person in the country a newspaper at a cheap rate of delivery. It applies to all the organisations which bring out monthly journals and to business concerns, unions, church bodies and so on that publish monthly journals which used to be placed in the category which allowed them to obtain cheap postal delivery. All of these things cost money. We are expecting these operations to be carried out without any increase in the charges that the Post Office imposes to make ends meet. The same thing applies to telegrams. A telegram is sent in Australia, as it is in Great Britain, at considerable loss. This is a service that the public demands. Yet, it is a tremendous cost to the Post Office. This service is not covered by the price of the telegram. Although the Post Office tries to meet the cost as far as is possible the service is run at a loss.

My solution which I always advocated when I was in the Post Office and which I have advocated since- and I sent a submission to the Commission inquiring into the Post Office along these lines, and we do not know yet what the report of the Royal Commission will be- is that if the public wants these services the public should see that it gets them, but not at the expense of the Post Office. The cost of these services to my mind is a legitimate charge against the Treasury. The Treasury should pay for the extra facilities. When the British Post Office was turned into a corporation it was charged with running its business as a business concern and charged with running at a profit. After the corporation commenced operation it called together the responsible people in the government and discussed the position. It said: ‘We cannot run the second rate postage facility at a profit. This is an impossibility’. It said that if the public required this facility it would have to be made a charge on the Treasury. The same thing applies to telegrams in England. These requests were met by the Treasury.

So instead of the Australian Post Office having to put up its charges, my solution is that it would be possible to keep the charges at a reasonable level and still provide the facilities for which the public is asking. The people do not care whether the Post Office runs at a profit or not. They just want to get their newspapers at a reduced rate. They want to get their telephone line provided free of charge within a radius of IS miles from an exchange. They want to get their telegrams sent at the present rate or even lower. They do not mind how this is done, as long as they get these benefits. I believe that what is proposed in the legislation before us is an interim measure. I think that the legislation will need changing again when we have the report of the commission of inquiry. I agree that it may be some time before we have the results of that body. But in the meantime we have to do something. This is why the 3 Bills have had to be presented.

I think I have made my position clear. I feel that this is a very ineffectual way of meeting the problem. The Post Office will get blamed for the extra charges when it is only trying to provide a service for which no one will meet the cost in any other way. I support the Bills on the restricted basis that I have just outlined. I hope that at some date in the near future we will be able to approach this problem from a much more realistic point of view and give a service to the people as well as doing our duty to the Post Office.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Today we are discussing the post and telegraph legislation which will provide additional revenue for the Post Office, a colossal enterprise which provides a remarkable service to the people of Australia. Of course the Post Office finds that it, together with every other business in Australia, is burdened with inflation. Within the last few months we have seen measures introduced which provide for an extra week’s leave for Commonwealth public servants and for 12 weeks maternity leave. These measures in themselves must have created pressures on the Post Office in the form of added salary bills and so on. In the first instance I was shocked at the amount of the increase in postal charges but I am pleased to see that the Government has recognised the need to review the charges which were originally proposed in an attempt to moderate them. Even so, these charges will create tremendous problems for the smaller country newspapers and for people who wish to provide readers with periodical publications.

I recall a monthly magazine which is produced by the wine and brandy producers of Australia to inform their readers of matters of importance associated with that industry. Only a few days ago the president and the secretary of that association consulted Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield, Senator Laucke, Senator Young, Senator Davidson, and myself from South Australia. These producers were still reeling as a result of the impositions placed upon them by the Government through the budgetary measures which affect that industry. They informed my colleagues and me that it cost them $700 to $800 a year in postal charges for this monthly magazine and that under the original proposals this amount would have increased the cost to about $3,500, an increase of about 500 per cent. It is no wonder that that organisation was not feeling too happy about the present Government when we spoke with its representatives only a few days ago. Together with other honourable senators in this place I have received many telegrams and letters from country newspapers, from the Methodist Church in relation to its church magazine, from other church organisations which have written to me, and from the Wheelchair and Disabled Association of Australia which has indicated that it is fighting the measures proposed by the Government. These measures will place a tremendous strain on all the people and organisations which have written to me. They suggest that we should oppose the measures completely and throw them out, but I recognise the need to provide the Post Office with revenue to enable it to carry on the service which it has been able to provide over the years.

I am of the opinion that the Australian Post Office is unequalled in its technical and scientific capacity. I believe that our service in Australia is one of the best if not the best in the world. I have had the privilege of inspecting laboratories which are run by the Post Office. I think that all honourable senators ought to take the opportunity to investigate those places. I believe that their eyes would truly be opened at the technical capacity of the Australian Post Office which is directed towards providing a better and more efficient telecommunications system in Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Was it not only recently that mail took 6 days to get through Sydney?

Senator JESSOP:

– Yes. I am referring to laboratories.

Senator Wright:

– Is that not the organisation which has permitted French mail to be held up for months?

Senator JESSOP:

-Senator Wright is introducing another aspect. I intended to get on to the various aspects of management within the Post Office which may need some revision. Of course a Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office has been appointed. No doubt its terms of reference give it a fairly wide ambit in which to examine the functions of the Post Office. For example some of its terms of reference include the financing of recurrent and capital costs and management/staff relations. I suppose that would deal with the question raised by Senator Wright a moment ago by way of interjection. The terms of reference embrace: Procurement of supplies with the aim of developing Australian industries and the performance of work by contract. Undoubtedly all of this will result in suggestions as to how economies may be introduced into the postal service of the Post Office. I was pleased to hear Senator Wilkinson say that it may well be that in the future we will see further reductions in charges.

I believe that literally hundreds of people would be involved in the concern which has been expressed in the representations which I have in front of me. I have a telegram from Field Education Enterprises of Australasia Pty Ltd which complains about the measures which we are considering at the moment. The President of the National Business and Periodicals Publishers Council says that his organisation is faced with a 500 per cent increase in postal rates. All these matters are of great concern and they deserve the attention of the Government. We must insist that they are kept under continuing review. The penalties which will be imposed upon people in country areas have been canvassed by Senator Lawrie and others this afternoon. I share his concern that people in those areas should be penalised, as they will be, as a result of these charges. It seems quite strange that all members of the Government are in favour of these increased charges but when in Opposition they were, to a man, opposed to such charges at every stand. I will not resist this measure. I support the Opposition attitude with respect to the measure before the Senate particularly because, as a result of the work which has been done behind the scenes, the Government will introduce amendments to this Bill which will make some reductions at least to the postal charges which we are considering.

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

-I rise to indicate that the Australian Democratic Labor Party will be voting against the post and telegraph legislation. We will seek to defeat the

Bills at the second reading stage. I know that there are some proposed amendments to which the Government and Opposition Leader have agreed. Some of them are not quite clear. I read in the Hansard of the other place that the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Lionel Bowen) indicated that it was necessary to make some of these amendments because of what he described as the irresponsible attitude of the Democratic Labor Party in respect of the increases in postal charges. There seems to be a large number of irresponsible people if the telegrams that I have received on this matter are any indication. The Senate will recall that a fortnight ago I announced that I would seek the support of my Party to oppose the increases in postal charges. Since then I have received a large number of telegrams from all sorts of people and organisations, including trade unions. Senator McAuliffe referred to the Australian Workers Union. He gave the impression that the Australian Workers Union should be quite happy with the new charges; that after all is said and done it has not been treated too badly. But that is certainly not the view of the New South Wales general secretary of the Union, Mr Charles Oliver, whose telegram to me was in the following terms:

Worker’ cannot survive proposed postal charges. Support any proposal guaranteeing continued publication of Worker’.

It is some gratification to me to find that, having initiated these moves, my Party has succeeded in having the Government make some amendments to the proposals anyway. Among other telegrams I have received is one from the Parents and Citizens Association which refers to the fact that it represents more than 80,000 members and urges that the postal increases be rejected. So much for the alleged irresponsible attitude of the Democratic Labor Party. Those comments apply also to all religious bodies. I have had approaches from the Methodists, the Congregationalists and indeed all sections of the religious Press, as well as trade houses, trade journals, the Small Shopkeepers As sociation and so on. So it is some gratification to me to know that the Government is now moving to rectify at least some aspects of the increases in postal charges. I think it is quite shameful that the Government, which first of all set up a royal commission to examine all aspects of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, savagely increases the charges, as the Government now proposes to do, before the royal commission has had time to bring in its report

Let it be known that the Government not only is proposing to increase charges directly but also is using metrication as a means of increasing those charges despite the fact that it has urged private enterprise not to do that son of thing. Let us look at the effect of this. The proposed letter rate will be increased by means of metrication by 100 per cent. This means that a 28 gram letter, that is, one oz approximately, now costing 7c will increase by 15 per cent. This will occur despite the fact that last financial year the Postmaster-General’s Department showed a profit of $9m on the letter rate. This dishonesty is reflected throughout the proposed postal charges. Let us look at some of the other rates. The 2 oz rate is now 12c, but it is proposed that from 1 October 1973 that will rise to 15c. There is a weight variation of 12.5 per cent, and a cost increase of 25 per cent. The second oz weight step is now 5c, but this will be increased to 8c, an amount of 60 per cent. In respect of other articles the 2 oz to 4 oz letter rate charge is now 12c, but from 1 October 1973 it will be increased to 15c. So, too, in respect of parcels. Within a 30-mile radius of a post office the 2 lb parcel rate is 35c, but it will increase in respect of the weight variation by 10 per cent and in respect of the cost variation by 30 per cent.

The increased postal charges also affect very substantially the printing and allied industries and could well cause the loss of the jobs of many men in these industries. Let us look at some of the increases which affect them. Books printed in Australia are feeling the effect of pretty keen competition from publications printed overseas, particularly in Asian countries. If the Government has its way, Australian printed books will be faced with savage increases of up to 17.5 per cent. For example, a 750 gram book now costs 31c, whereas the increase proposed by the Government will bring this up to 85c. Referring again to mail, for the sake of emphasis let me say a letter weighing between 20 grams and 28 grams will cost 15c if the Government has its way, as against the existing 7c. The cost of posting a letter weighing from 28 grams to 50 grams will increase from 12c to 15c and of one weighing from 50 grams to 56 grams from 12c to 20c. It is quite an illogical situation that it will cost 7c to mail the first 20 grams but 8c to mail the second 20 grams when there is practically no extra cost to the Post Office in handling the extra 20 grams.

Another item of savage is the preposterous cost of landlines and its effect on country broadcasting stations. I have here a letter from Manning Valley Broadcasting Pty Ltd which points out that, as landline costs together with news and sporting charges are the largest item of expenditure, apart from salaries and wages, of a country radio station, it views with concern any increase in these charges. It is led to believe that the increase could be somewhere between 40 per cent and 70 per cent. That company in its letter went on to point out:

  1. The extra costs will send more stations into the red. (The latest Control Board Report shows 19 stations operated at a loss in 1971-72.)
  2. The impact will be greatest on country broadcasting stations, which depend on relay facilities for services such as news, sport and other programs. At the moment country broadcasting stations endeavour to give a metropolitan service in respect of news and sport.
  3. If stations are forced to reduce or give up these relays, their local communities will suffer a loss of program variety and choice.
  4. Many communities could end up with no alternative to the ABC news.
Senator Wright:

– Are those fixed by provisions in this Bill or by regulations under the legislation?

Senator KANE:

– By regulations, I understand. It is for these reasons that my Party will vote against the Bills and seek to defeat all 3 of them at the second reading stage.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-These postal measures have been dealt with in detail now by a number of speakers and I do not propose to go over them again because it would be just a matter of repetition. Senator Kane dealt with a quite a number of the finer details of the measures. One aspect of them that concerns me is that the Government, having set up a royal commission to investigate the Australian Post Office and its costs, introduces this quite extensive series of very big increases in charges for services before the findings of the Commission are known. It is surprising that this investigation has not been speeded up in some way in order to give the Government some lead in the direction in which it should be going in connection with these charges.

The increased charges on letters, after they reach a certain weight, can be considerable. But what interests and concerns me are the increased charges for posting books. This applies also to Australian produced books. The encouragement to give or send books to people should be very dear to us because the more people read the better the Australian population will become. I think that the fact that people read books widely and extensively encourages the mental development of people and it improves their general outlook. Therefore, I think that is a very serious consideration as far as Australian printed books are concerned. If people read books it means more work in the printing trade in the production of those books. 1 believe that these increased postal charges could affect the printing trade quite considerably.

However, the point that I really want to press this afternoon concerns one of our North Queensland newspapers, the ‘Evening Advocate’. Apparently this newspaper receives’ its news by way of telegram, telephone, telex, etc. Consequently, the proprietors of this newspaper claim that their costs will increase considerably. I have had discussions with one of the officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department. He said that the Department, in turn, has been having discussions with the proprietors of the ‘Evening Advocate ‘. But according to the latest advice that I have received from the proprietors of the Evening Advocate’, the conference held yesterday between the people in Brisbane and Cairns, at the instigation of the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on the proposal that the newspaper should instal telex, was not productive, the notice was too short and the estimates were not complete. From the advice that has been a given publicly and from the advice that has been sent to me, it appears that as from tomorrow the ‘Evening Advocate ‘ will cease production.

This matter requires very urgent consideration because the ‘Evening Advocate’ serves the town of Innisfail in a sugar growing area in the northern part of Queensland, which has a population of about 17,000 people. I think that newspapers in areas like this play a very important part. It is not only international or interstate news that counts in these areas; local news also counts. A local newspaper is more or less a meeting place. It gives information on the functions taking place and the different gatherings that are being held. This makes for community spirit and creates community knowledge, and this is an important matter in smaller centres. Queensland is a widely dispersed and well distributed State as far as cities and towns are concerned. It is good to see community spirit develop in the various areas and very often the newspaper is the focal point of this development. The newspaper contains advertisements regarding meetings and functions that are to take place, there are reports of gatherings, functions and meetings and there is information on visitors to the area. Therefore newspapers can be very much the lifeblood of a community. A newspaper is the means whereby people more or less mentally get together and read about the doings of each other and the activities taking place in the area.

I urgently press the Postmaster-General’s Department to try to conclude something quickly with the ‘Evening Advocate’ at Innisfail in order to prevent the closure of this newspaper. No one can say that the newspaper is run by a big southern organisation. It is run by the Groom brothers, George and Spencer Groom, who over many years have been associated with the newspaper world. These men over a period have developed the ‘Evening Advocate’ into a newspaper of a very fine standard. I know the Grooms and I know the ‘Evening Advocate’. They are members of a family which has been continuously associated with Queensland newspapers since 1 874. Previously one of them was associated with the ‘Toowoomba Chronicle ‘ and later he became the sole proprietor of that newspaper. I think that people like this who have ventured forth, developed and played an important part -

Senator Cotton:

– Are they members of the Littleton Groom family?

Senator WOOD:

-Yes. In 1874 William Henry Groom purchased a half interest in the Toowoomba Chronicle’. He became the sole proprietor of that newspaper 3 years later. He was elected the first Mayor of Toowoomba. He served in the Queensland Legislative Assembly until the establishment of Federation in 1 900. He was then elected the first member for Darling Downs in the Federal Parliament, dying in Melbourne 3 months later. His eldest son, Henry Littleton Groom, a member of the Queensland Legislative Council for 16 years, was later managing director of the ‘Toowoomba Chronicle’. He served several years as President of the Queensland Country Press Association and he was a past-President of the Australian Provincial Press Association. George Groom, who is one of the proprietors of the ‘Evening Advocate’, has been engaged in Australian journalism continuously for 55 years. Spencer Groom, who is the other brother conducting the ‘Evening Advocate’, has been engaged in Australian journalism continuously for 53 years. They are the sons of Henry Littleton Groom. Sir Littleton Ernest Groom, another son of William Henry Groom, was for many years a member of the House of Representatives- succeeding his father as the member for Darling Downs- and he held several ministerial offices. Honourable senators can see that they are people who have served a long time in the newspaper world; they are people who belong to families who have given great service for many years in the parliamentary life of Australia. They are the type of people whom we should encourage to continue in the newspaper world. I know that the Groom brothers give a very good account of the news through their newspaper in Innisfail. Apparently the newspaper is so highly regarded that many people and organisations have appealed to the

Government to allow it to continue by lowering the amount that is charged for the services which the newspaper uses to get news from elsewhere. Also one of the local branches of the Labor Party has approached the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to try to get him to do something about this matter. Probably the Government can have a soft heart sometimes, and I think this is one of the things at which the Government can look quickly and take action expeditiously in the hope that this valued newspaper, which is providing a very great service to the fine community of Innisfail in North Queensland, can be saved and allowed to continue. I therefore press very firmly and strongly the claim for quick action so that this evening newspaper might continue to provide the very good service which it has provided over the years. The postal charges seem to be of a very stiff character and I think that they should be opposed.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I rise only because of what has been said by Senator Wood. I would subscribe substantially to what he has said about the Groom brothers. Senator Wood would realize that perhaps I know the Groom brothers far more intimately than does anybody in this chamber. I think he would be the first to acknowledge that I have done everything I can to assist them.

Senator Wood:

– They have written to me to that effect.

Senator MILLINER:

– Thank you, Senator. The Groom brothers have been producing newspapers for many years and, if I may say so, the Printing Industry Employees Union of Australia has assisted them over the years. If they were asked they would be the first to acknowledge that that is so. The Union has assisted them with staff and paper problems and now is assisting them with their telecommunication problems. It is interesting to note that when I first heard the news of the possible closure of this newspaper I immediately contacted Mr George Groom and he told me of their difficulties. I spoke with Senator Douglas McClelland and he told me that he could not possibly see why the newspaper would have to close at the end of September because the problems that the newspaper would experience, if it did experience them, would not arise until March of next year. I do not know why the firm is insisting that it must close next month. As Senator Wood said, it has had discussions with representatives of the General Post Office who have suggested that it install a telex. Surely if a firm wishes to stay in business it has to have something like modern day standards. I do not think it is endeavouring to keep up with the times when it relies on the old technique of obtaining news by telegrams from Brisbane to Innisfail. I feel reasonably sure that the General Post Office would have assisted in the installation of a telex if there had been agreement on the installation of this machine. This would have overcome the firm’s difficulties substantially. The firm elects not to introduce a telex system. That is entirely its responsibility. I repeat that tremendous assistance has been offered to the firm. If it elects to close its doors to business, that is its responsibility.

The firm is a very old, established business. It is not just a newspaper office. It has had a commercial printing shop for as many years as I can remember, and I was at least 20 years the Secretary of the union. The firm always had a prosperous commercial printing establishment. So I do not think the business will go out of production entirely. I believe that the commercial printing side would be a profitable undertaking for the r:/m. Like Senator Wood, I deplore the fact that a newspaper is going out of business. It is the lifeblood of a community. I am the first to acknowledge that fact. I know just what the newspaper means to the people of Innisfail. It is a most unusual newspaper inasmuch as it is published 5 days a week. It is not published d ur.ing the weekend. If there is a holiday during the week it is not published. So it is an unusual type of newspaper, as honourable senators would agree.

Senator Little:

– The editor is probably a good trade unionist and gives himself all trade union holidays.

Senator MILLINER:

– That is quite correct, i do not blame him for that. I applaud him. I know that the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen > arranged for his officers to see Mr Groom to see what could be done to assist. If Mr Groom and the proprietors of the ‘Evening Advocate’ in Innisfail wish to continue that old style of production, I do not think they can blame the Government entirely for all their difficulties. I believe that if they introduced the telex system they will still be able to operate in a quite worthwhile and profitable manner. I close on this note: I am concerned that a provincial newspaper in Queensland should be going out of production. I hope that the company will not close its doors at the end of this month. On the other hand, I trust that it will pursue the negotiations with representatives of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to see what can be done to assist. I know that it will get a lot of assistance from a lot of people in Queensland, as it has in the past.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I indicate my concern at the widespread community reaction to the Government’s proposed telegraph charges under the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill, and Post and Telegraph Regulations Bill and the Post and Telegraph Bill. I support what Senator Cotton said earlier today. All honourable senators will agree that the Post Office is a very large instrumentality which operates over a wide spectrum. Those honourable senators who were privileged to be members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in its inquiry into all aspects of broadcasting and television have come in contact with the role which the Post Office plays in postal services as we understand them, its relationship to the media and its widespread activities in and involvement with the Australian community. So the Post Office not only becomes a commercial organisation but, because it is involved in a huge spread of community activity, also becomes very much a social organisation.

I deal with the Bills particularly against the background of an era in which there is an emphasis by the present Government on social welfare, on decentralisation and on the quality of life. The proposals contained in the Bills are distinctly discriminatory. They militate against any development of social welfare. They are the very antithesis of decentralisation. Certainly as I read them, they do not appear to be making a great deal of contribution to our Australian quality of life. Nearly all senators who have spoken this afternoon have referred to the number of telegrams, letters and messages which they have received. I am no exception. It becomes a matter of selecting which correspondence one will take out of the file to refer to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), who is in charge of these Bills, to the Government or to the Senate in this debate. As I read the Bills and the second reading speech of the Minister, I gain the impression that the country Press will be placed in a particularly difficult situation. Therefore I make a plea for the Government to reconsider the position so far as the country Press is concerned.

I turn now to what I will generally refer to as the religious Press. All honourable senators have had representations on behalf of the religious Press in Australia. I refer to representations made by the Methodist Church of Australia and its publication which is entitled ‘The Methodist’. For 82 years it has been the official journal of the Methodist Church of New South Wales. If the postage charges rise to the level which is presently proposed, the management of that publication assures us that it will be forced to close. In its publication it draws attention to the fact that further postage increases as announced in the Federal Budget would add over $60,000 per annum to its costs when the increases are implemented. The Australian Religious Press Association has been in touch with the Government and has asked it to review the postal charges. ‘The Methodist’ says that so far there has been no hope of a favourable reply. This article was in an edition of the journal which was published as recently as 15 September.

Leaving aside any interest which one may have in journals of this kind, I draw the attention of the Minister to the valuable part which this kind of Press plays in our total community life. I draw his attention to the leading article in the latest edition of 'Australian Presbyterian Life', a journal which is circulated throughout Australia and which is not without influence not only on the religious aspects but also the educational and community aspects of Australian life. All these publications will be forced to close or will be forced to a reduction of standard, style, size and distribution. Their closure or reduction in standard and style will be a real blow not only to our quality of life but also to the whole tenor of Australian life, including community life, decentralisation and all the other areas which the Government has talked about so easily and free- ly. I draw attention to the social welfare consequences which may flow from Bills of this kind. The Government is very concerned about the social welfare of the Australian people, and rightly so. All of us are. One of the things which helps the social welfare program of any nation is the ability of various organisations and sections of our community to communicate not only with their supporters, members, friends or other organisations but, more particularly, with the community at large. Representatives of innumerable organisations are writing to members of Parliament protesting about the proposals to increase postal charges. I have in my hand a bundle of letters from a variety of organisations of a social welfare nature. I leave that matter for the moment. It could be developed a great deal more. I remind the Government of moves it has taken in measures before the Senate at the moment on the principle of the dissemination of information and the matter of communication from one area of society to another. In a free society, there must be opportunity for dissemination of information, whether it be in cultural areas, in commercial or industrial areas, in educational areas or in the areas of expression of opinion. The Government has placed great emphasis on these things. I have received a message from the President of the National Business and Periodicals Publishers Council. This organisation gathers together representatives of business periodicals and publishers of other journals. That body points out, as has been pointed out to the Senate already, that the announced postal rate amendments will benefit less than 10 per cent of Australia's newspaper and periodical media group. It claims that up to 500 per cent increases still face the other 90 per cent- the great majority- of the group. Of course, as would be expected, the Council asks that the Government adhere- I underline this also- to the undertaking of the Postmaster-General **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** that no changes in rates or regulations will be made before the report of the Post Office Commission of Inquiry is received. **Senator Cotton** made reference to this earlier. The problems created by metrication have been referred to already. I await the Minister's response to those protests that have been made. There seems to me to be grave discrimination against certain sections of the community. In addition, what concerns me greatly is that these adjustments caused by metrication conceal what will be a severe additional burden upon the Australian community in the postal area. I am very surprised that at this time the Government should bring to light a proposal of this kind when tens of thousands of people throughout Australia will be embarking upon their Christmas mailing program. Every one of them will be severely caught- I use the word advisedly- by the proposals. These people who engage in that kind of communication at that time of the year include not only the ordinary working people but also a great number of people on pensions and people on low incomes. I protest at the situation which has been created. I hope to hear something further from the Minister in relation to this during the course of this debate. I want to support what **Senator Wood** said a few moments ago in relation to the retention of postal concessions given to registered books. The books that attract the concession are printed in Australia. It has long been felt that the community interest warrants preferential treatment in regard to books printed in Australia, not only for economic reasons but also as I have indicated during the course of my remarks, for social and educational reasons. The ability to distribute such books in these circumstances at this time is of particular value to Australia. I draw to the Minister's attention the strong feeling in this regard. Finally, I wish to repeat that the PostmasterGeneral said there was to be no change in postage rates or regulations before the report of the Post Office Commission of Inquiry was received. Undoubtedly, that inquiry will be a valuable exercise. It is already producing increasing interest. I am sure that it will adopt a balanced approach to the many problems which an establishment the size of the Australian Post Office must face. I ask the Government to adhere to the pledge it has given and to explain to the Senate why it has felt it necessary to place these additional charges upon sections of the community which can ill afford to carry them and upon groups which are endeavouring to serve the Australian community not only in terms of education and community welfare but also in terms of the important matters of growth and national development. {: #subdebate-57-0-s10 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -- There are 2 things I would like to say at this stage of the debate. We have heard many protestations with respect to the steeply increased charges which are to be imposed under this legislation. I understand. But we have not heard a word from any ministerial or Government source with respect to the general efficiency of the Post Office as an organisation. It is all very well to add continually to charges in an industry which, by the very nature of its operations, has no competition. But I think it is very ill advised that we should be considering today these steep increases before the Post Office Commission of Inquiry has completed its investigations and submitted to the Parliament a report on all aspects of the Post Office. This should be done so that we can see more clearly where inefficiencies could lie in the conduct of the whole system of postal and telecommunications operations. I am pleased to see the modifications that have been made with respect to certain newspapers and publications in categories A. and B. That has a big impact on the well-being of the rural areas in Australia. I appreciate that the Post Office is not an organisation which should be the means to subsidise any activity other than that which had direct application to its own affairs. But if we are to be genuine in our desires to decentralise industry in order to encourage living away from the densely populated metropolitan areas, provision must be made somehow to give greater consideration to providing telephone, postal services and telecommunications generally at a level which does not impose upon those who live in decentralised areas the burden of financial cost. The heaviest impact of these increases falls on the rural sector of the community. I am not at all happy about that situation in general. I do not think that the provision of services at the very lowest possible cost is being attacked from its proper quarters. I know that in a labour intensive industry such as the Post Office, it is necessary to make provision continuously for greater salary and wage requirements. But all the time we are finding that increases in charges and costs, like a dog chasing its tail, add to the inflationary propensities within the economy. This was the major point I wished to make when I rose to speak. It is a pity that we have not received the report of the Post Office Commission of Inquiry to assist us to find ways and means of achieving greater efficiency while still enabling organisations and personnel in rural areas to receive facilities at a price not prohibitive to them. As we examine the different portions of these Bills, things can be pointed out which are grossly unjust. They all stem basically from a situation of spiralling costs to which very little consideration seems to have been given overall. {: #subdebate-57-0-s11 .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland -- I want to speak for only a short period in order to add to the protests of honourable senators who represent rural areas. The proposed increases in postal rates will affect the rural sector far more than any other sector in the community. They are another incentive for people living in remote rural areas to go to the cities. The Government should be encouraging people to move the other way; it should be encouraging decentralisation. I want to refer to the 'Evening Advocate' which is published in Innisfail, Queensland. **Senator Wood** has already mentioned this newspaper and I am sorry that I was not present when the matter first arose. I have been associated with this newspaper. Many country newspapers are published not as profit making concerns but as a service to the people. If they were not published the people would have to rely on city dailies or city weeklies being sent to their areas and this would cost them a lot of money. A local newspaper gives them some information about what is going on in the world. It provides a service to them. Anyone who has been in the office of the 'Evening Advocate' would know that it is not a great money spinner. It operates under pretty austere conditions. Perhaps in the past it has been able to take advantage of a service which has been a burden on the taxpayers- I do not know- but it also has been of service to the Army camps and other organisations in that area. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator Wood: -- International airports are a burden on country centres. {: .speaker-KSW} ##### Senator MAUNSELL: -- Yes. If we open up this field we could go everywhere. This newspaper has been of service to the people of Innisfail. Even if it has been able to continue publication only because it received a cheaper rate it still has provided something for the 1 7,000 people in that area. I know that the Government has offered these people a telex system but these new postal rates are to apply from 1 October. An organisation like the 'Evening Advocate' does not have the finance or facilities at the moment to change its operations overnight. I appeal to the responsible Minister at least to give those concerned time to change over to the new system. It is not as if this organisation is a great profit maker. It operates under very humble circumstances. It is the only evening newspaper outside Brisbane and it cannot take advantage of services which the morning papers can use. Therefore this newspaper is operating under a special disadvantage. I ask the responsible Minister to see whether he can give special consideration to a newspaper that is providing a service to a very deserving section of our community. {: #subdebate-57-0-s12 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -- I rise to speak briefly and add my protest to that of my colleagues about this Bill and the proposed increase in postal charges. Nevertheless I must say that I am pleased to see that amendments are to be made to the proposed charges. In some areas they have been reduced, mainly because of the pressure and logic of members of the Opposition in the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives. Even though some of the proposals have been reduced I still say that it is unfortunate that the Post Office has seen fit to increase charges at this time. I listened with interest today to what was said by **Senator McAuliffe.** I could not agree with some of the things he said. I was particularly interested in the figures he quoted about category A and category B articles and what the proposed costs will be in dollars and cents. I thought that he made a bad omission by not quoting the percentage increases because I think they are important. The percentage increase in costs is the thing which affects industry and the same thing affects any periodical or rural Press. Therefore I would like to quote the figures for the record. Referring to category A articles, from 1 October there will be a downturn of 2.86 per cent. I concede that there will be a downturn in the first year. However as at 1 March 1974 there will be an increase of 29.5 per cent, according to my figures, and as at 1 March 1975, when the proposed increases will be fully operational, the increase will be nearly 33 per cent. Anybody who suggests that an increase of 33 per cent can be passed wer lightly should re-assess the situation. He would make a different judgment. In my view 33 per * ent is an extremely big increase in costs. I turn now to category B articles posted for delivery elsewhere than from the post office of origin. As from 1 October this year the charge will be up by 1 9 per cent. By 1 March 1 974 it will be up by 23.8 per cent and by 1 March 1975 it will be up by 57 per cent. The increase in the charge for category B mail to be delivered from the office of posting is as follows: As at 1 October, 14.29 per cent; as at 1 March 1974, 35.7 percent; and as at 1 March 1975, 114 per cent. These certainly are big increases in charges. In looking at the increase in dollars and cents we must relate the proposed increases to what they will actually mean in real terms to the newspapers using this service. I was interested to hear **Senator McAuliffe's** comment that country newspapers should be able to afford these increased charges. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- The newspapers owned by the metropolitan dailies. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG: -- There are numerous newspapers in this country which are not owned by the big newspaper companies and they are extremely important to the people in their area. There is nothing more important to people in the country- I am referring not to farmers in particular but io rural dwellers generally throughout the country- -than to have what they commonly call their local rag. Their local newspaper is one of the most important things that come to them at the end of each week, or whenever it is delivered, because it contains all the local news as well as other things. There are probably many honourable senators who receive country newspapers because they keep them in touch with the people in their areas or with what is happening in places where they once lived. The local newspaper is a very important part of country life and I cannot accept that they can be loaded any further than they are now. Together with **Senator Laucke** I had many discussions with the previous Postmaster-General, **Sir Alan** Hulme, to see whether some arrangement could be made to give further assistance to the ru'al Press because of its needs. If these charges continue to rise country people will no longer have a rural Press. One by one local newspapers are being absorbed by other newspapers. They are gradually merging and losing their old identities because of the load of costs that they face. Yet here is another impost that *th.y* have to bear. I think this is a regressive step. This Government, which talks about open government and decentralisation, is placing country newspapers in a most invidious position and a lot of them will be terribly concerned about their future. Rural dwellers also will be concerned about the future of country newspapers. One of the great problems we are facing in the Postmaster-General's Department- I was very pleased to hear **Senator Laucke** deal with this- is in the area of efficiency. We appreciate that the postal section of the Postmaster-General's Department is a highly labour intensive section. We are faced with great problems of increased charges in so many ways. On present indications we cannot see any alternative to there being further increased postal charges. Nothing has been done to alleviate this problem at the present time- except the metrication of the 7c stamp on the envelope of the normal letter. One wonders how long it will be before we have another increase in charges in this very important area of communication which can be done by regulation. I have wondered why the Post Office, under this Government or the previous Government, has not given consideration to a greater encouragement of the use of telecommunications rather than the postal services. On the one hand we have a highly labour intensive area which every year shows a loss because of its labour intensity. On the other hand we have a capital intensive area which involves a very small labour component, particularly since the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling. It is an area in which there has been profitability each year. I wonder why people have not been encouraged to use a telephone in preference to writing a letter. I hope that consideration will be given to this matter which could be done by special late hour rates. In conclusion, I only wish to reiterate that 1 support those who have protested against this increase in charges. I question why the Government was not prepared to wait until the Commission of Inquiry brought down its report. {: #subdebate-57-0-s13 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- It has been indicated already that the Australian Democratic Labor Party will vote against any proposal in this legislation to increase postal charges. **Senator Kane** has explained fully our objection to a number of the proposed charges. I am opposed particularly to the increase in landline rents, particularly as they apply to country broadcasting and things of that nature. I think our point of view is sufficiently clear. The reason I rose is that before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I heard **Senator Cotton** say that there was a good deal of confusion about this legislation. He said that the confusion was so great that he was inclined to seek leave to defer completing his remarks while the confusion was resolved. We were informed that the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Murphy)** would meet **Senator Cotton** during the luncheon suspension and that they would endeavour to resolve the confusion. **Senator McAuliffe** was able to announce in the course of his speech that the confusion had been resolved and that- I hesitate to use the word 'deal' even without an adjective - {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- I never used the word deal'. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- The honourable senator said 'an agreement'. That is a much nicer term than the one I heard used in these precincts only yesterday. But, if something has been arrived at which has eliminated what was serious confusion in regard to this legislation, surely people such as myself who are so rarely involved in deals- I repeat 'without an adjective'- should be told exactly what the situation is before we are called on to vote on the motion for the second reading of these Bills. {: #subdebate-57-0-s14 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria -- It is my recollection that prior to coming to office the Labor Party stated to the people of Australia that it would hold postal charges at their existing rates. This is one area in which Labor has decided that the impost on the people of Australia should be particularly great. I regret that Labor has decided to impose very steep increases in the very important area of communications, both postal and telephonic. I think it is appropriate to say that at the moment nobody can say what actual increases will be applied. There have been some major changes from the original statement of the Postmaster-General **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** relating to proposed postal and telecommunications charges which was put down in August 1973. I have on my desk at the moment a paper which apparently is intended to convey that the Government proposes to move in this place amendments which were not moved in relation to this legislation when it was being passed through the House of Representatives. I am greatly concerned as to what the Labor Party is doing in this regard. It was of interest to note that when the Treasurer **(Mr Crean)** delivered his Budget Speech he indicated in a very few words that there would be some variation to Post Office charges. He made one basically untruthful statement when on page 18 of his Budget Speech he said: >The basic postage rate of 7c will not be changed . . . Of course, it was brought to light first in the Senate that whilst one or two Ministers- I think particularly the Leader of the Government in this place **(Senator Murphy)-** were threatening business houses and trading organisations that they must not cheat when the metric system was introduced, the largest business undertaking in the country under the control of the Labor Government was doing just that. I do not doubt that the Labor Government felt very awkward about the fact that the true position had been pinpointed, because, through this organisation, it was intending to cheat by means of the metric system to the extent of about 30 per cent. This will result in quite an impost on those people who in their business communications have to use the mail services daily. It is surprising that the White Paper produced by the Post Office on its prospects and capital program for 1973-74 disclosed that in 1972-73 the Post Office made a profit of $42m and that it estimated that in 1973-74 it would make a profit of $50m. It is regrettable that these further charges are being imposed at a time when inflation, which has been caused by the activities of the Labor Government, has put the business community, and indeed the Australian economy, in quite a plight. When the business community has to meet these increased charges, this will add very substantially to the rate of inflation. Businesses will be affected in the use of both postal services and telecommunications services, which include the distribution of advertising material. Primary producers, against whom the Government certainly has made a point of reacting in these proposals, also will be affected. The people who live outside the metropolitan areas will be hit the hardest and treated the most unfairly as a result of the proposed charges. I do not wish to delay the Senate for any great length of time, but if one looks at the various proposals in the Postmaster-General's statement ohe finds that the word 'country' appears time and again. The people in the metropolitan areas will not have such an enormous impost placed on them. Perhaps those people who form a voting cell also will not be so greatly affected. But country people basically are of little importance to Labor, and the Government has sought to ensure that they are the ones who will pay in this regard. The Labor Government has said fairly that it proposes to cease giving concessions which were granted previously to rural people. Of course, that is correct. The former Liberal-Country Party Government saw to it that the people who lived well beyond the metropolitan areas were given some advantage as regards the cost of services because of the better type of service that was available in the metropolitan areas. For instance, people who had to make telephone calls through a switchboard were charged a basic rate so that they had some advantage over those of us who are fortunate enough to have a completely automatic service in the metropolitan areas. One particular charge which is noted is the cost of telephone rentals. Members of the Senate can very quickly apply their minds to the percentage increase. I quote from page 3 of the PostmasterGeneral 's statement, which reads: >Rentals for subscribers connected to exchanges in the State capital cities, Canberra and Newcastle local call areas, will not be increased. That is where the Government is getting its bread and butter so far as the vote is concerned. But where it does not concern itself very greatly is illustrated in the next quotation. I am surprised that some of those senators who claim either to have had a connection with rural industry in their past or that they knew something of rural people do not take offence at these lines: >Country rentals, except for those services connected to noncontinuous exchanges, will be increased from $27 or $37 to $55 annually . . . That is an increase from $27 to $55 in one instance, an increase of more than 100 per cent in rental. On the same page is the statement about trunk call fees which have not been explained to this Senate. It is reasonable that a caller who wishes to have personalised service should pay extra for the operator time, equipment, and other costs incurred. This is in line with the practice of a number of overseas countries. The extra fee, which is still less than actual cost, is 20c a call. This expression 'actual cost' comes up all the time. I wonder what the actual cost is to deliver to some of those places in the outback of Queensland which **Senator Lawrie** mentioned, or in the outback of Western Australia. Is the Government going to attempt in the next year or two to get an equation of costs for the delivery of mail and telecommunications? I doubt that it is reasonable in Australia that that should be the situation. Members of the Senate undoubtedly have received as many telegrams and letters as I have on this subject. Great interest has been engendered in the matter and in the letters that I have received the writers have commonly used the words 'dishonest approach' and "cheat on the metric changeover.' I would be very pleased if the Minister in charge of this Bill would indicate whether the Post Office is altering its attitude to this metric changeover so that I could inform those people who have written to me on this matter that that is so. Surely we should have some sympathy for one or two of the associations who have written to me. For instance, a **Mrs Buchanan,** who is apparently the Director of the Wheel Chair and Disabled Association of Australia wrote to me in these terms: >It is so unfair to introduce such major increases to coincide with metrication. Naturally it has an effect on everyone, but to an organisation such as ours it is disastrous. One would think that the Postmaster-General would show some sympathy to that organisation. The Postal Users Action Committee, which must be one that regularly gives some hurry-up to the Post Office, has written a very thoughtful letter and obviously has put in a great deal of research into the matter. In its letter to me this Committee says that charges on letter rates will increase by more than 100 per cent; that there will be increases of about 174 per cent in postage on Australian printed books which will now come under the normal postal rates; that charges on rural publications- as at the date of this letter, 14 September- will increase by 400 per cent by 1975, and that all *category* B *items* will increase by 79.7 per cent. A Methodist Church executive had indicated that it opposed the charges made as completely unreasonable. I received a telegram from the National Business and Periodical Publishers Council which states: >Strongly protest government's announced postal rates amendments which benefit less than 10 per cent of Australia's newspaper and periodicals media group. Up to 500 per cent increase still facing other 90 per cent Consider it imperative Government adhere to the Postmaster-General's undertaking that no changes in rates or regulations will be made before report of Post Office Commission of Inquiry is received. Is that a truthful statement? I challenge the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** to say whether he did give an undertaking that there would be no changes before the report was received. It seems quite reasonable for here is the Labor Government setting up a committee of inquiry into this great business undertaking; yet before it is even half way through the inquiry the Labor Government decides to apply its own variations and charges. Of course, the Parliament is getting used to this type of suggestion. I recall well that the Government promised that every major capital work would not proceed until an environmental impact study had been made. What did we' find with the Galston airport proposal? The Government brought in its own decision and said it will have its own report. In fact, it has set about a complete fooling of the people. Other well considered letters that I have received include one from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which we consider to be a large company. It suggests that the total cost of the increase to it- that one company- will be approximately $20,000 per annum. It states that as a company it cannot totally absorb this cost and so the cost will be passed to the public. It is rather regrettable that this should occur when the Labor Government says it will attempt to moderate inflation. I received a letter from a group called the Land Values Research Group which very concisely set out how the cost of land will be affected by the charges which are being made. Of course, the Labor Government has directed this at its own people. Members of the Senate may have noted that one trade union newspaper commented in stronger terms. We have heard stronger terms, I think, from those inside the Labor organisation than from those outside it. I do not know whether members of the Opposition in the Senate have castigated the Labor Government as much as has **Mr Hawke** in his reference that some members of the Labor Party were imbeciles. I do not know whether that is a parliamentary term that I am able to use. This is one of the few times when I am on the side of **Mr Hawke** and I fully endorse his comment that there is imbecilic action associated with Caucus. Next, I should like to quote from the Sydney Sun' of 29 August: >A trade-union newspaper today bitterly attacked the Federal Government, which it helped to put into power. In an editorial, The Australian Worker' accused the Federal Treasurer, **Mr Crean,** of 'giving the kiss of death ' to trade union publications. The article goes on: >Increased postal charges brought down in the recent Budget will represent something like a SOO per cent hike over the next 3 years ', the paper's editor, **Mr F.** Roberts, said today. > >We cannot afford it and this newspaper will be forced to close.' He forecasts that no trade union newspapers would survive the postal charges slug. The article goes on to quote him, how appropriate and how common is the realisation that this is taking place. **Mr Roberts** said: >The trade union movement and union newspapers supported the Labor Government 's battle for power. Now they have stabbed us in the back. One could go on and describe the various comments that have been made regarding the very unjust imposts that are proposed. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -Throw the Bill out. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- It is my view that this entire Bill should be thrown out. I think it is a most despicable proposition that the Labor Party has brought forward. I have said to **Senator** McManus that it is my view that it would be thrown out. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- You can afford to say that when you know the majority of honourable senators do not want it thrown out. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- I suggest that the majority of honourable senators do want it thrown out. But the honourable senator would have to agree with me that a government elected by the people of Australia has now thrust upon the people of Australia the most unfair imposts that have been levied for years. The honourable senator holds his head in shame. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- And so he should. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -And so he should, as **Senator McManus** has said. But what are we to do in the Senate? Are we to take the attitude that every proposal in the Budget should be thrown out? I believe it is unfair that we should do this. I was very pleased to see that the lead taken by the Opposition in the House of Representatives brought some sense to the Postmaster-General and to that group which **Mr Hawke** referred to and altered their view. The Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** said that he brought about this change. What a great man. I wish he could bring about a few other changes. He would make a great contribution to his electorate of Riverina if he did so. But I suggest that the people of Riverina will see **Mr Grassby** more in the light of what **Mr Hawke** thinks of the internal group. The effect of these charges on rural people will be monstrous. Almost every country person has been discriminated against. I, on their behalf, say that this is a most unfair impost that has been created in this Budget. I ask the AttorneyGeneral, who is at the table to explain what has occurred in relation to Post Office charges since the Postmaster-General first made his statement on postal and telecommunication charges. What occurred in the House of Representatives? How have the charges been altered? What is the proposal which I understand the Government now wishes to move in relation to further charges? I have a paper in front of me which contains amendments which I take it will be moved on behalf of the Government which indicate that some further benefit is to be granted to some people. I ask the Attorney-General to give a concise view so that what he has to say can be recorded and sent to those very many people who have protested against the Government's action. {: #subdebate-57-0-s15 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I want to take only one minute of the Senate's time. I have listened to the debate with attention from the outset and not a word spoken in this debate has removed from me the conviction that this legislation is dishonest, inflationary, irresponsible and designed to finance inefficiency. As the legislation is sectionally directed against one important section of the community for discriminatory impact, contributing to centralisation as the Government depresses the economy of the outlying areas and foments extravagant expenditure to create cities artificially, I content myself with saying that I was particularly impressed with **Senator Webster's** speech. I agree with every sentence of it. For that reason the legislation will not receive my support. {: #subdebate-57-0-s16 .speaker-KRG} ##### Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania -- I want to take up one minute and say that because of the anti-rural bias contained in this measure, of which I am convinced, I propose to vote against this Bill. {: #subdebate-57-0-s17 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- No one likes to see postal, telephonic or telegraphic charges increased, least of all the Postmaster-General **(Mr Lionel Bowen).** Who would want to see them increased in this community? Over the years we have watched as increases have been made. We have opposed them in this place over a considerable period of time. One thing that must be evident is that nothing would induce the present Government to propose an increase in postal, telephonic or telegraphic charges unless it felt that it was necessary to do so. The Labor Government does not want to increase the charges for the fun of it. The proposal to increase charges comes because the Government feels that it is necessary and the way in which it is being done seems to be the appropriate way to do it. I was asked by **Senator Webster** to explain what changes were proposed in the amendments that were being put forward and what has happened since the initial proposals were made by the Postmaster-General. This was dealt with in the House of Representatives. The honourable member for Gippsland **(Mr Nixon)** and the Postmaster-General announced the arrangements which had been reached. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- The deal- not arrangements. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -The deal, then, which they presumably thought was a fair deal. Perhaps I should outline the revision that was made to proposed postage rates for registered newspapers and periodicals. Firstly it was decided that the Government would withdraw its proposals to abolish categories A and B on 1 October 1976. Secondly a decision was made to revise the proposed rates for registered newspapers and periodicals set out in item 2 of part I of the first schedule contained in clause 5 of the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill. The details of this arrangement have been set out in the terms circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have these figures incorporated in Hansard. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Byrne)-** Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Thirdly it was decided that clause 9 of the Post and Telegraph Bill and item 8 of the first schedule of the Post and Telegraph Regulations Bill would be amended to provide that country newspapers and periodicals which are printed and published in country areas or which have a substantial proportion of the printed copies posted by the proprietors, printers or publishers to subscribers in country areas, would remain in category A. **Senator Cotton** suggested that there was some confusion. I have arranged for officers of the Postmaster-General's Department in charge of this matter to speak to him. My understanding from those who are technically aware of these matters is that the amendments which are proposed entirely carry out the arrangement that was made and which is referred to in the document which has been circulated and to which I have just referred. {: .speaker-KPA} ##### Senator Kane: -That is the deal, is it? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Yes. I have some notes that I hope will answer most of the points which have been raised. Without the additional revenue from tariffs, the Post Office would have had little if any profit to re-invest in 1973-74. Profits and borrowings provided through the Budget are the main means of financing new Post Office capital investment. Re-invested profits therefore enable the Department to meet demand for service at a higher level than would be possible if finances were restricted to borrowings. With the revised charges, a profit of $50m will be available for re-investment- about the same order as the $42 million in 1972-73-with approximately 57 per cent of funds in both 1972- 73 and 1973-74 being provided through the Budget. The alternatives of increasing the Post Office 's share of the Budget at the expense of other necessary Government programs and projects, or reducing capital investment and so causing long delays in satisfying applications for telephone services were unacceptable. In deciding which charges should be adjusted this year, priority was given to reducing the losses incurred on a number of concessional and uneconomic services relating mainly to country areas and the media rather than taking the traditional course of increasing basic charges for postage and telephone calls. Further, the relative contributions from business as distinct from private subscribers were given close attention. The approach adopted indicates my belief that there is a need for a general but progressive restructuring of telecommunications charges in the coming years. As to profiteering from metrication, charges are being increased to meet the financial needs of the Post Office for capital and operating purposes. The Government has not sought to gain increased income from the change to the metric system. After making an allowance for changes in customers' habits, it is estimated that in isolation the change from the imperial system to the metric system would increase postal earnings in 1973- 74 by $1.5m which is more than offset by the decrease of $2.1m in telecommunications earnings arising from the lower trunk rates for various chargeable distances expressed in metric terms. There are therefore compensating ups and downs in charges. When approving postal metric conversion for late 1973 and the weight steps to apply, the previous Postmaster-General was well aware that it was planned to increase postal charges at the same time. It was then decided to give customers 8 grams less and set the conversion program in progress. At least 97 per cent of letters under one ounce will be under 20 grams. Using the standard type of press-seal envelopes and writing pads available in shops it is possible to send 5 sheets of A4 size paper for 7c anywhere in Australia. In regard to Christmas cards, manufacturers were advised as far back as May last year of the Postmaster-General's decision that the first weight step should be 20 grams. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- The distributors had all bought their cards before May- let alone the manufacturers {: #subdebate-57-0-s18 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -No, May last year. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- Before you were the Government? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I am reading the information which has been given to me and it states that the manufacturers were advised as far back as May last year, that is 1 972. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- That is before you were in government? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Yes. The PostmasterGeneral decided that the first weight step should be 20 grams. The manufacturers have therefore had ample time to ensure that the cards produced for Christmas 1973 were within that weight, which is ample for the typical high volume Christmas cards popular with the general public. It is my understanding that the 20 grams is related to the metric system conversion. Under the previous Government the decision was made to take that as the critical step and the manufacturers were so advised. Presumably they have produced cards and envelopes which are below that 20 gram step. As to waiting for the report of the Commission of Inquiry, the Commission is not expected to report before March 1974. The Government stated: >Its report will receive close consideration by the Government. In the meantime, the financial needs of the Post Office for capital and operating purposes must be met. The alternatives were unacceptable. Increasing Post Office borrowings beyond $320m would have meant reducing other Government programs in social welfare, education and urban development. The $32m increase in borrowings approved by the Government in 1973-74 is a record. Decreasing the Post Office capital investment program would have meant much longer waiting lists for telephone services and a congested telephone network. It is evident that the previous Government intended to increase charges this year. Its record was that it increased basic postage by 75 per cent in 4 years from 1967 to 1971, that is from 4c to 7c. The previous Postmaster-General approved forward estimates for 1973-74 and 1974-75 for the Treasury based on increases in basic postage in each year. This was consistent with the previous Government's performance in 1970 and 1971 when it increased postage in successive years. The previous Government opposed strongly on numerous occasions requests for a commission of inquiry into the Post Office. It appears inconsistent for the Opposition to be using an inquiry it never wanted as an excuse to oppose increased charges which it would no doubt have brought forward itself in one form or another. As to the postage concessions on newspapers and periodicals, the subsidy is not a burden which can be carried by the postal service when it is expected to operate as a government business undertaking. Neither is it appropriate or necessary for the Government to subsidise daily newspapers, commercial magazines, and professional and employer associations when there are so many other demands upon the Budget. Although it is recognised that the Press fulfils an important role in our society and that it has a sense of public duty and service, the Press is motivated by the need to make profits and is generally considered to be a very profitable industry. With profits like the $18m of Herald and Weekly Times, $8m of News Ltd and $5m by each of John Fairfax and Sons, Queensland Press, and Advertiser Newspapers the Press is well able to absorb the increases. Subscribers to foreign owned publications such as 'Readers Digest' and 'Time' are well able to afford an increase in subscriptions and similarly for the members of employer and professional associations. Many country newspapers are owned by the metropolitan dailies and again these companies can afford to carry more economic postage charges. However, this task is not so easy for small country papers. The percentage increases are only large because the difference between the concession rates and normal rates are so great. Under the amended proposals, over the 3 years the cost of mailing a weekly country newspaper weighing 50 grams will, from 1972 to 1975, have increased by 1.5c a week or 78c a year or in the case of one weighing up to 100 grams by only $1.25 a year. A monthly magazine weighing 200 grams will cost an extra 30c a year by 1 975. Light weight monthly category B publications which presently pay only 35 per cent of the normal printed matter rate would cost 24c a year extra by 1975, again after 3 years. It must be recognised that continuation of the concession- with $ 10.5m in 1972-73-must hasten the time when the basic postage must be increased. The Government has sought to avoid this because the concession must be paid for by other Post Office customers. Those are the answers which have been supplied to me in response to matters which have been raised by honourable senators. I trust that those answers meet the questions which were asked. Various suggestions have been made by honourable senators. These will be studied by the Postmaster-General. I ask the Senate to accept the motion for the second reading of the measures. Question put: >That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) AYES: 40 NOES: 8 Majority....... 32 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. In Committee The ACTING **CHAIRMAN (Senator** Wood)- The Committee has before it 3 Bills which by order of the Senate are being taken together. Amendments to each Bill have been circulated. I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to deal with the Bills separately. Is it the wish of the Committee to follow that procedure? There being no objection, the Committee will follow that procedure. {: .page-start } page 1002 {:#debate-58} ### POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL 1973 The Bill. {: #debate-58-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I have circulated amendments which relate to clause 5, which reads: >The First Schedule to the Principal Act is repealed and the following Schedule substituted: > >Sections 6, 6a, and 6b > >SCHEDULE 1 > >PART I- ORDINARY RATES > >2. (1) This item applies to Category A publications and Category B publications, where the articles are posted by the proprietors, printers or publishers of the publications or by newsvendors or agents, subject to such conditions, if any, not being conditions that are inconsistent with the regulations, as are determined by the Postmaster-General, relating to- > >a ) the manner of packing and marking the articles; and > >the arrangement of the articles so as to facilitate their sorting, and to compliance with the regulations. > >Subject to sub-items (5) and (6), in the case of Category A publications- > >posted before 1 March 1974- an amount calculated, in respect of the articles posted by any one person at any one time, at the rate of- > >1 . 5 cents for each article; or > >7 cents for each 300 grams or part of 300 grams of the aggregate weight of the articles, whichever is the greater, > >posted on or after 1 March 1974 but before 1 March 1975- an amount calculated, in respect of the articles posted by any one person at any one time, at the rate of- > >3 cents for each article; or > >8 cents for each 250 grams or pan of 250 grams of the aggregate weight of the articles, whichever is the greater; > >posted on or after 1 March 1 975- an amount calculated, in respect of each article, at the following rates- > >where the weight of the article does not exceed 50 grams- 5 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 50 grams but does not exceed 300 grams- 5 cents, together with 2 cents for each 50 grams or part of 50 grams in excess of 50 grams; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 300 grams- 15 cents, together with 1.5 cents for each 50 grams or part of 50 grams in excess of 300 grams. > >Subject to sub-items (5) and (6), in the case of Category B publications posted for local delivery- > >before 1 March 1974- an amount calculated, in respect of each article, at the rate of- > >2 cents for the first 50 grams or part of 50 grams; and > >1 cent for each additional 50 grams or pan of 50 grams; > >on or after 1 March 1974 but before 1 March 1975-an amount calculated in respect of each article, at the following rates- > >where the weight of the article does not exceed 50 grams- 4 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 50 grams but does not exceed 100 grams- 5.5 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 100 grams-5.5 cents, together with 1 cent for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 100 grams; > >on or after 1 March 1975- an amount calculated, in respect of each article, at the following rates- > >where the weight of the article does not exceed 50 grams- 5 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 50 grams but does not exceed 300 grams-5 cents, together with 2 cents for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 50 grams; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 300 grams- 15 cents, together with 1 cent for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 300 grams. > >) In the case of Category B publications posted otherwise than for local delivery- > >before 1 March 1974- an amount calculated, in respect of each article, at the following rates- > >where the weight of the article does not exceed 50 grams- 2.5 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 50 grams but does not exceed 250 grams- 2.5 cents, together with 2 cents for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 50 grams; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 250 grams- 10.5 cents, together with 1 cent for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 250 grams; > >on or after 1 March 1974 but before 1 March 1975-an amount calculated, in respect of each article, at the following rates- > >where the weight of the article does not exceed 50 grams- 5 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 50 grams but does not exceed 100 grams- 7 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 100 grams- 7 cents, together with 1.5 cents for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 100 grams; > >on or after 1 March 1975- an amount calculated, in respect of each article, at the following rates- > >where the weight of the article does not exceed 50 grams- 5.5 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 50 grams but does not exceed 100 grams- 9 cents; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 100 grams but docs not exceed 300 grams- 9 cents, together with 2 cents for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 100 grams; > >where the weight of the article exceeds 300 grams- 1 7 cents, together with 1 .5 cents for each 50 grams or pan of 50 grams in excess of 300 grams. I move: {: #debate-58-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- Those honourable senators who were here before lunch will remember that while we were discussing these matters I expressed apprehension and concern. **Senator Murphy** arranged for officers of the Postmaster-General's Department to discuss these matters at lunchtime with me and those of my colleagues who wished to be present. This was done. We were given a completely clear assurance, which is what we sought, that the amendments which have now been moved are identical with the proposals put forward in the House of Representatives. We were satisfied with that assurance. We also were given to understand that, in relation to the Post and Telegraph Bill, **Senator Murphy** will be bringing forward a new clause 13 which we will deal with at the appropriate stage. That disposes of the matter as far as I am concerned, except to say that in the Post and Telegraph Bill there is still no reference to the matters, in addition to clause 13, which were dealt with in the second reading speech but are not dealt with at this point. {: #debate-58-s2 .speaker-KPA} ##### Senator KANE:
New South Wales -- The Democratic Labor Party will oppose the increases in charges. We will call for a division on the first question, to demonstrate our position but in order to save time we will not call for a division from then on. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. {: .page-start } page 1004 {:#debate-59} ### POST AND TELEGRAPH REGULATIONS BILL 1973 The Bill. The ACTING CHAIRMAN- The question is that the Bill stand as printed. {: #debate-59-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I think I had better insist on speaking first; otherwise we might set a bad precedent. I have circulated amendments which relate to schedule 1, which reads in part: >SCHEDULE 1 > >Regulation 46 of the Postal Regulations is amended- > >by inserting after sub-regulation (5) the following subregulations: (5a) A publication referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-regulation (3) shall not be registered in the part of the register kept for the registration of Category A periodicals if- > >at any time after 20 August 1973, it was or is a publication other than a publication printed and published in a country area within the meaning of that paragraph; or > >it is a publication other than a publication which has a substantial proportion of its printed copies posted by the proprietor, printer or publisher to bona fide subscribers in a country area within the meaning of that paragraph. (5b) Where- > >a publication of a kind referred to in paragraph (e) of sub-regulation (3) as in force before the commencement of the Post and Telegraph Regulations Act 1973; or > >a publication to which sub-regulation (5a) applies, was, immediately before the commencement of this subregulation, registered as a Category A periodical, its registration is not affected by the omission of that paragraph by that Act or affected by the provisions of subregulation (5 a) but, if it is still so registered immediately before 1 March 1974, its registration shall, on that date, be transferred to the pan of the register kept for the registration of Category B periodicals. '; I move: >In Schedule 1, item 8, paragraph (g), leave out the proposed sub-regulation (5a) of regulation 46 of the Postal Regulations, substitute the following sub-regulation: (5a) A publication referred to in paragraph (c) of subregulation (3) shall not be registered in the pan of the register kept for the registration of Category A periodicals unless- > >the publication is, and at all rimes from and including 20 August 1973 has been, printed and published in a country area within the meaning of that paragraph; or > >b) a substantial proportion of the copies of each number of the publication are posted by the proprietor, printer or publisher of the publication to bona fide subscribers in a country area within the meaning of that paragraph. '. > >In Schedule 1, item 8, paragraph (g), leave out paragraph (b) of the proposed sub-regulation (5b) of regulation 46 of the Postal Regulations, substitute the following paragraph: > >a publication that, by virtue of sub-regulation (5a), is not to be registered as a Category A periodical, '. {: #debate-59-s1 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- I merely rise, as I did not speak generally on the Bills, to say that, in respect of all the arguments which I would have put forward, I can save time now by indicating that what was said in the speeches made by **Senator Murphy** and his colleagues a couple of years ago in opposing increases in postal charges is exactly the sentiments which the Democratic Labor Party is backing on this occasion. {: #debate-59-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- Those sentiments were good at the time they were expressed. My recollection of them is that they are still good. We would like to arrive at the stage where we can avoid increasing postal charges. I am sure that every endeavour will be made by the Government to do that, and that those efforts will be assisted by the findings of the inquiry which has been established. In the meanwhile, these amendments at least will tend to ameliorate any increases. The ACTING **CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood)-** The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Those of that opinion say 'aye', to the contary 'no'; I think 'ayes' have it. The question now is that the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say 'aye', to the contrary no '; I think the ' ayes ' have it. The next Bill is the Post and Telegraph Bill 1973. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: **- Mr Acting Chairman,** on several occasions I called 'no' and called for a division, as did my colleagues. You may not have heard me. The ACTING CHAIRMAN- I am sorry, **Senator.** {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- Yes, he did call for a division. The ACTING CHAIRMAN- I must apologise because I did not hear you, **Senator McManus.** {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- I appreciate that, **Mr Acting Chairman.** {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- If **Senator McManus** desires to have a division we should have a division. Would it be sufficient to have one on the last question that was put? {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- We desire to have one division in order to emphasise our opposition. We will not call for divisions on any of the other questions. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: **- Mr Acting Chairman,** may I suggest that by general consensus we take a division on the last question that was put. The ACTING CHAIRMAN -If it is the wish of the Committee, I will put the question to the Committee again. The question is: That the amendments be agreed to. Question put: The Committee divided. (The Acting Chairman- Senator Wood) AYES: 41 NOES: 4 Majority....... 37 AYES NOES Question resolved in the affirmative. Amendments agreed to. {: #debate-59-s3 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia **- Mr Acting Chairman,** I refer to paragraph 16(2) in Schedule 4 of the Bill. All I want to do is to express, on behalf of my Party, concern at the private line charges for radio stations. I have had some discussions with the officers of the Postmaster-General's Department, and certain assurances have been given to me. I want to take this opportunity to say that if those assurances are not provided I will use the procedures of the Committee to get those assurances. But I understand that the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Murphy)** has something to say and probably he will give me the assurances. {: #debate-59-s4 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I have been supplied with information in answer to the request made by **Senator Drake-Brockman.** On the land line question, the Postmaster-General has given a written assurance to defer the date of effect until evidence is presented and considered in respect of the effect on individual stations so that any increases can be applied on a selective basis to those stations which can afford to pay normal charges. That is the content of a letter from the PostmasterGeneral to **Mr Anthony,** the Leader of the Australian Country Party. {: #debate-59-s5 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- If this Bill is passed, if these charges are brought in at a later date and if they are excessive, we will have no opportunity to oppose them. I wanted an assurance from the Postmaster-General and I believe that he has given it to the Leader of my Party. If the PostmasterGeneral has given the assurance that the opportunity will be there for us to have some say on these charges I am satisfied, and I will not proceed with my proposed amendment. {: #debate-59-s6 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP -- I can tell the honourable senator that a letter to which he referred earlier has been signed by the Postmaster-General. I do not know whether it is intended to put on record the contents of the letter. I will supply the honourable senator with a copy. I can give it to him now if he wishes to see it. {: #debate-59-s7 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- I ask the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** whether, if nothing is done in the Bill, the question which **Senator Drake-Brockman** asked has been answered. If the Bill is not amended will there be any opportunity for the Senate to disagree with what the Minister does in the future concerning this matter? For instance, if the PostmasterGeneral imposed these new charges by regulation would they be subject to disallowance by the Senate? That is the $64 question inwhich I am interested. All we have, in effect, is astatement that the Postmaster-General will look atthe matter. {: .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator Poyser: -- All you have to do is to trust us. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -That is so. I am asking: Are we giving a blanket power and receiving in return an assurance that the Minister will look at the matter before he enforces the new charges, or is the Minister saying that he will not enforce them until he gives the Senate an opportunity to look at the matter? {: #debate-59-s8 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I am not able to assist the Committee more than I have. I understand that this matter was raised at a very late stage. Some correspondence has just been entered into. I am not able to assist the Committee more than that on the land line aspect. Some assurance was sought by **Mr Anthony** from the Postmaster-General. He has written a letter. I have given a copy of it to **Senator Drake-Brockman.** I do not know its contents because it has just been received. I cannot assist any further than that. **Senator DrakeBrockman** told me that this was happening. If he is satisfied we may be able to proceed, but I cannot assist more than I have done. {: #debate-59-s9 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- The only way in which the Committee can really rest assured is to amend regulation 147 which would mean inserting another clause in this Bill, so that if the PostmasterGeneral makes a decision it has to be tabled in the Parliament. I did not believe that we should go that far today, so I sought an assurance in writing from the Minister. That assurance has been given. A copy of this letter has been sent to **Mr Lynch,** the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in another place. The proposal in the letter does not cover the Parliament, but it covers my case and my Party's case. {: #debate-59-s10 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- As the Committee would be well aware, it was necessary to obtain from the Government an assurance about this matter in order to help the Government get this legislation through today. **Mr Anthony** and **Mr Lynch** have had discussions with the Postmaster-General. Assurances have been given. I have seen them. They seem to meet the case at present because they contain what might be called a right of recourse if a certain event happens. Accordingly, I think that the matter should be left there. {: #debate-59-s11 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I think that the Attorney-General could have clarified this matter by examining the provisions of the Act and the regulations which are being amended by this Bill. If he had, I should have thought that the position would have been so clear that it did not permit any doubt that the matter could be raised at some time in the future. As I understand what is being done, the Postal Regulations are being amended. They are not being amended in the usual way in which regulations are amended, that is by the promulgation of new regulations, but by an Act. This practice has been followed in recent years by the previous Government. It has been followed by this Government. As I understand the area about which **Senator Drake-Brockman** is concerned, regulation 147 is being amended in the Schedule to the present Bill, which has the effect in law of amending the regulations. Any change in future can be done either by acting in a similar way or by simply amending the regulations by the Governor-General approving the amending regulations. I do not know the contents of the letter because I have not seen it. A copy has been given to **Senator Drake-Brockman.** I assume that the letter indicates that any changes to be made will be made in either of those forms. I think that the Attorney-General could indicate that they are the only ways in which the changes can be made. If he did, the position would be clarified. I rose only because I felt that it could have been said initially. The fact that it has not been said raises in my mind the doubt whether there is some other way in which the changes could be made. That is why I raise the question. I cannot see how it can be done. I invite confirmation by the Attorney-General. {: #debate-59-s12 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- This matter was raised, not with me but elsewhere, as a matter of concern to the Australian Country Party. Apparently a satisfactory assurance has been given. I suggest that in the circumstances we should proceed with the Bill. If that course is not acceptable, I will have to ask that progress be reported because I am not in a position to advert to this matter. It is simply something which has happened between the Postmaster-General and **Mr Anthony.** I have not focused on the problem. I am not ready to suggest what should be done. I understand that **Senator Drake-Brockman** is satisfied that w; should proceed on the basis of what has been done. I suggest, with respect, that, since the matter has been raised in a certain way and has been decided satisfactorily, it might be convenient to deal with the remaining stages of the Bill. Otherwise I will have to ask that progress be reported. {: #debate-59-s13 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I say this for the sake of the record, in the light of what I said earlier: The relevant sub-clause of regulation 147 of the Telephone Regulations is sub-clause 8. It states: >Where- > >The Director General considers that the provisions of a proposed private line would require the making of special arrangements; or > >A proposed private line would connect premises that are owned or controlled by different persons the preceding provisions of this regulation do not apply in relation to the provision of the private line and the Department may charge for the provision of the line such amount as the Director-General considers reasonable. It is in that area that I understand **Senator Drake-Brockman** expressed concern. I would qualify what I said earlier by stating that the clear import of that sub-clause is that there is a discretion vested in the Director-General. Therefore, changes could be made without either Act or regulation. But as I understand it, that is a matter which has been adverted to by those who have made the arrangements which have led to what may be the speedier passage of this legislation than would otherwise have been the case. In those circumstances, unless **Senator DrakeBrockman** wants to take the matter further, I would think that he must be regarded as being covered by his letter. {: #debate-59-s14 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- What the honourable senator says is correct. I was seeking an assurance and I have received a further assurance since I last spoke in which the Minister says: >I further agree that any alterations are to be deemed to be reasonable by all parties and to expressly take into account the disabilities of any station. That satisfies my query. I have it in writing and I am quite happy to proceed. {: #debate-59-s15 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- I feel that I should support the wish that has been expressed that the Government will give fresh consideration to this matter. I will not labour the point. I make that statement on behalf of my Party. We were not asked by the Liberal Party, the Australian Country Party or by any other Party to be associated with what appears to have been a deal made behind the scenes. I do not propose to use any adjective in regard to that deal other than to say that we appreciate the point that in these matters we are not consulted by the 2 other Opposition Parties. They have their rights not to consult us on these things. In these circumstances we will express our own views in regard to these deals. Amendments agreed to. Bill as amended agreed to. {: .page-start } page 1008 {:#debate-60} ### POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1973 The ACTING **CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood)-** Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole? The ACTING **CHAIRMAN- Senator Lawrie,** are there many clauses that you want to discuss? The ACTING CHAIRMAN- Perhaps the Bill could still be taken as a whole and honourable senators could deal with the clauses with which they want to deal. The ACTING CHAIRMAN- Previously it was indicated that we would not take the Bill as a whole. Have honourable senators changed their minds? Do they want the Bill to be taken as a whole? **Senator Greenwood-** No. Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Declarations to be taken by officers). {: #debate-60-s0 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- This morning I referred to the fact that in the second reading speech of the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** delivered in the House of Representatives reference is made to additional material which has not been presented in the Senate by the responsible Minister, the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland).** This, honourable senators have not had an opportunity to have presented to them. I mention 3 areas. I will be as brief as I can. One of the areas has particular reference to this clause 3. The Postmaster-General stated in the House of Representatives: >Three of the matters are quite minor but will be of great assistance to the Post Office. One amendment will allow postmasters to witness the declaration of secrecy which persons must take before commencing employment in the Post Office. Previously a Justice of the Peace was required, and this often created difficulties in more remote areas. Certainly, that amendment was referred to in the House of Representatives, and the PostmasterGeneral paid honourable members the courtesy of explaining it there. But it was not explained to us. He continued: >Another amendment will permit the payment of rewards of up to $ 100 in any one case for information leading to the apprehension of persons wilfully damaging departmental property. Vandalism is currently a matter of concern to the Post Office. One would naturally agree with any attempts made by the Post Office to overcome this problem. There was a third minor amendment. The Postmaster-General said: >The third minor amendment, in fact, is designed to ensure that public telephones are included in the provisions of section 1 30 which makes it an offence to wilfully damage departmental property. Then, there is another matter referred to in the second reading speech about very large users of postal services being able to post in advance of paying for the service. While it is understood by the Government that this is a normal commercial practice and the Auditor-General's office also accept this extension of credit, it has requested that the matter should be regularised. Section 1 3 of the Post and Telegraph Act deals with this matter. There is a further section dealing with dues being paid by the Department for the use of piers, wharves, ferries, roads and similar places where the Department has not paid dues in the past. All these matters seem to me to be of not very light moment. They ought to have been adverted to in the Senate. Honourable senators are having to pick up the second reading speech delivered in the House of Representatives to deal with these matters. The ACTING **CHAIRMAN -Senator Cotton,** I do not think that that comes within the scope of clause 3. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- It is referred to in the second reading speech in another place. I am trying to save the Senate 's time. I will close my remarks by saying that there is reference to clause 13 in the latter part of this second reading speech. Undoubtedly, that matter will be raised in discussion of clause 13. I think that I have raised very briefly those matters concerning this Bill which were contained in the second reading speech delivered in the House of Representatives but not in the second reading speech delivered in the Senate. **Senator MURPHY** (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) I move: >That progress be reported {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I ask why. I thought that we were to pass these Bills tonight. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I thought also that we would. There are 2 matters which are urgent to have passed through the Parliament. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- When will we come back to this matter? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I would hope to come back to it at a later hour this evening. I may say for the assistance of the Senate that I hope to introduce the Trade Practices Bill and also have these Bills passed this evening. I realise that this evening is to be devoted to general business. But I suggest that we should report progress. I would hope to be able to answer the questions raised very shortly if I could obtain the assistance of the Committee on this. Later this evening I could answer the matters which **Senator Cotton** has raised. That could be done compendiously at a later hour this evening. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: **- Mr Acting Chairman,** if the Government wishes to report progress, that motion will not be opposed. But as I understood the position, by arrangement between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition it was desired to pass these Bills today. I think that that can be done. If the Government wants to change the order - {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- Very well. I will endeavour to give short answers to the matters that have been raised. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- I say only that there should be no assumption that the time made available for general business is to be eaten into for the purpose of passing these Bills. I think that the Leader of the Government knows that there is an item of general business which it is desired by the Opposition to be debated to a conclusion this evening. I mention that only as the basis upon which I understood the arrangements for today had been made when discussions took place between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I withdraw the motion if I may. Motion- by leave- withdrawn. {: #debate-60-s1 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- A request is made in clause 3 to add the words 'or a postmaster'. This simply means that under section 9 of the Post and Telegraph Act an officer, before exercising the duties of his office, will make and subscribe before a Justice of the Peace or, as an alternative, before a postmaster a declaration in the form A set forth in the second schedule. The reason for this is that in country areas it is sometimes difficult to get a Justice of the Peace. Every officer- it may be some temporary officer- is simply asked to make a declaration of secrecy. That is the sensible purpose of this proposal. What was the next matter raised? {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- The apprehension of people damaging property. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Yes. Which clause is that? {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- It was referred to in your second reading speech. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -That is clause 13. We have not come to that yet. I have answered clause 3. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton: -- I think so. {: #debate-60-s2 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- The only point I wanted to raise about clause 3-1 raised it originally- is that it has a relationship with clause 13 of the Bill. Clause 1 3 introduces a new concept of what I understand to be the investigation officers of the Post Office being able to exercise powers of detention and powers of search. The investigation officers can act only on reasonable grounds, as we will see when we come to that clause, but they are persons employed in the Post Office whom the PostmasterGeneral specifically designates. I notice that at the same time as that change is being made there is this change in clause 3 of the Bill which means that an officer is a person who does not take an oath or make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace but before a postmaster. I do not know what consideration has been given to that aspect but it seems to me that there always is a safeguard when a declaration or an oath is made before one of those persons who customarily in this country is required to administer an oath. I suggest that there is some change there. I know that the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** has shown his interest in this matter because of the amendment he proposes to move to clause 13. Does he not think that there should be some specific provision in this area? {: #debate-60-s3 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- The provisions do not really relate to clause 13. Now that the honourable senator has raised the question of clause 1 3 I point out that it is an important clause as it stands. Honourable senators know that I indicated that I thought it should be modified. I think the modification I suggested is a wise one but I think it would probably require a good deal of discussion to make clear the purpose of the original clause. In the circumstances of the pressure of time and the fact that General Business will be dealt with tonight I indicate now that clause 13 will be withdrawn. An endeavour will be made, because this is a matter of some importance and some urgency, to deal with the situation at a later stage in this sitting. I will simply not proceed with clause 13. {: #debate-60-s4 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I think I should indicate clearly to the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Murphy)** that members of the Opposition who are interested in this clause are appreciative of the fact that the Government's proposed amendment to what is in the Bill is an improvement on the clause as it was drafted. There is no intention on the part of the Opposition to resist that clause. We would welcome it and support it. It was our hope that an explanation could be given of the circumstances which prompted the introduction of this clause in the way in which it was originally in the Bill. I have read what the Postmaster-General **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** said in his second reading speech. I think he set out in clear and persuasive form the need for some power to exist. The difficulties which must arise are assumed difficulties. If a person is suspected of being in possession of material, letters and postal articles which he should not have, there may be difficulty in obtaining a police officer who can exercise his powers of arrest in order to take the necessary steps. That is assumption because it was not spelt out. We assume that that is the reason for this provision. We were seeking some elaboration of those matters in the discussions we had beforehand. The reasons- I do not wish to read them- are set out in the House of Representatives Hansard. The PostmasterGeneral's address indicated that there was a variation between the States; that presumably officers had to rely from time to time on the provisions of State law which were not uniform. The justification for having a provision in the Post and Telegraph Act is well sustained. The Opposition, by its attitude of asking questions, does not indicate that it is not appreciative of the change being made. However I think it is important to recognise under clause 3 that the means by which an officer is appointed are being changed so that officers may be appointed much more easily than they have been in the past; yet they are being given wider powers under the proposed legislation. That matter must have attracted the Attorney-General's attention and I invite his consideration of it. {: #debate-60-s5 .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia -- Perhaps I can bring a little light on clause 13. The ACTING **CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood)-** We are debating clause 3? {: .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator WILKINSON: -- The Opposition brought clause 13 into the discussion. The ACTING CHAIRMAN- I know. The Committee decided, strongly against the advice of the Chair, to consider the Bill clause by clause so the honourable senator has to put up with it. {: .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator WILKINSON: **-But Senator Greenwood** has been discussing clause 13. I want to bring some other points forward to assist in the argument. What are we going to do about it? Are you going to let **Senator Greenwood** talk about clause 13 and not permit me to do so? We wanted the discussion on the whole Bill. The ACTING CHAIRMAN- I will put the question again. Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole? {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers: -- Aye. The ACTING CHAIRMAN -The ayes have it. That course will be followed. The Bill. {: #debate-60-s6 .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia -- Under clause 13 the declaration is to be taken by officers when they join the Postal Department. When they first join they have to take an oath and that oath is administered by a Justice of the Peace. It is now suggested that it may be administered by a postmaster. A person then becomes a member of the Public Service and a member of the Postal Department. Certain people are selected, because of their qualifications, to be authorised officers in an investigation branch. These are the only people who have anything to do with watching over the security of the Post Office. These authorised officers already have taken the ordinary oath administered when they joined the Department. An authorised officer is defined as a person whose duties are or include the investigation of possible offences against this Act. That person is appointed in writing by the Postmaster-General as an authorised officer. That appointment is something far greater than that held by the ordinary telephone girl, the telephone mechanic or the clerk. These are people who are specially authorised to conduct investigation work. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- Convenience may lead to a lot of these people being appointed. {: .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator WILKINSON: -No. If something is to be done in a country town a person from the investigation branch is sent there from the capital city. I think this clause is in order. It does not allow anybody to become an authorised person indiscriminately at the wish of a postmaster. These people have to be appointed as ordinary officers and the special qualifications are made in writing by the Postmaster-General. I think that the clause should stand and I hope that we accept it in the way that it is submitted. {: #debate-60-s7 .speaker-KQV} ##### Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975 -I am not at all happy about clause 1 3 as it stands. The Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** has offered to defer this clause- to take it out of the Bill for the time being. My Party is happy to accept that offer and I believe it should be accepted. The clause can be brought in again at a later date. It is wrong in principle for a civilian without identification to have the right to arrest and search people. There should be some way of getting around that situation, even if it requires the production of an authority. If a man in civilian clothing came up to me and said 'I am going to arrest you. I suspect that you have something you should not have', and I did not know him, even if he produced an authority I believe he would have no redress if I just punched him for interfering with or molesting me in that way. He would have no grounds for doing so in law. This argument has come up time and again during the consideration of legislation dealing with primary producers. The Attorney-General has offered to take this clause out of the Bill. The Country Party accepts that offer. We can have a look at it at some later date. {: #debate-60-s8 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I am grateful to **Senator Greenwood** for his remarks. There has been an endeavour to improve the original proposition. A serious problem arises in relation to the search of persons. The problem that arises affects very much the right to privacy, if one may say so, of 2 categories of people. The first is those who are suspected of stealing or having unlawful possession of postal articles or articles taken out of the post. These people have civil liberties, and **Senator Lawrie** quite rightly has referred to those. Secondly, we should consider the right to privacy of the persons using the mails. Material sent through the mails should be inviolate. But the reality is that there is a great deal of interference with their right to privacy by people who interfere with the mails and steal articles, presumably mostly for gain. This causes a great deal of distress and confusion. Therefore it is necessary that there be some endeavour to stop this practice. Often no police officer is available when it is necessary to search a person. How is this problem to be overcome? The original proposal was to have not all officers but only officers especially authorised able to do this. The proposal which has been circulated contains a definition of such an officer and endeavours to deal strictly with the area of concern more than was the case in the Bill as it came from the House of Representatives. If we are to discuss this matter properly- there are great issues involved, including the protection of the persons who are doing any necessary searches- it probably will be difficult to get these Bills passed today. Not to discuss the matter properly would perhaps leave some honourable senators unhappy about its provisions, even if it were passed. I do not think that would be a satisfactory situation. I accept what has been said by **Senator Greenwood.** I accept that probably the measure would go through with the modified clause 13. 1 think it is better that we omit clause 13 in the hope that the Bills will go through. {: .speaker-KQV} ##### Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- Do you agree to withdraw it for the time being? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Yes. Although what we propose is a far better and wiser provision, I think there may be room for further improvement. I think it is better that we try to get some satisfaction because we all are aiming at the same end, namely, to have a provision which is consonant with civil liberties and which provides a solution to this matter. If the clause is not withdrawn, we will be here for a long time arguing about it. I thank **Senator Greenwood** for what he said. Clause 9 reads: >Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended- > >by inserting after sub-section (2ab) the following subsections: "(2aba) A publication referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-section (2a) shall not be registered in the pan of the register kept for the registration of Category A newspapers if- > >at any time after 20 August 1973, it was or is a publication other than a publication printed and published in a country area within the meaning of that paragraph; or > >it is a publication other than a publication which has a substantial proportion of its printed copies posted by the proprietor, printer or publisher to bona fide subscribers in a country area within the meaning of that paragraph. "(2ABB) Where- > >a publication of a kind referred to in paragraph (e) of sub-section (2a) of section 29 of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1971; or > >a publication to which sub-section (2aba) applies, was, immediately before the commencement of this subsection, registered as a Category A newspaper, its registration is not affected by the omission of that paragraph by the Post and Telegraph Act 1973 or affected by the provisions of sub-section (2 aba) but, if it is still so registered immediately before 1 March 1974, its registration shall, on that date, be transferred to the pan of the register kept for the registration of Category B newspapers."; > >by inserting after sub-section (2ac) the following subsections: - Clause 13 reads: >After section 137 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted:- "137a. (1) Where an authorized officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed, is committing, has attempted to commit or is attempting to commit, an offence against section HI, 114, 115 or 116, the authorized officer may, without warrant- > >detain that person for the purpose of his being searched; and > >search that person. "(2) An authorized officer conducting a search under subsection ( 1 ) who finds a thing that he has reasonable grounds to believe is evidence of the commission, or attempted commission, of an offence referred to in that sub-section may seize that thing. I move: {: #debate-60-s9 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- I will be very brief. This matter first arose because the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** himself expressed concern about it. That concern was reinforced by the Opposition. 1 want to pay the Minister a proper tribute by saying that he endeavoured to eliminate his own concern and ours by bringing forward a new clause 13. One cannot deal with such controversial issues on the run like this. Therefore **Senator Murphy** has moved for the withdrawal of clause 1 3. 1 would be very grateful if he could tell us whether he would be prepared to bring on this matter for further discussion at a later date. I say that without wanting to hinder him in any degree whatsoever. The circulated amendments are the ones which are printed and the amendment proposed to clause 13 is not included in the printed amendments but is a separate amendment. I believe that it is **Senator Murphy's** intention to withdraw the circulated amendment to clause 13 which is in roneo form. It is now proposed to deal with the printed amendments which were circulated this morning. {: #debate-60-s10 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- The position as **Senator Cotton** has stated it is correct. The intention, of course, is to deal with clause 13 at a later date, because it needs to be dealt with. There is no way of getting around that situation. There is a problem there. The problem needs to be solved. {: .speaker-KQV} ##### Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- At a later date? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Yes. I am sure that, if it were not for the pressures of time, we would be able to solve it satisfactorily this evening; but it is not possible to do that. I think the sensible thing to do is simply to withdraw clause 13; otherwise the possibility of getting the Bills through tonight might well be prejudiced. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. {:#subdebate-60-0} #### Third Readings Bills (on motion by **Senator Murphy)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1012 {:#debate-61} ### TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1973 Bill presented, and read a first time. Suspension of Standing Orders Motion (by **Senator Murphy)** proposed: >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. {: #debate-61-s0 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I know what is the intention of the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Murphy),** but I simply ask: Does he propose to break into the time set aside for consideration of General Business in order to deliver his second reading speech, does he propose to ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard, or what does he propose to do? {: #debate-61-s1 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- in reply-I was hoping to commence my second reading speech this evening and I was hoping further that consideration of the relevant matters under the heading of General Business might be concluded in time to allow me to finish my second reading speech. However, if it was not concluded I was hoping that I might be allowed sufficient time, either before or after the consideration of General Business, to conclude my speech. I should like to deal with the trade practices legislation, which is of considerable importance, so that the Bill could be put before the Senate before the break, and honourable senators and others would have the advantage of some 10 days in which to examine the provisions of the Bill. {: #debate-61-s2 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition -- We realise the problem which the Leader of the Government **(Senator Murphy)** faces. I understand that he had to get these Bills this afternoon and that proceedings have gone on longer than we all expected. I understand the urgency, that he wants to put down his second reading speech so that there will be at least 10 days in which we can mull over it before we come back. We will do our best to facilitate either his putting it down or concluding his second reading speech at the end of General Business tonight. I would indicate in a general sense that I would not mind sitting on for a bit after 10.30 tonight so that the AttorneyGeneral may put down his second reading speech and we can get the whole thing off the stocks. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I have 5 Bills to introduce. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -I recognise that also, **Senator Cavanagh,** and while I cannot speak for all my colleagues, if we were in any sort of crunch situation at the end of that period I personally I reiterate 'personally '-would not mind if those second reading speeches were incorporated in Hansard so that you can get all of your Bills to the stage where the message has been reported and the Bills will be on the notice paper when we come back after the week's recess. {: #debate-61-s3 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- I do not have any great concern or difficulty about what the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Withers)** has said but I do say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Murphy)** that for some weeks now we have been sitting for extra hours and this week has been a particularly hard week for all of us. I would not like him to press his luck too much in asking for longer time. But I concur with the Leader of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. {:#subdebate-61-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-61-0-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I move: I ask for leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. An explanatory memorandum to the Bill will be circulated. {: #subdebate-61-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- The purpose of this Bill is to control restrictive trade practices and monopolisation and to protect consumers from unfair commercial practices. The Bill will replace the existing Restrictive Trade Practices Act, which has proved to be one of the most ineffectual pieces of legislation ever passed by this Parliament. The Bill will also provide on a national basis long overdue protection for consumers against a wide range of unfair practices. Restrictive trade practices have long been rife in Australia. Most of them are undesirable and have served the interests of the parties engaged in them, irrespective of whether those interests coincide with the interests of Australians generally. These practices cause prices to be maintained at artifically high levels. They enable particular enterprises or groups of enterprises to attain positions of economic dominance which are then susceptible to abuse; they interfere with the interplay of competitive forces which are the foundation of any market economy; they allow discriminatory action against small businesses, exploitation of consumers and feather-bedding of industries. In consumer transactions unfair practices are widespread. The existing law is still founded on the principle known as caveat emptor- meaning let the buyer beware'. That principle may have been appropriate for transactions conducted in village markets. It has ceased to be appropriate as a general rule. Now the marketing of goods and services is conducted on an organised basis and by trained business executives. The untrained consumer is no match for the businessman who attempts to persuade the consumer to buy goods or services on terms and conditions suitable to the vendor. The consumer needs protection by the law and this Bill will provide such protection. The Bill, **Mr President,** is especially important because of its relevance to inflation. The purpose of many restrictive practices is to maintain prices at levels higher than would otherwise prevail. This contributes to the inflationary trend. It also reduces the likelihood that the benefits of the Government's recent tariff cut will be passed on to the public. Increased competition from imports will be of little benefit if not accompanied by increased domestic competition. Consumer protection also assists in the fight against inflation. It is the consumer who has to bear the burden of higher prices and of unfair methods of dealing. The Government has a firm electoral commitment to introduce effective legislation in the areas of restrictive trade practices and consumer protection. This implements the promises made by the Government at the last general election. The Government believes, **Mr President,** that the Bill introduced into this Parliament should, as far as possible, indicate what forms of conduct are to be prohibited. We believe that the existing Restrictive Trade Practices legislation is unsatisfactory in this regard. Under that legislation prohibition of a practice or agreement comes not from the law itself but from a restraining order made by the Trade Practices Tribunal. These proceedings can only be instituted by the Commissioner of Trade Practices where, in his opinion, the institution of such proceedings is desirable. To this, there is a real exception in the case of resale price maintenance and apparent exceptions in the cases of collusive tendering and collusive bidding. In our view, except for resale price maintenance, the existing Restrictive Trade Practices Act unfairly places the burden on persons whose responsibility it is to administer the law, not to make it. I do not overlook the need for some flexibility in legislation of this kind. Some agreements and practices are not objectionable. The law should provide for such agreements or practices to be treated after appropriate consideration by the administering authorities as exceptions to the general rule. This is the approach taken in the Bill. A related consideration is that a law is bound to be ineffective if it commits to the administering authorities more work than they could hope to perform. The unsatisfactory operation of the existing Act is made clear in the recently tabled Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. This report states that on the 30 June this year there were no fewer than 12,360 operative agreements entered in the Register maintained by the Commissioner. This was only 1 93 fewer agreements than the corresponding number on the 30 June last year. The Commissioner and his staff have done their best to deal with a vast number of agreements and practices in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act. But it is clear from the report that the rate of progress they have been able to achieve is extremely inadequate if effective control of restrictive agreements and practices is to be attained within a reasonable period. The progress being made under the existing Act is such that it would be many years before the legislation had any significant impact on the economy. This would be unsatisfactory if inflation was not a pressing problem. Such a slow rate of progress is plainly intolerable. Another important principle is that a breach of such legislation should give those who are affected by the breach the right to bring private enforcement proceedings. Under the existing Act one who is adversely affected by a practice or agreement has no right to take the first necessary step of instituting proceedings in the Trade Practices Tribunal. Under that Act the institution of such proceedings is the exclusive prerogative of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. If the Commissioner takes no action the person adversely affected by the practice or agreement has no alternative course of action. It is clear that the effectiveness of legislation with respect to trade practices will depend upon the existence of a strong administrative agency. This Bill recognises the need for such an agency. The agency will be called the Trade Practices Commission and will consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and such other members as are appointed by the Governor-General. The Trade Practices Commission will replace the Commissioner of Trade Practices. It will have a wide range of responsibilities covering not only enforcement, but the granting of authorisations for conduct otherwise prohibited, the granting of clearances where there is uncertainty as to the application of particular provisions and inquiring, at the instance of the Attorney-General, into the need for further legislation with respect to practices that appear to be operating unfairly against the interests of consumers. The Commission's functions with respect to consumer protection will complement those of the Consumer Standards Commission which my colleague, the Minister for Science **(Mr Morrison)** is establishing. The Bill provides for mandatory consumer standards where desirable. The method will be to prescribe the standard by regulation. Any such regulation will be made under the legislation now proposed although decisions to prescribe standards will be taken in close consultation with the Minister for Science. Some of the functions of the Trade Practices Commission will involve the making of administrative determinations of a quasi-judicial character similar in a number of respects to the determinations at present made by the Trade Practices Tribunal. The Bill provides for the Tribunal to be retained as a body of review. It will have power to review determinations of the Commission upon the application of an interested party. I now refer to some features of the drafting of the Bill. Legislation of this kind is concerned with economic considerations. There is a limit to the extent to which such considerations can be treated in legislation as legal concepts capable of being expressed with absolute precision. Such an approach leads to provisions which are complex in the extreme and give rise to more problems than they remove. The present Bill recognises the futility of such drafting. Many matters have, of course, had to be stated in detail. But other provisions, particularly those describing the prohibited restrictive trade practices, have been drafted along general lines using wherever possible, well understood expressions. I am confident that this will be more satisfactory. The Courts will be afforded an opportunity to apply the law in a realistic manner in the exercise of their traditional judicial role. The constitutional power of the Australian Parliament to enact legislation such as that contained in the Bill was clarified by the very important decision of the High Court in what is known as the Concrete Pipes Case. For present purposes that case established that restrictive trade practices and monopolisation legislation contained in the Australian Industries Preservation Act could validly derive support from the corporations power. It also established that legal problems can arise when provisions that depend on that power are drafted so as to be inextricably mixed in their operation with provisions that depend on other powers. The Bill takes account of these considerations. Most of the provisions are drafted so as to apply only when a corporation is involved. But these provisions are given by clause 5 a separate operation in reliance upon other powers. In the result, provisions which appear to be restricted to situations involving a corporation, will have an extended operation involving inter-State trade or commerce, the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory or dealings with the Australian Government, any of its authorities or instrumentalities, or the use of postal, telegraphic or telephone services or a radio or television broadcast. The present Act places much emphasis on secrecy. Everything on the Register of Trade Agreements is subject to secrecy requirements, as are the functions of the Commissioner and his staff until, in relation to a particular agreement or practice, he institutes proceedings in the Tribunal. Such secrecy is undesirable and goes beyond what is reasonably necessary for the protection of confidential information. The Bill confines secrecy to confidential information. However the secrecy which has applied to the Register is not to be removed. I should add that under the Bill the existing registration requirements are not to be continued. The importance of the Register will become progressively less and less. The existing overseas cargo shipping provisions have been included in the Bill in their present form. This should not be taken as an indication that the Government is satisfied with the provisions. They will be the subject of a later review which will take into account, amongst other things, international negotiations. This will be done by the Minister for Transport **(Mr Charles Jones)** who has the ministerial responsibility in this area. My last preliminary comment is that recently I received some suggestions that the Bill should contain a provision to ensure that, in appropriate cases, legal aid be available to persons involved in proceedings under the legislation, whether in a Court, the Trade Practices Tribunal or the Trade Practices Commission. Such a provision would plainly have much to commend it. I have the matter under consideration and expect to introduce an appropriate provision by way of amendment when the Bill is being considered in Committee. {: .page-start } page 1016 {:#debate-62} ### THE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES In brief, the Bill prohibits the following practices: Contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade; monopolisation; exclusive dealing; resale price maintenance; price discrimination; anti-competitive mergers. The provisions with respect to contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade are to be found in clause 45. No exhaustive definition of these terms is provided, but sub-clause (3) makes it clear that certain specified forms of conduct are included. This clause will cover collusive tendering and collusive bidding, which are not the subject of any specific provision. Contracts covered by this clause are rendered unenforceable and this applies whether they were made before or after the commencement of the provision. Monopolisation is defined in clause 46 so as to cover various forms of conduct by a monopolist against his competitors or would-be competitors. A monopolist for this purpose is a person who substantially controls a market. The application of this provision will be a matter for the Court. An arithmetical test such as one third of the market- as in the existing legislation- is unsatisfactory. The certainty which it appears to give is illusory. Sub-clause (1) of clause 46 applies where the conduct takes place in the market controlled by the monopolist. In such a case, the subclause applies so long as the conduct is directed to eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor; preventing the entry of a person into the market; or deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct. Sub-clause (2) applies where the conduct is in another market. In such a case it is necessary that the anti-competitive conduct of the monopolist involves taking advantage of his monopoly position. Exclusive dealing is defined in clause 47. It covers arrangements in accordance with which either the supplier or the acquirer of goods or services has limited his freedom to deal as regards persons or places. Exclusive dealing is prohibited in 2 sets of circumstances. The first is in the course of carrying on a business in reliance on a licence, permit, authority or registration under a law of Australia or of a Territory. The second is where the effect of the practice may substantially lessen competition or tend to result in a person being in a position to control a market. Resale price maintenance is defined in Part VIII in substantially the same terms as defined in the existing Act. One of the changes made to this definition ensures that the definition covers action by a manufacturer to induce a retailer, who has obtained the manufacturer's goods through a wholesaler, to maintain retail prices specified by the manufacturer. Another change ensures that the definition covers the practice by which a supplier stipulates minimum prices at which a distributor may advertise, as distinct from sell. Permissible methods of recommending resale prices have been clarified, as also have the evidentiary provisions in clause 99. The practice of price discrimination is defined in clause 49. There is no need, as under the existing legislation, for a threat or promise, and the prohibition extends to the granting, as well as the obtaining, of discriminatory prices. The practice is prohibited where it will substantially lessen competition or tend to result in a person controlling a market. Mergers are prohibited by clause 50 where an effect would be to lessen competition or to tend to result in the corporation being in a position substantially to control a market. The prohibition does not apply to the acquisition of shares in the capital, or assets, of a body corporate in pursuance of an offer made before tomorrow. The Bill does not conflict in any way with the operation of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act. Provisions to avoid such conflict are to be found in clause 90. Sub-clause 9 of clause 90 enables the Government to ensure that a merger is permissible if, in the Government's view, there are special considerations which conform to the interests of national economic policy. {: .page-start } page 1016 {:#debate-63} ### AUTHORISATIONS Authorisations may be granted by the Commission in respect of some practices. The effect of an authorisation is to remove the prohibition that would otherwise apply by virtue of this legislation. Authorisations may be granted in respect of contracts or combinations in restraint of trade- other than those having the purpose or effect of fixing, controlling or maintaining prices; exclusive dealing, and mergers. The Government has concluded that the impact of the legislation would be greatly lessened if provision was made for authorisations to be granted in respect of price-fixing agreements. These agreements are now generally recognised in many countries as being undesirable, particularly in times of inflation as we are now experiencing. It is essential that the Commission should be able to deal expeditiously with applications for authorisations. The Bill has been framed with this in mind. The Commission will not be required to hold a public hearing in respect of every application for an authorisation. It will be able to hold such a hearing where it considers it appropriate. If the Commission deals with an authorisation application without a public hearing, the relevant documents will be available for public inspection- subject to special provisions for the protection of confidential information. In all cases the Commission is to be required to take any submissions into account. The approach to be taken by the Commission in considering whether to grant an authorisation is indicated in sub-clause (5) of clause 90. The Commission is directed by that provision not to grant an authorisation unless it is satisfied that a specific and substantial benefit to the public is likely to result or that the effect on competition is so slight that it can be disregarded. The Commission is also required to be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the benefit to the public or the slight effect on competition justifies the granting of an authorisation. The position, therefore, is that the onus will be firmly on the applicant to satisfy the Commission that the granting of an authorisation is justified. Unless and until an authorisation is obtained in respect of a practice falling into one of the prohibited classes I have mentioned, such practice will be unlawful. The Bill recognises, however, that there is a need for special transitional provisions for a period immediately following the commencement of the legislation. The prohibitions of contracts in restraint of trade and exclusive dealing will not become effective until four months after the commencement date. During that period it will be possible for persons to apply to the Commission for authorisations in respect of those practices. As the Commission may find itself unable to give full consideration to the applications it receives in this period, provision is included to enable the grant of interim authorisations. An interim authorisation, if granted, will have the effect of permitting the practice to continue until the Commission, after full consideration, makes a final determination. I should make clear that the Commission will not grant interim authorisations as a matter of course. Parties wishing to obtain such an authorisation in the 4-month period would be wise to lodge their applications as soon as possible after the commencement of the legislation. The Commission will not be under any obligation to grant instantaneous interim authorisations to persons lodging applications near the end of the period. The Commission will be able to attach conditions to any authorisations, interim or final. Breach of such a condition will entitle the Commission to revoke the authorisation. Applications for authorisations for proposed mergers will, as with all other authorisation applications, be placed on a public register as soon as they are received by the Commission. This is necessary if the Commission is to take into account the views of other interested persons. Until there has been an opportunity for such persons to make their views known on a proposed merger, the Commission could not be expected to make a determination authorising the merger. This will not prevent parties to proposed mergers having prior informal and private discussions with the Commission. I would expect such discussions to be of considerable assistance to parties contemplating possible mergers, even though the informal guidance given by the Commission will not be binding upon it. The Bill also provides for clearances. The purpose of a clearance is to remove uncertainty as to the applicability of certain provisions, in contrast to the purpose of an authorisation, which is to permit a practice to be engaged in notwithstanding that it falls into a prohibited class. The provisions relating to enforcement and remedies in respect of breaches of the restrictive trade practices provisions are to be found in Part VI. The question whether there has been a breach of the law will be a matter for the Court, as is the case with breaches of most other laws. Pending the establishment of the proposed Australian Superior Court the only Court with jurisdiction under the legislation will be the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Under another Bill this Court is to be renamed the Australian Industrial Court. Such matters will not be determined by the Trade Practices Commission or the Trade Practices Tribunal, both of which are administrative bodies. A breach of a provision in the legislation with respect to restrictive trade practices will render the person liable to a pecuniary penalty, an injunction, or damages. Proceedings for a pecuniary penalty will need to be constituted by the Attorney-General or the Trade Practices Commission. The penalty, when received, will go into consolidated revenue. The amount of such a penalty will be a matter for the Court to determine as appropriate in all the circumstances. The circumstances in such matters can be expected to vary considerably from case to case and the penalty determined by the Court can be expected to vary accordingly. The maximum penalty the Court will be able to determine will be $250,000. Such a penalty and the proceedings to recover it will be civil in character. A breach will not constitute an offence for the purposes of the criminal law and the penalty will not be a fine. The difference may at first appear to be only a matter of form. The important consequence is that such proceedings, involving business dealings to the extent that they do, will not find their way into a criminal court. Proceedings for an injunction will be able to be initiated by the Attorney-General, the Trade Practices Commission or by any other person. Proceedings for damages will be able to be initiated by any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of a contravention. Provision for certain classes of agreements and practices to be exempt from the legislation I have described is to be found in clause 51. This clause follows closely the corresponding provisions in the existing legislation. In addition there is a power similiar to the one in the existing Act to exempt by regulation organisations concerned in the marketing of primary products. There is also power to provide exemptions by regulation for practices related to inter-governmental arrangements. {: .page-start } page 1018 {:#debate-64} ### THE CONSUMER PROTECTION PROVISIONS The consumer protection provisions are to be found for the most part in Part V. Some of these provisions are expressly limited to transactions involving consumers. The meaning of a consumer is dealt with by sub-clause (4) of clause 4. Unless a contrary intention appears, that provision excludes a person who uses the goods or services in question for the purpose of, or in the course of, trade or business or for a public purpose or, a person who acquires goods for the purpose of resale. The consumer protection provisions do not necessarily displace State legislation in the same field. Clause 74 expressly states that Part V is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory. The Bill recognises that in many consumer protection matters there is a need for a national approach, and that the effectiveness of State laws is necessarily limited. Division 1 of the Part V prohibits a number of unfair practices. Clause 52 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct- and does so in general terms. It is important that there should be such a provision if the law is not to be continually one step behind businessmen who resort to smart practices. Clause 52 overlaps the operation of some of the other more specific provisions. I point out in this connection that a breach of a specific provision exposes the person concerned to a penalty, whereas a breach of the more general provisions in clause 52 gives rise to a right to an injunction only. Clause 53 prohibits a number of specific forms of false representations with respect to goods and services. Clause 54 prohibits the offering of prizes in connection with the promotion of goods and services when there is no intention of actually providing the prizes. Clause 55 prohibits misleading conduct covered by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as revised at Lisbon on 31 October 1958. This Convention covers conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of goods. Clause 55 does not come into operation until the Convention enters into force for Australia. I expect that this will be soon. Clause 56 prohibits the practice known as bait advertising. This is the practice in accordance with which a bargain is advertised and in point of fact the bargain either does not exist or is available for a very short time. The purpose of such advertising is mainly to attract a customer into a store. The practice of referral selling is prohibited by clause 57. This is the practice by which a supplier induces a customer to acquire goods or services by indicating that the consumer, after paying for the goods or servicesand I stress that it is after such payment- will get rebates or commissions on subsequent sales by the supplier to other persons whose names are provided by the consumer or who view the work done for the consumer by the supplier. Clause 58 prohibits the acceptance of payment without intention to supply as ordered. Clause 59 prohibits the making of misleading statements about home-operated businesses. Clause 60 prohibits coercive conduct by salesmen or debt collectors at a person's place of residence. Pyramid selling is a practice chat has been a cause of much concern in recent years. This practice is prohibited by clause 61. I have already mentioned that the Bill will enable consumer standards to be prescribed and made mandatory. Provision is made in this connection for product safety standards and product information standards. A prescribed product safety standard will require compliance with safety requirements. A prescribed product information standard will require the disclosure of information relating to matters such as the performance, composition, contents, design, construction, finish or packaging of goods. The provision relating to both kinds of standards are to be found in clauses 62 and 63. Clause 64 deals with the practice of unsolicited goods and unsolicited directory entries. The clause prohibits the assertion of a right to payment for such goods or directory entries. This provision does not apply if the person against whom a right to payment for goods is asserted, ordinarily uses like goods in the course of his profession, business, trade or occupation. Under Clause 65, a person who has received unsolicited goods is to be relieved of liability for loss or damage to the goods, other than loss or damage resulting from the doing by him of a wilful and unlawful act. Division 2 of Part V provides for a number of conditions and warranties designed to protect the consumer to apply and to be incapable of being excluded. These provisions are limited to consumer transactions. I have already referred to the limited meaning of consumer under subclause (4) of clause 4. Clause 67(1) prevents the inclusion in consumer contracts of provisions rendering Australian law inapplicable to contracts, the proper law of which is otherwise Australian. Sub-clause (2) of this clause prevents the substitution of provisions in the law of another country for provisions in Division 2. Clause 68 renders void a term of a consumer contract that purports to exclude, restrict or modify the application of Division 2. Clause 69 provides for certain conditions as to title encumbrances and quiet possession to be implied in every consumer contract. Clause 70 implies certain conditions in consumer contracts for the supply of goods by description. Clause 7 1 implies certain undertakings in consumer contracts as to quality or fitness. Clause 72 implies certain conditions in consumer contracts for the supply of goods by reference to sample. Clause 73 implies certain conditions in consumer contracts for the supply of services. {: .page-start } page 1019 {:#debate-65} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-65-0} #### ENFORCEMENT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION PROVISIONS: A contravention of a provision of Part V- other than the general provision in clause 52- is to be an offence. The maximum penalty for such an offence is to be, in the case of a corporation, a fine not exceeding $50,000, and in the case of an individual, a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months (clause 79). Contraventions that can be regarded as excusable are the subject of a special defence provided in clause 85. Provision for injunctions is included in clause 80. A right to recover damages is conferred by clause 82. Apart from that right, clause 87 (2) empowers the Court, upon finding that there has been a contravention, to direct a refund of money or a payment to a person who has suffered loss or damage. The jurisdiction to deal with consumer protection proceedings under the Bill is to be confined initially to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. This will assist the early development of a cohesive body of case law which might not be possible, if, in the early stages of the operation of the legislation, courts of lower status- presided over by magistrates, for example, were to have jurisdiction. In due course it will be desirable to confer jurisdiction on such lower courts to deal with consumer protection matters. It will be desirable that the ready enforcement of rights under the legislation is facilitated in this way. A suitable opportunity to confer jurisdiction on courts of lower status will arise when the proposed Australian Superior Court is established. I envisage that an amendment for the purpose will be effected at that time. **Mr President,** it will be apparent to honourable senators that the Bill is of great importance. It represents a great advance in the areas of restrictive trade practices and consumer protection and attends to a wide variety of problems. This is intended to promote efficiency and competition in business, to reduce prices and to protect all Australians against unfair practices. I commend the Bill to the Senate. {: #subdebate-65-0-s0 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- The circumstances regarding what I am sure will be a most significant Bill are of course highly unusual. I am not able to say anything at all at this stage, having just received the Bill and a mass of papers. I ask leave to continue my remarks and I move that the debate be adjourned. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m. (The bells having been rung). {: #subdebate-65-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The Clerk will continue ringing the bells. (The bells having been rung). {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- A quorum now being present I call on General Business, notice of motion 21. General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business {: .page-start } page 1019 {:#debate-66} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-66-0} #### TREATMENT OF POLITICAL DISSIDENTS Debate resumed from 20 September (vide page 783), on motion by **Senator Hannan:** >1 ) That this Senate, recognising that the question of human rights is a matter of universal significance, believes there is prima facie evidence to support allegations by Alexander > >Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov that human rights of political dissidents are being abrogated inside the Soviet Union, and resolves that this question should be referred to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations for examination; and > >Contingent upon the above resolution being passed by the Senate, and contingent upon the Federal Government not having already referred the matter to the Senate to refer the resolution forthwith to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. {: #subdebate-66-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales -- The Senate is debating a motion moved by **Senator Hannan** in the following terms: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) That this Senate, recognising that the question of human rights is a matter of universal significance, believes there is prima facie evidence to support allegations by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov that human rights of political dissidents are being abrogated inside the Soviet Union, and resolves that this question should be referred to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations for examination; and 1. Contingent upon the above resolution being passed by the Senate, and contingent upon the Federal Government not having already referred the matter to the United Nations, the Senate directs the President of the Senate to refer the resolution forthwith to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This is a very important motion. It culminates primarily from the action of 2 men- 2 quite remarkable Russians- in recent weeks, one a great author and the other a world famous scientist who decided by their actions and words to put their lives and the lives of their families at risk in telling to the world their firm belief that in the country of their birth things were happening in the suppression of human liberty that they could not tolerate. I say that here we have actions of unique and naked courage by 2 men who are projecting to the world a message which is not only a message that in Russia there is the supression of freedom- intellectual freedom as well as physical freedom- but a message which must be understood in its other implication. This is a message which says that other countries which deal with Russia, which make treaties with Russia, particularly defence treaties, are putting themselves and therefore the world in peril when they as countries with freedom of thought make pacts with a country which has total totalitarian organisation of human thought and action within itself. Therefore this must be felt to be a motion which calls not only upon the world but also upon the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations to take action because of the plight of those within Russia. In so doing we should draw to the attention of the world the fact that the challenge runs to the very peace of the world and to the integrity of those kinds of agreements like SALT- the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement- which in our view have created a significant hallmark in the form of a detente between the great powers of the world. I refer to 2 men. The first is Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Nobel Prize winner for literature. He is a man who, of his human experience, ought to know; a man who has suffered psychological and physical tortures from his people; a man who has spent some 8 years inside the prisons of Russia and has known the privation and starvation of imprisonment in that country; a man who has been in the infamous Lubyanka gaol in Moscow; a man who has presented to the world 3 unique books, namely, 'Cancer Ward', 'The First Circle' and 'August 1914'; a man whose publications are banned in his own country; and a man who says to the world today: 'I have my life at risk; indeed, the life of my family at risk '. A press report about him states: >If I am declared dead or suddenly and inexplicably dying,' he told a French journalist privately, 'you can without risk of error conclude I was killed with the assent of or by State security agents. Not a hair will fall from my head without the assent of State agents as I am observed, spied upon, surveyed and listened to.' This man whose voice has rung around the world as a Nobel Prize winner and who was not even permitted to go outside his country to collect his Nobel Prize is saying to the world: 'I am threatened. I am not allowed to see my family. But even though my life is at risk I have a message to tell the world. ' That message deserves our examination tonight. Alongside him stands another man, a remarkable man Andrei Sakharov who is the father of the Russian hydrogen bomb. He is a man of some 52 years of age, a married man, a great nuclear physicist and a man who some years ago formed within Russia the human rights committee. He sought within Russia to develop through the Soviet human rights committee intellectual freedom. His wife says that she fears that her husband will be seized, put in a psychiatric institution and declared insane. He is a man whose sons have been expelled from universities and whose son-in-law has been denied employment; a man who has spoken up despite all these threats because he believes that unless there is intellectual freedom not only Russia but the world will suffer; a man who is not willing to go outside Russia to attend scientific conferences at this moment because he knows that in common with his colleagues who have done so before he will be denied return, that he will be exiled if he does so. Nevertheless he is a man who has spoken up. He has spoken through the world media- I pay tribute to the media of the worldthis message which, in my view, is one of the most significant messages of the 20th century. What a remarkable thing it is that we have these 2 men. One, the author, speaking and pleading and placing his life at risk for intellectual freedom, for the freedom of culture, for the freedom of literature and for the freedom of man to write; the other, the great physicist, placing his life at risk for the parallel freedom, namely, the freedom of scientists to talk freely about science, to exchange scientific knowledge and, therefore, to have true scientific freedom. So we have here pleas for both the great freedoms of communication. Let me remind the Senate that in his call to the world, as recorded in the London 'Times' of 22 August this year, Sakharov said an important thing regarding a detente. He warned the world of the danger of a detente of a free nation with a nation of repression. This is the .report of his words: >Western rapprochement with the Soviet Union could be dangerous if the West acquiesced over the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union, he said. 'It wouldn't solve any world problem. It would mean simply capitulation in front of our real or exaggerated strength, or it would mean an attempt to get from us gas and oil, neglecting all other aspects of the problem. > >I think rapprochement without democratisation is very dangerous. It might lead to very hard consequences inside our country and contaminate the whole world with an antidemocratic character. He called upon the United States Congress to support the Jackson amendment which sought to place safeguards, in terms of liberty, in any negotiation between the United States and the Soviet Union. This man walks with fear because there is growing evidence that suppression, which tragically has been a characteristic of Russia over the years, has been accelerating in recent years and today practically all intellectual freedom is being wiped out. Andrei Sakharov, who founded the Soviet Human Rights Committee, was one of the great leaders in establishing the underground Press called 'Samizdat' or 'the Chronicle of Current Events' through which vehicle dissidents- the men I have mentioned and others- who wanted to fight for intellectual freedom promulgated their ideas. Today it is something like a year since that chronicle was allowed to circulate, and virtually everybody who has been associated with it has been seized, intimidated and imprisoned or exiled. What we are saying- we are asking the Senate to support us- is: 'Please ask the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations to look into this matter because human freedom and human dignity in the Soviet Union must be as precious to us as human freedom and human dignity in our own country '. I make this plea without any kind of violent criticism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is not one of us of goodwill who has not hoped over the past 28 years since the end of World War II that we would see some relaxation in the hot war and in the cold war. Those of us who saw the further aggression against Hungary looked towards de-Stalinisation in the hope that freedom would come. We were then brought to abject misery by the further invasion of Czechoslovakia barely 5 years ago, the Dubcek incident and the repression of intellectual freedom throughout Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, within the Western world we went on to hope that, along with the fading of memories of the Bolshevik revolution and the fading of memories of 2 wars, things would change. I fully understand and sympathise with a nation which in a revolution and 2 world wars had its youth bled white. I understand, therefore, retaliation in the heat of those days. However, I think we all hoped that as time went on this would mellow and that, in terms of detente with the West, there would be a putting down of intellectual barriers. But it appears that those who have an intimate knowledge of Russia allege today that not fewer than 1 million people are held in some 1,000 prison camps throughout Russia primarily for the sin that they have expressed anti-Soviet views. There are 1 million people in 1,000 prison camps. There is no doubt at all that honourable senators are well aware- it is fresh in their minds -of the persecution of minorities. A man who escaped from Russia, Kuznetsov, wrote a plea of the Russians as follows: >Just ask any Jew who has left the Soviet Union whether he was ever a hundred per cent sure that he would get out. To make an application to emigrate is like buying a ticket in a lottery: the result may be a refusal followed by a life as a secondclass citizen; it may be a concentration camp or a lunatic asylum, or it may be permission to emigrate. This was said by a great man now in exile in England. So the picture builds up of a methodology of treatment of those who seek to be intellectually free. The methodology perhaps is best expressed by the writer, Jean-Marie Domenach, in the 'Guardian' newspaper of 23 June of this year: >The Soviet Government's offensive is being carried out on several fronts. Writers and intellectuals of middling importance are subject to traditional methods of intimidation and repression: they are denied publication and reduced to living on the dole, their manuscripts stolen, and then they they are arrested, to end up in prison or in special psychiatric wards. > >Prominent, internationally known figures in the worlds of science, letters, or the arts are dealt with in two ways. The first consists of making it easy for them to travel; when abroad, they learn that they have been deprived of their Soviet citizenship. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn feared this might happen to him, and decided not to go to Stockholm to receive his Nobel Prize; but others who did leave, such as physicist Chaldize, will never be able to return. The second technique is even more subtle: the Soviet Union, by joining the Universal Copyright Convention (membership became effective on May 27), has ensured that works banned within the USSR can never be published abroad. We will not be able to read Solzhenitsyn 's next book; and thus the man who is probably the world's greatest living novelist will be buried alive. They are dramatic, impressive words and I commend them to the Senate. If a fraction of them are true then the approach to the Human Rights Committee commends itself. But there is apparently growing, worsening oppression, if that can be so. A new technique is emerging. It is the technique of seizing people, putting them in psychiatric institutions and then injecting them with the drug halopiridol, which is a depressant drug normally used in psychiatric medicine. But when it is used in massive and continuous doses it reduces the person to a vegetable and ultimately causes brain damage. So we see today the production of great and telling writings. There is the production by a man Zhores Medvedev in a book entitled 'A question of Madness'. It is in our Parliamentary Library and I commend it to honourable senators. This book was written by a Russian geneticist whose only guilt was that he challenged the genetic theories that orthodox communism said were right, and as such was alleged to be anti-Soviet and so was seized. The cover note to the book reads: >On May 29, 1970, three members of the Soviet police and two psychiatrists broke into the home of the widely respected forty-five-year-old Russian biochemist Zhores Medvedev and, in the presence of his wife, his younger son, and six colleagues who had rushed to the rescue, forcibly removed him and drove him to a small mental hospital in the provincial city of Kaluga. There (on the evidence that he was both a scientist and a journalist) a psychiatric committee diagnosed him as an 'incipient schizophrenic' with 'paranoid delusions of reforming society, ' and installed him as a 'patient. ' So he went to a mental institution. He got out of there only when his brother, the co-author of the book, and Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and others were brave enough to create sufficient dissidence for him to be removed. He made the mistake of leaving Russia recently to attend a scientific convention. Now his passport has been withdrawn. He had been exiled. The volume of evidence is mounting continuously. I have described the technique. Let me spell out some of the case histories. I shall refer to 6 examples. The first is Andrei Amalrik, the internationally known historian whose crime was that he wrote a book entitled: Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984'. In 1970 he was imprisoned for 3 years. When the sentence had terminated, a few weeks ago, he was charged and convicted of anti-Soviet slander and sentenced to another 3 years. The second is Major-General ; Grigorenko, one of the great generals of the last war. What was his crime? He wrote his interpretation of what happened in World War II. Where is he? He is in an asylum for the insane. He is allegedly so sedated with this depressant drug that he is now a vegetable. He is serving an indeterminate sentence. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- He is going blind. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- He is going blind. The third is the Kiev mathematician Leonid Plyusch who wrote freely and differed from the orthodoxy. He is now committed to a hospital for the insane. His crime was anti-Soviet writings. The fourth is Ivan Dzvuba, a well-known historian. As **Senator Hannan** pointed out, he had been 1 1 months incommunicado. Recently he was brought out and sentenced to 5 years hard labour and 5 years internal exile. Why? Because his writings are not in parallel with his country. The fifth is Vladimir Bukovsky, a leading biologist. He is imprisoned now with forced labour in the Urals, having been incarcerated for 2 years previously. The sixth is Zhores Medredey whom I have mentioned. I have quoted 6. Virtually all those who gathered round the ones who formed the Soviet human rights committee and those who formed and helped in the 'Chronicle of Current Events' have been pursued, imprisoned and punished. Recently there was a closed trial of 2 menPyotr Yakir and Viktor Krasin- who were earlier dissidents. I think it is terrifying to read what happened. After months in goal and after rigid interrogation both have recanted and have allegedly revealed their connections. What did Yakir say? Before his arrest he told a Western correspondent: 'If they beat me I will tell them anything I know that from my experience in the camps. But you will know that it will not be the real me speaking'. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- From what are you quoting? {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I am quoting from the Editorial of the 'Age' newspaper of 7 September 1973. That quote of Yakir has been repeated internationally. I could give the Minister many other sources for that quote. Here is a man saying, in effect: 'If I appear to recant, it will not be the real me'. An honourable senator opposite tries to interject. This is far too serious a question for silly, inane interjections. This matter touches on the whole question of peace. I admit the sincerity and interest of some honourable senators opposite in peace. They are dedicated as I am dedicated to trying to achieve peace. I hope that in my presentation I am not being overmelodramatic. I hope that none of us Will exaggerate this position. In my view, the story itself needs no exaggeration. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- This man is in solitary confinement but his propaganda goes around the world. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- For the benefit of the Minister for Works **(Senator Cavanagh)** who, I think, was a little hard of hearing, I repeat that the essential words are: >Before his arrest, Yakir told a Western correspondent: He went on to say that if he was arrested and, in fact, recanted it would not be him speaking. It would be the duress that they brought to bear on him. The man has been arrested and tried and sentenced in a closed court. But if the Minister does not believe this, he has the same right as I have to rise in the Parliament and say so. I merely produced the evidence that is being produced internationally at this moment. The overwhelming volume of evidence bears out what I have said. **Dr Sakharov** has warned that if anything happened to him, it would not be he who will have done it. Both have pointed out that they themselves are not inclined to use suicide as a means of escape. Therefore, if they die it will be at the hands of others. What is happening is that these 2 men are running huge and unbelievable risks to get a message across to us. This is the message that I am here tonight to try to put. I do not want to speak at any great length but I shall read some of the message of Solzhenitsyn in his famous 7,000 word message of recent days. I quote him on citizenship: >Citizenship in our country is not an inalienable natural right for every human being born on its soil. It is a kind of coupon controlled by an exclusive clique of people who have in no way proved, by anything they have done, that they have a greater right to the Russian soil. This clique can declare a citizen deprived of his homeland if it does not approve of his convictions. I leave it to you to find a word for such a social structure. I quote again from his remarks on the jamming of radios: >What the jamming of foreign radio broadcasts means is impossible to explain to those who haven't experienced it themselves, who haven't lived under it for years. > >It means the degradation of man to a robot's level, whether they completely silence a waveband or jam it with a rusty saw or with vulgar music lt means that grown people are reduced to the subservience of infants: 'Swallow what Mother has already chewed for you'. > >There must not be the slightest deviation in the evaluation of news . . . in the nuances . . . in the accents. Everybody has to be informed about and remember an event 100 per cent, the same way. > >And many world events must not be made known to our people at all. > >Moscow and Leningrad are paradoxically the worstinformed big cities in the world. The inhabitants ask people who come in from the countryside for news; out there, because of the cost (our population has to pay very dearly for these services), the jamming is weaker. Those are the words of a great man- a voice of liberty speaking. Let me draw this together as I see it. We are asking that, on the basis of prima facie evidence, there should be referred to the United Nations Human Rights Committee a request to investigate these matters. We are asking this because we believe it is the duty of every citizen, wherever he or she lives in the world, to pursue freedom of the body and freedom of the mind. We are asking this after having presented, in our view, a sufficiency of prima facie evidence so to do. We are asking it for 2 reasons, not only the reason I emphasise, which would be good enough but, also that inside Russia there is prima facie evidence of the total supression of intellectual freedom. There is evidence of imprisonment on a massive scale, of brainwashing, of the destruction of the dignity and the minds of individuals. We are asking it not only because we should try to give freedom to these great men but because we have to treat with this nation which shares parity of power with America in this world. Great minds, including the mind of Sakharov, say to us that if we treat with a closed nation, if we treat with a nation which brutalise. and practises total intellectual supression, we cannot guarantee that a bargain, a detente, a treaty will be upheld. These are profound things. I want to conclude my speech by quoting some of the most moving paragraphs I have heard in my life. I want to quote the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his August message. To me his words express the reasons why the man and his fellows are putting their lives and their families' lives at total risk. Is it not a wonderful thing that we can look towards those whom we have looked to as our opponents in the past and find coming from them massive minds- minds of great and clear intellect, minds expressing an undiluted courage rarely seen in this world. I quote: >I cannot accept that it is impossible to reverse the disastrous course of history, that one human soul with confidence in itself cannot influence the most powerful force on earth. It seems to me fully proved by the experience of these past generations that only the inflexible human soul- setting itself in the front line against aggressive violence and, prepared for sacrifice and death, declaring: 'not one step further'- can hope to defend its personal peace and the universal peace of all mankind. Upon the evidence that is abundant in the world's media and throughout the literature of the world, I invite the Government to join the Opposition in a motion which should be bipartisan. I note that since the moving of this motion by **Senator Hannan** members of the Labor Party have signed a petition in somewhat similar terms to go to Russia; therefore there does appear to be a community of thought. With that in mind and in the belief in human freedom and human dignity, in the belief that it is imperative that there should be an honesty and an integrity of purpose in the negotiation of great nations, I commend to the Senate the motion moved by **Senator Hannan.** {: #subdebate-66-0-s1 .speaker-5U4} ##### Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -On the whole **Senator Carrick** maintained, in my view, a temperate tone and I hope it will be adhered to by the rest of the speakers in this debate. We do no service to the brave men to whom he has referred by indulging in any hymn of hate against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I believe that in general **Senator Carrick** avoided any such attack. After all, at the present time we are in a particularly delicate situation in relation to the Soviet Union. Whatever we think about the Soviet Union and whatever we think about the United States, there is no doubt that the relationships between those 2 great powers will have a great deal to do with the sort of lives that we and our children will live in this country. Whatever we may think of President Nixon, there is no doubt that over recent months negotiations designed to produce a real detente between the great rivals in the world- the Soviet Union and the United Stateshave been in train. **Dr Kissinger** has been confronted with a great dilemma in respect of this very problem that we are discussing tonight. Understandably, there is in the United States, as there is in the rest of the world, a justifiable concern with what I believe are clear-cut manifestations of repression of opinion by dissident intellectuals in the Soviet Union. On the one hand we have to strive to conduct our relations with the Soviet Union in such a way as to promote the detente. We have to face up to the fact that, whatever anybody may think about the Soviet Union, it is not going to be puffed out of existence; it is here to stay for the foreseeable future. We have to learn to live with it, just as the Soviet Union has to face the fact that it has to learn to live with the capitalist United States. I believe- I agree with **Senator Carrick** on this - that we do not do any service to the cause of detente or to the cause of liberty throughout the world by remaining silent about the repression which I believe is occurring in relation to dissidents in the Soviet Union. At the same time I suggest- I do not do this in any contentious or partisan way- that when we are talking of human freedom we should be aware also of selective indignation. I think we should bear in mind that civilised men throughout the world also should be appalled and disturbed at what has happened in Chile in recent weeks. I think the United Nations should conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of the great Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda, who may have died naturally of cancer; but there are certain circumstances surrounding his death that I would like to see probed. We also should be aware that there daily torturings are occurring in the prisons of Brazil. I think it is about time the world body had a look at the allegations of gruesome massacres in the Portuguese colonies such as Mozambique. Having said all that, 1 think we have to face the fact that the Soviet Union has come a long way since the days of Stalin when a Solzhenitsyn or a Sakharov, far from being able to trumpet an appeal to the world, would have been allowed nothing much more than to stand up in the dock and parrot a prepared confession prior to a quick death. Nonetheless, I accept that in the terms of this motion there is a prima facie case to support the allegations made by the 2 leading Soviet dissidents, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, that human rights of political dissidents are being abrogated in the Soviet Union. The dissident movement in the Soviet Union developed following Khrushchev's admission to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party that the horrors of the Stalinist period, which had long been known to discerning people throughout the rest of the world but which had been denied by the communist movement throughout the world, in fact had occurred. He announced what came to be known as the thaw. But members of what might be called the opposition in the sense of people who did not go along fully with the regime in the Soviet Union were dissatisfied with the restrictions that continued to be placed on them even after Khrushchev's speech and some of them advocated radical changes to the social and economic system. But it is important, I think, to remember that very few of the critics advocated any basic change in the socialist system of the USSR. The criticisms of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, even of Pasternak, were really based on the notion that the ideal of the Soviet system was not something with which they quarrelled, but they did quarrel with the implementation of that ideal. They believed it had gone astray in the hands of ruthless men who had put- the familiar thing of people who love humanity but hate human beings- ambition and a sort of schematic, soulless planning above the interests of the people they were supposed to be serving. Freedom, of course, is a heady draught and the thaw, as is the nature of such things, largely got out of hand. It developed a movement of its own. I am not suggesting that at any stage the Soviet system has been imperilled. I believe that the Soviet authorities have had the dissident movement well and truly under control, and I believe that they could have have allowed a much greater amount of freedom than they have done without any threat at all to the system. I do not believe that the basic, fundamental Soviet structure is in any peril. In saying that I am not expressing any approval or disapproval of it, I am looking at the question to which, I think, this motion is directed, the interest which humanitarians and civil libertarians all over the world should have in the civil rights of people in any country. There is, as **Senator Carrick** has pointed out and in my belief, abundant evidence that the Soviet authorities have over-reacted to the criticisms of the dissident intellectuals in their country. A few years ago we had what was, I suppose, the first case which caught the eye of the world after the short-lived Khrushchev thaw. That was the trial of the 2 Soviet writers Sinyavsky and Daniel, who were tried openly but accused of the old familiar charges of crimes against the State merely because they had made criticisms which one would have thought a confident regime would be able to accommodate. Since then we have heard of the cases cited by **Senator Carrick:** The case of the geneticist Zhores Medvedev who was deprived of his passport while on a lecture tour of Britain; the case of Vladimir Maximov who was expelled from the Union of Soviet Writers and his novel 'Seven Days of Creation' described as 'anti-Soviet'; and the case of Andrei Amalrik whose work, which was referred to by **Senator Carrick,** I happen to have read in translation. Reference also has been made to Victor Krasin the economist and Pyotr Yakir the historian who ironically is the son of a famous victim of Stalin's purges. These brave men, despite the risks that they know they run in saying their piece, have been able to get their message to the world in general. I think with respect that this is something from which we should all take some comfort. In 1936, 1937 and 1938 the thought of anybody, even, for instance, Maxim Gorki, who is as famous a man as Solzhenitsyn it a man much closer to the throne, voicing their dissent was unheard of. I have no doubt from what I have read that Gorki's former friendship with Stalin did not preserve him from the purge when Stalin decided he was expendable and should not be around any more to voice even the mild doubts that he was expressing. At least today a Solzhenitsyn. a Sakharov and an Amalrik can reach the rest of the world. They do not disappear overnight. This, I think is what gives point and worth to a motion such as the one we are considering tonight. I think the Soviet Union has reached the stage where it is no longer completely impervious to world opinion. Among other things the Soviet Union has reached a stage where it needs massive technical and capital assistance to develop its own resources. It is quite clear from the negotiations which Brezhnev has conducted with Nixon and **Dr Kissinger** that the Soviet ruling circles do not believe that they can shut themselves off from the rest of the world and be indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks about them. I think that in a situation like this is behoves people in the rest of the world, like ourselves, who while accommodating to the fact that the Soviet Union exists and is possibly a permanent fixture in world society, nonetheless to regard dissident intellectuals or human beings in general in those countries as people like ourselves, people in whose fate we have an interest and people for whom we are prepared to raise our voices. Whilst I disagree with **Senator Hannan** on many of his views of the world, especially his view of the Soviet Union, I applaud his raising of this issue. I would hope, as I said when I got to my feet, that everybody who speaks in this debate will speak responsibly, will speak without hate and will speak with a knowledge that we can no longer afford the luxury of just sounding off about what we do not like in the Soviet Union or, if it comes to that, what we do not like in the United States. I believe that we have to recognise the limitations of our likes and dislikes. But I think it behoves any people who claim to be civil libertarians and who claim to be democrats to raise their voices against the sort of repression which I am convinced is occurring in the Soviet Union at present. We should give comfort to those great brave men like Solzhenitsyn, whose works I have also read. I have read 'Cancer Ward' and 'The First Circle' and I must say that I was greatly moved by these works. I thought that it was a wonderful beacon of hope for the human species that a man like Solzhenitsyn could go through what he has been through in a physical, mental and spiritual sense and still devote the rest of his strength to try to persuade the rest of his fellows to his vision of what sort of world it should be and how a man should behave. So I feel no inhibition whatsoever although I belong to a Party which has traditionally been considered to be over-partial to the Soviet Union. Whilst not resiling from the proposition that we should restrain ourselves from any violent attack on the Soviet Union, I feel no inhibitions at all in solidarising with the speakers who suggested and who moved that we should speak up on behalf of Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, Amalrik, Grigorenko and all those other courageous dissidents in the Soviet Union. Of course, we are not exactly the trail blazers in this. The Leader of the Federal German Republic, Herr Brandt, had something to say on this subject on 8 September. Honourable senators would know that since he has become Chancellor he has devoted a lot of his energies to a detente with the Soviet Union. Herr Brandt did not hesitate to speak up and say: >I feel allied- and not just since yesterday- with those who are in danger because of their convictions. Of course, Herr Brandt is a man whose record entitles him to make such a statement without any accusation of hypocrisy. Those honourable senators who know his war record and his record since will know that he is a man who has always been prepared to risk his life for his convictions. He went on to say: >My views on the freedom of culture and science are known to the Soviet leaders. This is not material for sensation. The feeling of being allied with people who are struggling for intellectual self-assertion must not lead us to forget those who still lose their lives by open violence. A policy making peace between states more secure must especially always be pursued in the realisation of the distance that still exists between the realities of today and a truly peaceful world. In a similar vein on 13 September the Netherlands Foreign Minister, **Mr Van** der Stoel said in the Netherlands Parliament that his Government was particularly alarmed by news of the more acute attitude towards Soviet citizens expressing views critical of society there. He stressed the importance which his Government attached to a more liberal exchange of persons, ideas and information between East and West and mentioned the initiatives which the Netherlands Government proposed taking to this end during the present phase of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Similarly our own Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** made the following statement to the Press on 1 1 September in answer to a question on the very matters which are the subject of this debate. He said: >I wasn't proposing, and despite your invitation I don't think it's likely that I will, to protest to the Soviet Union about these matters. Nevertheless, I can say here what I think must be in the minds of you all, that it's one of the constant disappointments in the Soviet system that, like successive Russian Governments for the last couple of hundred years, they so penalise their intellectuals. There is a premium put on conformity, and it is one of the ugly features of Soviet life. I would have hoped that it was diminishing. I regret to say there have been so many recent incidents where this penalising has come to public knowledge. Some would think that that falls short of the sort of motion that has been put today. But I quoted this extract as an illustration of the fact that our own Prime Minister is not unconscious of what is happening in the Soviet Union in respect of dissident intellectuals and that he also solidarises himself with their cause. The Australian Government has on many occasions made its view known about denial of fundamental human rights. I am assured that it will give consideration to whether there are grounds for bringing the recent developments in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the attention of the United Nations in some form or other and in this regard will consult with other friendly Governments which share similar views. Soviet leaders have said in recent years that they are actively seeking a climate of detente between East and West. Australia- this present Government- believes, together with other Western countries, that this detente is in the interests not only of the people of the Soviet Union but also of the people of the world at large. While supporting the motion I suggest that we should conduct this debate and, in fact, all considerations of problems such as this in a temperate, humanitarian tone. As I said at the outset, we do no service to these men in seeking to make political capital by name calling of opposite parties. If we are sincere- and I give credit to the mover and seconder of the motion as being sincere- in our attempt to help these men I believe that we can do so by being restrained, temperate, avoiding hymns of hate and by reminding the Soviet Union that it lives in the world, that it needs the goodwill and the help of the world to develop its own system to nourish in the world and that the cause of detente is served by paying regard to the liberties which are considered to be a minimum requirement of civilised society. That means that it must begin to treat men like Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, Amalrik and others better than they are treated at the present time. {: #subdebate-66-0-s2 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK:
Western Australia -- I am proud to have the opportunity to rise in the Senate this evening to support the motion moved last Thursday by my colleague **Senator Hannan.** I express my pleasure at the remarks of the previous **speaker Senator James** McClelland, because I felt that his acceptance of the motion and the manner in which he spoke to it set the correct note on which this Senate should approach a matter of such fundamental! importance, dealing as it does with one of the great issues which confront humanity and which, in that sense, confront each and every one of us as human beings. I commend **Senator Hannan** in particular for having taken this initiative and having introduced this motion for debate. Having listened, as I said, with great attention to what **Senator James** McClelland has said and the support which he- I take it on behalf of his Partyhas given to the motion, I hope that our consideration this evening will not be protracted and that, as a Senate, we will give it unanimous support. In doing so I hope that we hasten the effect which the views contained in this motion may have on the Russian Government. I think that the words of the motion are a matter of self-evident truth. It states: . . that the question of human rights is a matter of universal significance . . . I add that human rights not only are of universal significance but also are quite indivisible. Wherever in the world we see a gross violation of human rights I believe it is the duty of all mankind and certainly any men or women in the position in which we are, as representatives of others, to speak out and to do what we can to declare these basic truths. The proposal is that we should call on the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations to investigate the charges which have been raised in this matter, in particular by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov. Tonight I had intended to say a few words in regard to the evidence which they have brought forward and which in my mind and in the minds of the mover and supporters of this motion establishes the seriousness of these allegations. It is certainly of such a character as not only would justify but also would impel people such as ourselves here in the Senate speaking, as I believe we can, on behalf of the Australian community to express condemnation. However, I believe that the evidence which has been brought forward by **Senator Hannan** and **Senator Carrick** and which has been clearly accepted by **Senator James** McClelland is sufficient to establish our justification in taking this action. Therefore I do not propose to go over that evidence again. I think that what is proposed, though, is an important exercise for the Senate. It is suggested that we, as i Senate, should make our views known through the President of the Senate to the United Nations and in that way to invite the attention of the Human Rights Committee. I would hope that the Government of Australia and the Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** would be associated with the views which we are expressing in this motion and the call which we are making indirectly to the Russian Government to modify the polices which apparently and prima facie are leading to a serious abrogation of human rights. I noted the remarks of the Prime Minister at his Press conference. **Senator James** McClelland has already quoted them so I do not propose to quote them again. I believe that the Prime Minister expressed views there which are similar to the views which are concerning us and which are expressed in this motion. However, I was disappointed that he did not go further and say that he would take action on behalf of the Australian Government. I express the sincere hope that in the light of this motion, which I trust will be carried without dissent in the Senate this evening, the Prime Minister will associate himself and his Government with it, thus giving it added support and weight which, undoubtedly, it would have it he were prepared to do so. So I not only express that hope but I appeal to him. I hope that his colleagues and supporters in the Senate, such as **Senator James** McClelland, will prevail on him to associate his Government with this motion. It is an interesting suggestion that we in the Senate should, on our own initiative through the President, convey these views to the United Nations and invite action in that body. Although that may be a new procedure I think it is well justified in view of the very serious concern which is felt not only by us but also by many people throughout this nation. On these matters we are fully entitled- in fact, I think it is our duty- to express our views in this direct way. I also was pleased to note what **Senator James** McClelland said about the situation in the Soviet Union, as he sees it. I believe that what he said gives us some hope. There are indications that there is some hope that the Russian Government today may be prepared to take note of expressions of this kind. I am convinced that that is so from the words of both Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Both of them in their recent statements have indicated clearly that the Russian Government today is sensitive to the views that are expressed by the rest of the world. I suppose we are not able to assess the degree of sensitivity, but certainly I believe that Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov and others would not have taken the enormous risks they have taken and would not have maintained their campaign, so to speak, unless they believed that there was some purpose in it and that the Russian Government was showing signs of being sensitive to world reaction. I have taken note, and I think we all should take note, of some strictures which have been placed upon the Western world by Solzhenitsyn. We should take them as applying to each and every one of us. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of this whole debate and subject. It is a responsibility which each and every one of us, as human beings and as citizens not only of this nation but of the world, should be prepared to take on our shoulders. We have a personal individual responsibility in these matters. That is the basic purpose and justification of the campaign on which Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov have embarked at great risk to themselves. As individual human beings, they are calling to the world and seeking a response from all of us, asking us to carry out our own responsibilities and duties as human beings. I shall quote Solzhenitsyn from the statement to which **Senator Carrick** has referred. It is a most moving document, and one which I would sincerely commend all honourable senators to read. It has been published fully in the 'Age' newspaper. In it Solzhenitsyn said that it is already impossible for Russia to return to the Stalinist regime of the 1930s and gave this reason: >International information, ideas, facts, and human protests do slip through and have an influence. > >It is important to understand that the East is not at all indifferent to protests from public opinion in the West. On the contrary, it has deadly fear of them, and only of them. The article continued: >But protest had this impact within the Soviet Union only when it was backed 'by the united, mighty voice of hundreds of prominent people, by the opinions of a whole continent. ... > >But when timid, isolated protests are heard, lacking full belief in their likely success and diminished by that compulsory reservation about the same things happening in Greece, Turkey and Spain, then this evokes only the laughter of the aggressors '. I believe that that is stating an important truth. It is a stricture on so many of us in the free world, of which we in this and many other Western democracies are still proud and entitled to think of ourselves as a part. But I think there has been far too often a shrugging off of such responsibilities as we have by saying 'Oh well, these things happen. They happen in so many places. It is not worth doing anything about them' or 'Yes, these things happen in Russia but they also happen in Spain, Greece, Turkey and other places'. This Solzhenitsyn so clearly points out. That is not to say that we should be selective when serious abrogations of the rights of man are perpetrated in other countries, but I believe that when we do decide to raise our voices and protest we should not qualify that protest in any way by saying that it happens in other places. That is something on which I particularly commend **Senator James** McClelland in his speech in the Senate this evening. Although he mentioned other places and other situations, and they may well present cases to which we should give attention, he did not attempt in any way to qualify this motion, or the indignation that we express in respect of these matters, by saying: 'Oh well, these things happen in other places '. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Should we not be condemning it wherever it happens? {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK: -- I hope that **Senator Cavanagh** will not introduce a note of qualification either. I intend to keep our debate tonight on this one subject, as Solzhenitsyn so clearly implores us to do. I hope that **Senator Cavanagh** will display the same attitude as his colleague **Senator James** McClelland displayed in this regard. The importance of this motion arises from these developments which seem to have occurred in recent years in the Soviet Union. It is now just over 20 years since the death of Stalin and during these decades, particularly after Khrushchev's famous speech in 1956 when opening the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, we believed that a great change had occurred. It is probably true to say that a great change had occurred. But it is a pity that that change had not proceeded to the extent that we thought it had. There seems to have been some clear evidence in recent years that there has been, not necessarily a return to the Stalinist era, but a return to the more repressive measures. I think it is important that by our statements tonight and this motion we should be bringing to bear some counter weight- and I hope that the opinion of the world and voices all round the world will be a counter weight- to the reversal of the process. Although perhaps it was slow, not proceeding as fast as we would have liked, there was obviously a process of change for the better, as we would see it, and it is a matter of disappointment that in recent years that process seems to have been arrested to some extent; Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and others tell us that it has been reversed. Probably the reversal commenced a few years ago with the trials of the writers mentioned by **Senator James** McClelland- Daniel and Sinyavsky. Since then there seems to have been growing evidence of this reversal of the process of liberalisation. In recent years there has been one other terribly important feature which justifies our taking action and making this protest. That is the tendency which now seems to be growing in the Soviet Union to confine dissidents to psychiatric hospitals. They seem to be disposed of in this way. Many people may say that this would seem to be perhaps a more civilised approach than that adopted in the Stalinist era when people were thrown into gaols, brainwashed and forced to make public confessions. This happened with the more notable ones, no doubt the others were liquidated or sent for the rest of their lives to labour camps in the Siberian forests, and vast numbers died as a result of that type of treatment. But I believe that it is probably an even crueller fate for man to be treated in this modern scientific manner, which is one of the great protests that Sozhenitsyn makes. At least when men are treated with great physical cruelty there is some possibility that they will retain their integrity as human beings and particularly the integrity of their minds. But putting people into psychiatric hospitals and administering to them mind destroying drugs which **Senator Carrick** has mentioned and which Solzhenitsyn particularly emphasises, is, I believe, the ultimate in human cruelty because it results in the destruction of the last refuge which man would have under these circumstances, and that is his free mind and a freedom to exercise his mind. I should like to complete my remarks in this debate by quoting again from Solzhenitsyn 's statement, because I believe that it is one of the most moving statements that I have ever read regarding this feature of the human mind. He says: >There is one psychological peculiarity in the human being that always strikes you. He shuns even the slightest sign of trouble on the outer edge of his existence at times of well being, when he is free of care. > >He tries not to know about the sufferings of others- and about his own future sufferings- and is willing to yield in many situations- even important spiritual and central ones- as long as this promises to prolong his well-being. > >And then suddenly, at the last frontier, already stricken with poverty and nakedness and deprived of everything that seemingly adorns his life, man finds within himself enough resolution to give up his life rather than his principles! I think that is a profound human statement. It expresses a belief which I am sure we all would share. I believe that the last degradation of man is that he should be treated by scientific methods and administered drugs which would prevent him, as a human being, from making that final and ultimate choice of standing up for his principles. **Senator McManus** (Victoria) (9.20)- **Mr Acting Deputy President,** the Australian Democratic Labor Party desires to associate itself with this motion. It congratulates **Senator Hannan** on having brought before the Senate a case in which human rights appear to have been gravely violated, so that at an international tribunal an investigation may take place which will vindicate the truth. I do not propose to traverse the evidence which **Senator Hannan** so effectively placed before the Senate. I am pleased that he placed that evidence before the Senate and that support from both sides of the chamber has been given to the motion which he has moved. I listened in this regard to the very effective speech from **Senator James** McClelland. At times some of us have wondered why a body with the title of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has not taken action of itself in cases such as this. But one finds that there are procedures to be carried out. One finds that before these matters can go before these international bodies it is necessary that recognised procedures be pursued. I think that **Senator Hannan** decided very wisely in the method which he has chosen to try to bring before the United Nations this matter of the need for an inquiry into a grave infringement of human rights. Of course, we all know that the Soviet Union is not the only country in which there are infringements of human rights. As **Senator Cavanagh** says, this occurs in countries all over the world. But it appears- and one must be honest about it- that infringements of human rights in some countries get publicity more easily than do infringements of human rights in other countries. Because there has been a desire that this proposal be debated on a non-partisan basis, I do not go any further than that. I repeat that the Democratic Labor Party opposes attacks on human rights in countries all over the world, whatever their political complexion. We believe that **Senator Hannan** has done a service to the Senate and to Australia in raising this matter and we assure him of our complete support. {: #subdebate-66-0-s3 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** the motion which **Senator Hannan** moved and which it is pleasing to see has been warmly commended by every honourable senator who has spoken in the debate is clear and unambiguous in what it requests. Firstly, it acknowledges that human rights are a matter of universal significance. It establishes- and this point has not been challenged by any speaker- that there is prima facie evidence to support the allegations of Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov that their human rights and the human rights of political dissidents in Russia are being jeopardised. The motion asks that this question be referred to the Human Rights Committee. It suggests that if the Government is not prepared to act, then the President of the Senate should communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the terms of the motion and our concern. I warmly support the motion. May I reflect upon why it was moved? It was moved because throughout the Western world a feeling of repugnance and abhorrence is growing at the treatment which is being meted out to those few- that minute fraction which is less than 1 per cent of the Russian population- who seek an intellectual freedom, a right to express views, a right to hold opinions and to act in accordance with them, which is not permitted by the total conformity of the communist system. The views which have been expressed- many have been expressed throughout the world- are views to which we in Australia and in this Parliament would wish to subscribe. Scientists and writers throughout the world have been assailing the Soviet Union's handling of dissident intellectuals. That was the heading of a news item which appeared even in today's Press. We have had from various people from various places and from various professional groups strong protests- from the US National Academy of Scientists, from scientists at various universities in the Netherlands, from a group of American university professors, from 50 European brain specialists, from the Association of Italian Authors and others. In the US Congress a growing concern has been expressed. A view has been expressed by the Chairman of the very powerful House Ways and Means Committee, **Mr Wilbur** Mills, who joined with **Senator Henry** Jackson in demanding tougher humanitarian conditions in the arrangements which **Dr Kissinger** and President Nixon are seeking to make with Russia. This is part of a world-wide pattern. It is fortified, as **Senator Hannan** said last week, by statements from Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn that protests from the West, backed by the forces of opinion throughout the world, can alleviate the lot of these people in a totalitarian country. One may sometimes doubt how effectual such protests may be, but the persons most concerned are looking for that support. This is why we on this side of the Senate are concerned that a voice should be raised in Australia. A wealth of material- **Senator Hannan** acknowledged this when speaking to the motion- has appeared in the Australian Press, most of it from overseas, illustrating the development of this world opinion. But there has been no voice from the Australian Government. This, I believe, is the real point of the motion, the real point which should not be left unanswered in the general consensus and agreement which have so far attended this debate. I refer to the Press statement of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam). Senator James** McClelland referred to it earlier. The Prime Minister indicated that the Australian Government did not propose to raise its voice. He expressed a personal view with which I think all honourable senators would concur. He preceded it by saying: >I I wasn't proposing, and despite your invitation - That was a Press questioner's invitation that he might follow the example of the Chancellor of the West German Government - >I don't think it's likely that I will protest to the Soviet Union about these matters. > >Nevertheless I can say here what I think must be in the minds of you all. Why is not the Australian Government prepared to protest to the Soviet Union? The Australian Government has been prepared to take public stands on a host of other issues affecting human rights. Why is it not prepared to take this stand with regard to the protection of individuals in the Soviet Union? **Senator James** McClelland, in very moderate terms which indicated his real concern in this area, acknowledged that there has been this criticism over the years, this identification over the years, of at least members of the Australian Labor Party with the cause of the communist system, the cause of Russia. Is this a factor which in some way inhibits the Government from acting? He said that we were in a delicate position with regard to our relationships with Russia, that there was a growing detente and that we must recognise that this detente should be developed because it had certain advantages. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- A government may need more than prima facie evidence to act. This is what you are basing all your claims on. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -The evidence which has been presented has not been challenged. **Senator James** McClelland, who is a Government senator of standing, has acknowledged that this prima facie evidence exists. How can anyone challenge the statements of persons who have spoken to both Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, statements which have been published in the Press throughout the world? I believe that this Government is adopting an attitude, the hypocrisy and partisanship of which become more apparent with each issue with which it is confronted. We have heard in this chamber time and time again a condemnation of the Government of South Africa, a condemnation of the Government of Rhodesia and, if not a condemnation of the Government of South Vietnam, an indication of complete unwillingness to identify this Australian Government with the objectives of that beleaguered nation. We have heard constant condemnation of France because it is conducting nuclear tests. All these protests have been made in the name of some principle which is associated with human rights. The plea which is made by this Government is that in South Africa and Rhodesia there is a denial of rights which persons ought to be allowed to express. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is looking forward to the overthrow of the Government of South Africa. When that statement was probed he said that he would do it by trading means, and then only if it were part of the general pattern of a multi-lateral arrangement to which other nations of the world agreed. If this Government is prepared to engage in that sort of indignation and prospective action and is not prepared to take action in regard to Russia and the activities which the Russian Government is maintaining, why is that not to be categorised as selective indignation? Why is not the principle, if it is worthy of espousal, a principle which is capable of general application on all occasions when the issue clearly arises? It is an incredible position which reflects the Government's embarrassment that on this motion, which calls upon the Government to do something and, if the Government does not do something, calls upon the President of the Senate to take action on behalf of this chamber alone, that no Government Minister is prepared to speak in the debate. One Government senator spoke. I think that the way in which he spoke indicated his personal concern and the Government 's embarrassment. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- There is a reason why no Government Minister has spoken. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Senator Cavanagh has indicated, by interjection, a general reluctance on his part to agree with the broad approach which **Senator James** McClelland has accepted. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- The motion is purely propaganda. It was moved for no reason other than politics. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Is not the issue of politics and of rights of everyone throughout the world ultimately to be fought and resolved in the political arena? Why should **Senator Cavanagh** seek to abandon any obligation in this area simply because he regards it as politics or propaganda? I believe that this Government owes an obligation to the standards which **Senator James** McClelland expressed, presumably on behalf of Government senators, to back what he said by action on the part of the Government. Opposition to the southern African countries and to the politics of the Governments of southern Africa has been expressed in frequent Government condemnation. Why is the Government not prepared to take a similar stand in regard to the Soviet Union? We know that at present there is a growing detente and a so-called closer relationship between the governments of the Western world, in particular the United States, and the Government of the Soviet Union. This detente is expressed in the security conferences, of greater contacts and associations between the leaders of those nations, all of which hopefully are designed to facilitate freer movement and contact and freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds. Yet, whilst the United States of America is stating these things as objectives of detente- of this closer relationship- as it seems the position in terms of growing contacts with Russia at the same time we are finding a clamping down in the Soviet Union of any movement for freer contact, freer information and the interchange of it amongst the Soviet intellectuals. We must recognise that when even there is a detente with a nation from the totalitarian world, whatever might be the objectives and the aspirations of the free world, there can be no guarantee that those similar aspirations and objectives are shared with the nation with which it is dealing. If the pattern of detente is that we will have a more rigid attitude on the part of Russia, then we must ask ourselves whether that is the standard we want. **Mr Solzhenitsyn** has written: >Coexistence on this tightly knit earth should be viewed as an existence not only without wars-that is not enough.'- but without violence, or anyone's telling us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know and what not to know. The real problem that Henry Kissinger recognises and poses, but which he does not answer, is how far the western world and the democraciesthe countries which have inherited, practised and seek to maintaining the western, Christian, liberal traditions- can live with this sort of detente. I quote what he said: >We do not disagree about the human problem. But we have to ask ourselves whether it should be the principal goal of American foreign policy to transform the domestic structure of societies with which we deal. I believe for my part that we should strive for both objectives. We should not regard the one objective as transcending any obligation which we recognise of speaking up for those persons whose plight requires outspokenness by those who would regard it as a matter of concern. The attitude which seems to be expressed in the view that because we are moving to a closer relationship with Russia, therefore, we must not say anything which would prevent the development of detente is an attitude which reflects a lack of real belief in the standards of our own society. We have a government in this country which has been outspoken, particularly in the protestations of some of its leading members, about civil rights. When one reflects upon that and the fact that those protestations are based upon the universal declaration of human rights and the resolutions of the United Nations assembly, one would believe that they are rights which ought to be asserted, not only in this country, but in other countries throughout the world. Of course, this reflects the double standards of this Government. If ever there had been a threat to civil rights in this country, that threat occurred in the early part of this year. I do not have to elaborate the fear and terror which was associated with police raids in the early hours of the morning. They created a fear amongst the whole of the migrant population. Of course, they were instigated through the intentions and objectives of an AttorneyGeneral who on other occasions can be very eloquent about the need to protect civil rights. There is a world of difference between what is said and what is practised. I believe that the unwillingness of the Government on this issue to indicate where it stands and to take action as a government again reflects the world of difference between what it says and what it is prepared to do. There has been no protest from the Australian Government and apparently no willingness to take any action to defend and to uphold the rights of courageous people who are looking for support throughout the world. We have heard condemnation expressed by this Government about events which have occurred in Chile even before we had any information which gave us a basis for making any judgments whatsoever. Because there is an ideological slant which is designed to be supported, the condemnation of what has happened in Chile over the past fortnight has come thick and fast. Perhaps there is a right and an obligation to protest. But surely if that obligation is recognised by this Government, why is it not an obligation which is also maintained and exercised in relation to what is now happening in the Soviet Union? Alexander Solzhenitysn, in one of the statements which has come out to us from inside Russia, attacked what he called the 'west's lopsided moral outlook '. He said: >If a black leader in South Africa had been detained and tortured like General Grigoryenko had been in Russia, there would have been much protest in the West. The storm of worldwide rage would have long ago swept the roof from that prison. Is not that true? The West is full of double standards. It takes one view about oppression in certain parts of the world and is completely silent about oppression in other parts of the world. It takes one view about freedom in certain countries and takes a totally different view about it in other parts of the world. It regards certain actions on the part of certain people as aggression or as fascist coups. But when similar action is taken in other parts of the world it is regarded as the action of liberation forces doing what they are entitled to do. In one breath this Government condemns alleged terrorism in this country. It creates a fear throughout the community. One hopes that it is for good reason. We do not know the basis upon which it has been established that Black Septemberists are operating in Australia. On the other hand, the Government welcomes and indicates its willingness to support terrorists who come to this country from southern African countries so that they can go back to their countries telling people that they have the support of the Australian Government. It is a double standard which, as I see it, is reflected in all that the Government does. The failure of the Government to act in regard to the terms of this motion would be, I believe, further evidence of its double standards. **Mr Solzhenitysn.** in another attack on the West, accuses New Zealand and Australia of cowardice for protesting against the French nuclear tests but not against the nuclear tests carried out by the People's Republic of China. One can wonder what is the real motivation for the Government's silence on this occasion. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- We are trying to get some business done. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -Senator Cavanagh says that he wants to get some business done. We know that he has some legislation he wants to introduce later this evening. But that is no reason why, when the Opposition introduces a measure of this kind which had the support of the one speaker from the Government side who was prepared to speak on it, we have the failure of other Government senators, particularly members, to indicate where they stand on this issue which I believe is a matter which ought to be made quite clear. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- The honourable senator will have the motion carried without going on for an hour. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I believe it is important to know where the Government stands and to find out whether it is prepared to make any statement about what it is proposing to do. Is it simply adhering to what the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** said when he indicated that the Government was not prepared to take any action? The question of the protection of human rights throughout the world ought to be of world concern. The only way in which there can be a basic and continuing concern for human rights if is those nations of the world who regard these values as values worth preserving to speak up and to use what action can be taken whenever there is a breach of those rights. Clearly, it is the mark of any civilisation that society should be concerned about the various essential freedoms of man- his freedom of speech, his freedom of association, his freedom to voice opinions and generally his basic right to his humanity We know that in the interests of society there must always be some limitations which must be imposed upon absolute freedom. In any society man must live with his fellows and freedom, in the context in which we use it and in the context in which we seek to preserve it, must involve some regulation. If we do not have that regulation, freedom amounts to licence. People who talk of absolute freedom are talking simply of the absolute right to do as they please. When we seek to protect the basic freedoms we acknowledge that the society in which an individual is part has some rights; indeed, it has some obligations in the interests of others to impose some limitation. The constant theme of every developing society is to balance the demands and the needs of authority as they are exercised in the interests of others and the freedom or liberties of the individual. We know that this balance will differ from country to country and from ideology to ideology. The totalitarian countries, the fascist countries, the communist countries and the dictatorships limit freedom in ways which are anathema to those who accept the traditions which are part of our way of life. It is the pattern of the communist countries to require complete conformity which, in effect, denies to the individual the right to rise up and to be non-conformist and to be outside the mass. As the Senate knows I was fortunate to be a member of the representation from this Senate which visited China as part of a parliamentary delegation this year. One of the dominant impressions I brought away with me was the total conformity which is required in that society. I had the feeling that there would be no opportunity for any voice to rise and to express and to develop views which do not coincide with the Marxist-Leninist thesis which is so evident in what you hear. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- You would not last long there, would you, Senator? {: #subdebate-66-0-s4 .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND -I am quite sure that I would not last long there and I am quite sure that **Senator Cavanagh,** whatever his predelictions may be, would not last long there either. It is a totally different society when compared with our society. But if there are instances of human rights which are jeopardised and threatened in that country, I believe that just because we happen to be growing in closer relationship, government to government, we should not be sufficiently tamed not to raise our voice in protest, and to seek a change or an amelioration of the lot of people in those countries. Whatever the differences between countries, however the balance between authority and liberty is resolved in these different countries, the free peoples- those who seek to elevate the dignity of man, to laud him for what he is and for what he is able to achieve- will reflect, I believe, the measure of their own value of freedom by the consistency with which they defend freedom in their own countries and likewise challenge those who would deny freedom to other countries. I have concentrated on one aspect of this motion. I have not referred to the aspects of the various persons in Russia whose ordeal has been portrayed to us and of which the newspapers, fortunately, are full of indications and details. It is a tragic story but is also a story of great courage because when people seek to exercise their basic freedoms the great sagas of the world are written. I believe it would be a tragedy for this country if we were to remain silent when obviously there is growing world opinion with which we can be associated which can express a view which may help these people. I believe that this Government should be prepared to come out clearly and emphatically and by its spokesmen, if not its Prime Minister, indicate that it will act on this motion. {: #subdebate-66-0-s5 .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER:
Queensland -- May I first indicate to you, **Mr President,** and to honourable senators that I propose to move an amendment to this motion. The amendment has been circulated. Before speaking to that amendment I want to congratulate **Senator Hannan, Senator Carrick, Senator Durack, Senator James** McClelland and **Senator McManus** on the temperate and proper way in which this debate has been conducted tonight. It has been conducted in an atmosphere of an international sphere of influence. That is the way in which I believe it should be conducted from here on. Consequently I resist the temptation to answer some of the very unimpressive remarks made by **Senator Greenwood.** We knew what his attitude would be and consequently I offer no congratulations to him. I do congratulate the other speakers who have spoken to this motion tonight. It may be of interest to honourable senators to know that some 18 months or 2 years ago the Australian Labor Party resolved at a meeting of Caucus- the word 'Caucus' is one which **Senator Greenwood** and others like to deride- that the matter of the persecution of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should be referred to the international socialist parties. (Quorum formed) I was saying that at a meeting of the Australian Labor Party some 1 8 months or 2 years ago it was resolved that there should be forwarded to the international socialist parties throughout the world the text of a resolution passed at our meeting deploring attacks by the Soviet Union on some sections of the Jewish fraternity. We asked that this matter be referred to the United Nations and I believe that was done. I know that tonight we are up against the clock and I will not delay the Senate any further except to say that I am sorry indeed that a motion of this nature could not have been discussed in an atmosphere of unanimity between the parties. {: #subdebate-66-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Milliner,** would you inform me whether you have formally moved the amendment which you said you had circulated? {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- I am sorry, I have not formally moved it. I indicated that it had been distributed. I formally move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Leave out the words 'prima facie' and 'by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov'. 1. After the words 'Soviet Union', insert 'and other countries throughout the world '. 2. Leave out the word 'directs', insert 'requires'. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is the amendment supported? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- I will not delay the Senate. I believe that the amendment will strengthen the motion. We should not be concerned about what happens in any individual country. If something is wrong in South Africa, the USSR, China or anywhere else we must make our protest known. That is the objective of the amendment. I remind you, **Mr President,** that some time ago **Senator Durack-** I think I mentioned his name earlier- asked a question about the persecution of some people because of their religious beliefs. I congratulate the honourable senator on his approach on that occasion. The purpose of this amendment is to protest, as the honourable senator did, on behalf of any people throughout the world who may be persecuted. Perhaps I might read out **Senator Hannan** 's original motion to show the effect the amendment will have. **Senator Hannan** 's motion appears on page 15 15 of the notice paper. If the amendment is carried the motion will read: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) That this Senate, recognising that the question of human rights is a matter of universal significance, believes there is evidence to support allegations that human rights of political dissidents are being abrogated inside the Soviet Union and other countries throughout the world, and resolves that this question should be referred to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations for examination; and 1. Contingent upon the above resolution being passed by the Senate, and contingent upon the Federal Government not having already referred the matter to the United Nations, the Senate requests the President of the Senate to refer the resolution forthwith to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. {: #subdebate-66-0-s7 .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN:
Victoria Unfortunately I cannot accept the well-intended amendment moved by **Senator Milliner.** The reason is obvious. The debate which has taken place has been concerned entirely with specific matters raised by Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. To broaden my motion in the well-intended way in which **Senator Milliner** has moved to do would destroy the whole impact of the proposal before the chamber. I have no doubt that in the future there will be plenty of opportunities for the examination of human rights in other countries. For the reasons I have given I am unable to accept the amendment. I do not cavil at the word requests' being substituted for the word 'directs' if the honourable senator thinks it is more appropriate. However, I cannot accept the gravamen of the amendment. Amendment negatived. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The question now is: That the motion be agreed to'. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: **- Mr President,** I intended to reply to the debate very briefly. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I thought you had. {: .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator Hannan: -- No, I merely spoke to the amendment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I assumed that you had completed your reply when you sat down. I call **Senator Hannan.** {: #subdebate-66-0-s8 .speaker-KNU} ##### Senator HANNAN:
Victoria -in reply- I merely want to say that the bi-partisan nature of this debate has been refreshing. I thank all honourable senators on both sides of the chamber for the spirit in which they have entered into the debate and indicated their support for the motion on human rights in the Soviet Union. As **Senator Durack** has said, the proposal to act in this fashion is a novel one, and the virtually unanimous voice of this Senate must certainly have an impact far above the partisan expression of political divisions. To an honourable senator opposite who suggested that this matter had been brought up for political propaganda purposes, I say here and now that that is not the case. The motion was brought forward in the hope that from the security of this chamber we might be able to send help to a number of incredibly courageous men. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1035 {:#debate-67} ### LEGISLATION RELATING TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA {:#subdebate-67-0} #### Suspension of Standing Orders Motion (by **Senator Cavanagh)** agreed to: >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Papua New Guinea Bill (No. 2) 1973, the Papua New Guinea (Application of Laws) Bill 1973, the Wireless Telegraphy Bill 1973, and the Meteorology Bill 1973 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. {: .page-start } page 1035 {:#debate-68} ### PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL (No. 2) 1973 {: .page-start } page 1035 {:#debate-69} ### WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL 1973 Bills received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bills (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** together read a first time. {:#subdebate-69-0} #### Second Readings {: #subdebate-69-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-69-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- **Mr President,** the legislation which I am now introducing is historic. Its purpose is to bring about formal self-government in Papua New Guinea by amending the Papua New Guinea Act and by providing the means by which other Australian legislation may be discontinued in its application to Papua New Guinea. This legislation marks a significant step towards nationhood for Papua New Guinea. In addition there are 2 Bills which amend specific Australian Acts in their application to Papua New Guinea. These amendments result from agreements reached between Australia and Papua New Guinea for the transfer of the function of the Bureau of Meteorology to Papua New Guinea and the exclusion of that country from the operation of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. The amendments proposed to the Papua New Guinea Act are certainly historic, but the changes brought about are more symbolic than substantive. In practice Papua New Guinea is virtually self-governing now. Papua New Guinea Ministers are at present exercising full responsibilities for most of the functions of internal selfgovernment. Each action taken by the Australian Government in moving to self-government in Papua New Guinea has been a deliberate one in a continuing process of transferring responsibility to where it rightly belongs- with the elected representatives of the people of Papua New Guinea. Neither the formal achievement of selfgovernment nor independence will be marked by an abrupt step or a dramatic change. Australia has involved the Papua New Guinea Government progressively in the full spectrum of government activities- not just in those areas over which final authority has passed. In this way the formal achievement of self-government will merely be the final step in a series. The final step is small but nonetheless historic. It symbolises the completion of the process of selfgovernment. By this smooth and gradual transition, the status of self-government will have been achieved. Self-government is the completion of a gradual and ordered process and is not a sudden break from one status and set of responsibilities to another. Turning first to the Bill to amend the Papua New Guinea Act, the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to bring about a formal state of self-government in Papua New Guinea and for the most part will be brought into effect on the agreed date for self-government. The previous Australian Government accepted the wishes of Papua New Guinea that the date for self-government be 1 December or as soon as possible thereafter. The Labor Party which had earlier foreshadowed the proposal, welcomed the agreed commitment. The Labor Government has worked towards this objective since taking office. There are 2 important points which I would like to draw to the attention of honourable senators in the consideration of this Bill. The first is that the legislation we are considering concerns the structure of government in Papua New Guinea, another country, which has a character and an identity of its own. Secondly, the amending Bill in the main merely enacts in formal legislative form the de facto situation which has already come about with constitutional development in Papua New Guinea. This situation has come about, of course, by agreement with the previous Government as well as this one that there should be a progressive transfer of power from Australia to Papua New Guinea Ministers. The extent of this de facto self-government will become evident as I run through the more important aspects of the Bill. Changes of name which are provided for in the amendments and which come into effect on the date of self-government reflect changes in emphasis already evident in practice affecting the Administration, the Administrator and the Administrator's Executive Council. The Bill provides that the Administration will be known as the Government of Papua New Guinea. Clause 5 also provides that the Papua New Guinea Government is a corporate entity which is able to sue and be sued, and make contracts and agreements by that name. The title of the Administrator of Papua New Guinea will be changed to that of the High Commissioner. The Bill provides in Clause 8 that subject to the Act the Government shall be administered by the High Commissioner of Papua New Guinea. During the self-governing period, the High Commissioner will have 2 functions- those of embryo 'Head of State' for Papua New Guinea and those of the Australian Representative. But he will continue to be appointed and instructed by the GovernorGeneral. This accords with the normal constitutional position of Papua New Guinea as a selfgoverning territory of Australia. Clause 9 of the Bill, allows 2 Acting High Commissioners to be appointed by the Governor-General in the event of the absence or incapacity of the High Commissioner. If 2 are appointed the Commission of each will specify the powers and functions of the High Commissioner to be performed by each appointee. The Bill generally provides for the High Commissioner to assume most of the powers now held by the Minister for External Territories, and some now held by the Governor-General. The High Commissioner will be able to determine the number of Ministers of the House of Assembly, their designations and functions, as well as appoint them to office. He will also be empowered to transfer Ministers from one portfolio to another. It is intended that the High Commissioner should under instruction from the Governor-General exercise these powers upon the advice of the Executive Council. That is an aspect of the Head of State function of the High Commissioner of which I have spoken. The High Commissioner will also perform some formal functions at present performed by the GovernorGeneral, regarding the acceptance of resignations and filling vacancies in the House of Assembly. Clause 10 of the Bill provides that the Administrator's Executive Council will be renamed the Executive Council and that its functions will be to advise the High Commissioner on any matters relating to the administration of the Government. Thus it will be able to offer advice on any matter, instead of just those matters referred to it by the High Commissioner or by an ordinance. This broadening of its authority reflects current practice agreed by the previous government and this government that when independence comes there will be no area of government in which Papua New Guinea will be unfamiliar or lack experience. It is intended that the High Commissioner be instructed by the GovernorGeneral to accept the advice of the Executive Council in all areas which are not reserved to Australia. This also reflects agreed practice. Clause 1 1 reflects changes requested by Papua New Guinea in the composition of the Executive. These changes have been requested by the Chief Minister to allow him more flexibility in the composition of his Ministry and clause 40 enables such an increase to take place before December in the number of Minister on the present Administrator's Executive Council. Clause 1 1 also provides that the Chief Minister will be known by that title, rather than by Deputy Chairman of the Council. Official members will be removed from the Executive Council as well as the House of Assembly. Clause 20 reflects the change in composition of the House of Assembly arising from the removal of official members. By agreement with Papua New Guinea, defence and foreign relations will remain reserved to Australia until independence. However, again in accordance with agreements reached with Papua New Guinea, provision has been made for the proclamation at self-government of other functions which it may be necessary to reserve pending completion of any legislative and administrative steps both in Papua New Guinea and Australia. Such functions will be proclaimed only after agreement with Papua New Guinea and as soon as the administrative and legislative details have been completed these functions will be transferred to Papua New Guinea. Clause 42 of the Bill provides that matters cannot be proclaimed as reserved matters after selfgovernment. Any proclamations made at selfgovernment can only be revoked, cancelled, deleted or reduced in scope in the future. Clauses 13 and 14 deal with functions of Ministers. These amendments allow the High Commissioner to determine the functions of Ministers subject to the Act and thus do not alter the basic manner by which functions of Ministers are currently determined. However, the arrangements which are approved by the Minister for External Territories and which at the moment apply regarding the extent and manner of performance of functions by Ministers will apply only in the reserved areas and not generally. Clause 4(d) enumerates the reserved areas. As I have mentioned above the intention is that all except the reserved areas the High Commissioner will, by instruction, act on the advice of the Executive Council. The High Commissioner's role in the reserved areas will be similar to the Administrator's present role in the government of Papua New Guinea. As such he will be responsible within Papua New Guinea for these functions on behalf of Australia and will be subject to the directions of the Australian Government. Nevertheless, in accordance with the policies of the previous government and this Government, Papua New Guinea Ministers will be closely and fully involved in the reserved functions. Recently, at the request of the Chief Minister, the Minister for External Territories created the portfolio of Minister for Defence and Foreign Relations. The creation of this portfolio and the appointment to it of a Papua New Guinea Minister will ensure that Papua New Guinea will have first hand involvement and experience in these key reserved areas, well before independence. Through such actions, Papua New Guinea is already beginning to assume a separate international identity. Clause 24 provides that only those laws dealing with reserved matters will need to be reserved for the Governor-General's assent. The authority of the Governor-General to disallow laws not related to reserved matters is removed by clause 25. In the light of these changes and in response to a request by the Papua New Guinea Government, the Bill by clause 23 amends the Papua New Guinea Act to make provision for the laws of the House of Assembly to be called Acts' rather than 'Ordinances' if the House decides to adopt this nomenclature. Changes in other areas are proposed. One of these areas in the judiciary provisions of the Act. The Papua New Guinea Government has requested that the qualifications of persons who may be appointed as judges of the Supreme Court be extended. At present only Australian barristers and solicitors are eligible. Amendments under clause 28 will allow lawyers with at least 5 years standing, and judges of courts of unlimited jurisdiction within any legal system similar to that of Papua New Guinea to be apointed Clause 26 provides forjudges to be appointed on contract for a fixed term. Such provisions will allow Papua New Guinea to call on overseas expertise for as long as it takes its own legal profession to provide a sufficient number of judges. At present all loans raised by the Papua New Guinea Government are guaranteed by Australia by virtue of the Papua New Guinea Act. Clause 31 of the Bill makes clear that this guarantee will continue for the life of those loans which are raised before independence. The transitional provisions of the Bill ensure the continuity of government and personal actions and the vesting of rights and liabilities in the new bodies and entities which are established at selfgovernment. I now turn to the second Bill we are consideringthe Papua New Guinea (Application of Laws) Bill. Honourable senators will be aware that there are a number of Acts of the Australian Parliament which have application in Papua New Guinea. Some of these Acts apply because the Australian Parliament has expressly extended them to Papua New Guinea. Other Acts have application insofar as some sections of them apply to people, things or situations in Papua New Guinea. All these Acts form part of the internal law of Papua New Guinea. None of them can be amended or modified without the concurrence of the Australian Parliament. During self-government Papua New Guinea should be entitled to have the final say on what laws apply within its boundaries, except of course laws in the reserved areas. Thus the application of those Australian Acts which would be inconsistent with the status of a self-governing Papua New Guinea should, so far as practicable, be discontinued. The only practicable solution is to permit the making of regulations effectively to cease the application to Papua New Guinea of Australian Acts. It is proposed by this Bill that the GovernorGeneral be empowered to make regulations ceasing the operation of Australian Acts in Papua New Guinea. The Acts to be dealt with are only those which form part of the internal law of Papua New Guinea. To avoid the situation whereby the cessation of an Australian Act would leave a vacuum in the law of Papua New Guinea, it is proposed that the application of an Australian Act, particularly for which there is no Papua New Guinea counterpart, will in general not be discontinued until and unless that cessation has been approved by the Papua New Guinea Government. It is not intended that any regulations to cease the application of any Act will actually amend the Act concerned. It is intended that regulations will be interpretative only, and that affected Acts will be read in conjunction with those regulations, to produce together a reduced area of applicability. When any Act ceases to apply to Papua New Guinea by regulation, the Act will still apply to Australia. It will still be part of Australian law. It may be that some aspects of that Act, as part of Australian law, but no longer as part of Papua New Guinea law, will require amendment to protect the rights under Australian law of persons, matters or things connected with Papua New Guinea, or to make provision for the occurrence of matters in Papua New Guinea affecting Australia but not Papua New Guinea. The Bill enables amendments of this type and other consequential and transitional provisions to be made. **Mr President,** I now turn to the 2 other Bills which affect Papua New Guinea- the Wireless Telegraphy Bill and the Meteorology Bill. Briefly both Bills have been drafted to allow for the exclusion of Papua New Guinea from the provisions of the respective Acts by notice in the Gazette. Papua New Guinea and Australia have agreed that both Acts should be discontinued in their application to Papua New Guinea at a mutually agreed time. The reasons for this are the enactment by Papua New Guinea of a radiocommunications ordinance dealing with matters covered by the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the transfer to Papua New Guinea of meteorological functions formerly carried out by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The amendment to the Meteorology Act provides for the Bureau to continue co-operation with the Papua New Guinea meteorological services. **Mr President,** the Papua New Guinea Bill and the other Bills I have detailed form the first of the 2 stages which will bring formal self-government to Papua New Guinea. The Chief Minister and the Minister for External Territories announced this 2-stage process following discussions in May this year. The second stage which will culminate in May or June next year will be the consideration and adoption by the House of Assembly of a Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Planning Committee and the subsequent amendment by this Parliament of the Papua New Guinea Act to make the Act consistent with that Constitution. These Bills, the adoption of the Constitution, subsequent amendment of the Papua New Guinea Act next year, and the final step of independence, are all integral stages in the continuous development of Papua New Guinea from dependency to nationhood. The June 1 973 meeting of the United Nations Trusteeship Council endorsed the views of the Papua New Guinea and Australian Governments on the role of the House of Assembly in important constitutional decisions. The Council noted the agreement between the Governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea that resolutions in the House of Assembly on important constitutional issues will be by a recorded vote and by a substantial majority representative of the nation as a whole. On the timing of independence, the Council noted Australia's view that there are 2 elements involved in the determination of the question of independence: The view of Australia, and the views of the people of Papua New Guinea as expressed through their elected representatives in the House of Assembly. The Council noted that Australia expects independence to come by 1975, and that it should be achieved in the closest consultation with the Government and the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea. I remind honourable senators that the United Nations General Assembly in 1972 asked Australia to fix a timetable for independence in consultation with Papua New Guinea. The Council further noted that Australia did not disagree with the view of the House of Assembly that Papua New Guinea should experience a period of selfgovernment before a date for independence is set. **Mr President,** the Bills now before the Senate detail the legislative steps that Australia has to take to enable Papua New Guinea to be formally self-governing before the end of this year. These measures are in accordance with requests by the Papua New Guinea Government and the House of Assembly, and have been accepted by the previous Australian Government. The amendment of the Papua New Guinea Act will formalise the self-governing status of Papua New Guinea. The Application of Laws Bill and the other Bills enable that country to be freed from Australian legislation so that it can make its own laws as a self-governing country. All the Bills concern the constitutional development of another country which in the Government's view is entitled to be given control over its own destiny. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1039 {:#debate-70} ### PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOANS GUARANTEE BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-70-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-70-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-70-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the provision of contractual guarantees by the Australian Government for overseas borrowings by the Papua New Guinea Government in foreign currencies not exceeding the equivalent of $A24 million in 1973-74. The proceeds of the loans will be used by the Papua New Guinea Government to finance public works and services. Legislation to authorise the borrowings has already been passed by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly. Last financial year the Papua New Guinea Government made its first overseas borrowing on the international capital market. This borrowing, which was guaranteed by the Australian Government under legislation similar to that now before the House, was for an amount of 50 million Deutschemarks, $A14m, repayable over 1 5 years and it carried an interest rate of 6.75 per cent per annum. The Parliament has also on a number of previous occasions approved similar contractual guarantees by the Australian Government in respect of loans to Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank. All borrowings by the Papua New Guinea Government, of course, carry a statutory guarantee by the Australian Government by virtue of section 75A of the Papua New Guinea Act. It is proposed that arrangements for the borrowings for which this Bill provides contractual guarantees will be concluded during the course of this financial year. Several loan possibilities on overseas markets are currently being investigated by the Papua New Guinea Government. The form of guarantee that is customarily required in international capital markets is similar to those that have been given to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and to the Asian Development Bank in respect of borrowings by Papua New Guinea from those institutions. The borrower and the guarantor would also both be required to give customary undertakings to the effect that interest payments and repayment of the loan would be made without deduction for taxes and would also be free of exchange control restrictions. The Bill accordingly provides for such undertakings to be given. The Bill is purposely couched in general terms in respect of the currencies and the precise forms of the proposed borrowings so as not to restrict the Papua New Guinea Government's choice as to the particular overseas market or markets in which it finally decides to arrange the loans. In present circumstances, it is expected that the overall cost of the borrowings by the Papua New Guinea Government will be somewhat less than the cost of borrowings for comparable periods form institutional sources in Australia. The provision of contractual guarantees by the Australian Government will materially assist Papua New Guinea in negotiating favourable terms for the borrowings as well as enhancing its status as a borrower on overseas capital markets after it becomes independent. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1040 {:#debate-71} ### ABORIGINAL AP FAIRS (ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE STATES) BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-71-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-71-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-71-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- In the platform adopted by the Labor Party at Launceston undertakings were given that in accordance with the new powers acquired by the Australian Government as a result of the 1967 referendum Labor would assume the ultimate responsibility for Aboriginals and establish a Ministery of Aboriginal Affairs with offices in each State to give the Commonwealth a genuine presence in the States. The Government has already implemented portion of this platform on 19 December last with the establishment of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Bill I am introducing today is a step towards implementation of further aspects. The Bill is aimed at expressing briefly the Australian Government's new responsibilities and in particular at facilitating the transfer of State officers to the Australian Public Service. The State departments responsible for Aboriginal affairs have since the referendum received an increasingly large part of their funds from Commonwealth grants. In 1972-73 they received some $22m out of a total direct expenditure by the States of approximately $34m. During 1 973-74 it is intended that they will receive of the order of $31m from the Australian Government out of their total anticipated expenditure of some $43m. The State departments channel a substantial proportion of these funds through other State departments in areas such as health, education and housing. Clearly the present system involves much duplication of effort as between the Australian and State authorities and leads to some confusion on the part of Aboriginal Australians as to whom they should approach for particular services. The interim National Aboriginal Consultative Committee which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Bryant),** established earlier this year has expressed a clear desire that responsibility for Aboriginal affairs be transferred from the State governments to the Australian Government, and this request has been endorsed by numbers of regional meetings throughout Australia subsequently convened by the NACC. The NACC sent delegations to call on the Premiers or other senior Ministers of all States to make known to them the Aboriginal desire. The responsibility which the Australian Government seeks in the States is responsibility for policy planning and co-ordination. In some States this is the limit of the function exercised by the various State Departments of Aboriginal Affairs. The Australian Government does not seek the transfer from the States of particular responsibilities in the fields of health, housing, education and other functional areas, which in its view should preferably be carried out by the appropriate Australian or State departments having responsibility in these areas, partly on the basis of the continued provision of funds by the Australian Government. In those States where the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs are already performing the limited function I have described, the transfer of function and of the State officers who at present perform that function can be relatively simple. Such States include Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales. In some other States it will be necessary for us to work out with the State authorities the best means of proceeding: The Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** has been in touch with each State Premier, and **Mr Bryant** with each State Minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs. In addition Australian Government and State government officers in a number of States have had extensive discussions about the possibility and modalities of a transfer of functions and officers. In some States there has been ready agreement to the possibility of transfer of the function and the appropriate officers. Our conversations with all States are continuing. I would hope that some transfers can occur before the end of this year. The present legislation does not constitute any form of compulsion. The Bill is purely an enabling one to facilitate transfer of the State officers where this is agreed between the Australian and State Governments. The Bill would allow the Governor-General to enter into an arrangement with a State Governor regarding Aboriginal affairs which could provide for the transfer of State officers to the Australian Public Service; for officers of the Australian Public Service to accept appointment and to perform functions under State laws relating to Aboriginal affairs; and for the Australian Government to assume responsibilities of a State relating to Aboriginal affairs. To enable State Government employees engaged in Aboriginal affairs to be absorbed into the Australian Public Service, the Bill provides for such persons to be offered appointment or employment in the Service. The Bill is drafted to ensure that a person who so elects would not suffer disadvantage. For example, he would be guaranteed at least the same remuneration as he would have got had he remained in the State service. Similarly his prior service in the State service would for example in respect of sick leave and furlough be reckoned as service in the Australian Public Service. He would also carry over any accrued recreation leave. The matter of superannuation fund contribution and membership will be dealt with in a Superannuation Bill to be introduced later this session. Honourable senators will note the similarity between this Bill and the Statistics (Arrangements with the States) Act 1956-1958 which provided the machinery whereby State statistical services were integrated with those of the Australian Government. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1041 {:#debate-72} ### AGED PERSONS HOMES BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-72-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-72-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -- I move: I ask leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-72-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- This Bill gives effect to the announcement made in the Treasurer's Budget Speech that the rate of the subsidy paid to non-profit hostels which provide personal care services for the aged would be increased from $ 10 to $ 12 a week. The Bill also widens the conditions of eligibility for this assistance. As honourable senators will be aware the Aged Persons Homes Act also provides assistance towards the establishment by non-profit organisations of various types of aged persons homes, in the form of a $2 for $ 1 subsidy towards the capital cost. The principal Act was introduced in 1954 in order to encourage and assist religious, charitable and ex-servicemen's organisations which were providing homes for aged persons to expand their activities, or, if they were not already doing so, to induce them to enter this field. Since then grants totalling over $171m have been approved, with the aid of which accommodiation has been provided for nearly 50,000 aged people. It is obvious, therefore, that the Act has enjoyed a considerable amount of success. Nevertheless, as the Minister for Social Security **(Mr Hayden)** has mentioned in the other place, the present government is not altogether satisfied with certain features of the scheme and has asked the Social Welfare Commission to carry out a critical appraisal, to see if it can suggest better ways of providing a program of accommodation for the aged. Pending receipt of this report it is not proposed to make any major amendments to the Act. In the meantime, however, the need is recognised to maintain the value of the personal care subsidy paid to assist organisations with the running costs of hosteltype accommodation. This type of accommodation is of particular importance for elderly people who are no longer able to look after themselves completely, yet do not need medical or nursing care. Unless accommodation of the hostel type is available for such people they tend to find their way into nursing homes, where, purely through lack of a suitable alternative, they find themselves under a regimen which is more intensive than they need. It was to remedy this situation, and to permit moderately frail people to continue to live with some measure of independence, that the previous Government introduced this personal care subsidy in 1969. Under the original legislation $5 a week was payable in respect of each resident aged 80 years and over, living in approved hostel-type accommodation. In September 1972 this rate was increased to $ 10 a week. For the information of honourable senators I would like to explain that in order to qualify for payment of personal care subsidy it is necessary for a home to provide all meals, and to employ sufficient staff to help any residents who need assistance with bathing and dressing, the cleaning of their rooms, their personal laundry and the general oversight of their medication. It is also required that a staff member be available on the premises at all times in case of emergency. The Bill I am now placing before the Senate does 2 things. First, it increases the rate of subsidy from $ 10 to $ 12 a week. Secondly, the Bill provides for the amount of the subsidy to be calculated on the basis not only of the number of residents aged 80 and over but also in respect of any other residents, that is, those aged under 80, who require, and are receiving, the practical personal care services. When personal care subsidy was first introduced the formula of calculating payment on the basis of the over-80-year-olds was selected to provide an inducement for the admission of people in the frailer aged category. It has always been a condition of approval, nevertheless, that the prescribed personal care services should be available for any aged residents who need such services, whether over 80 years or not. It was assumed that the number of people under 80 who would need personal care services would be offset in most cases by the number of people over 80 who did not require such services. However, experience has shown that this is a doubtful assumption and the opportunity is therefore being taken to relax this provision of the Principal Act. It is anticipated that determining how many of the residents of a particular hostel require the prescribed personal care services may present some difficulties from the administrative point of view. The position is likely to arise where a particular resident may need some of the prescribed services, but not others. In addition the ability to some elderly people to bathe and dress themselves without help, and to perform such other tasks as making their own beds, may fluctuate from day to day, or from week to week. I understand the procedure will be that homes will make an individual application in respect of each hostel resident of under 80 years who they consider to require personal care attention, and a registered geriatric or general nurse from the Department of Social Security will visit the homes at regular intervals to assist in classifying any of the border-line cases to which I have referred. From the amounts of the subsidy now being paid it has been shown that the average proportion of 80-year-old residents is about 45 per cent. This means that, at the existing rate of $10 a week for each such resident, homes are averaging about $4.50 per resident. Although the proportion of residents that will attract under the extended criteria cannot be determined accurately in advance, it is expected to rise by about half, that is, to approximately 67.5 per cent. At the new rate of $12 the average overall payment per resident would then be about $8 a week. This should more than compensate homes for cost increases that have taken place in the past 12 months and maintain the incentive for organisations to provide this valuable type of accommodation. The increased rate of subsidy and the extended basis of eligibility will come into effect from the first four-weekly pay-day after this Bill receives the royal assent. It is estimated that these measures will cost an additional Sim in 1973-74 rising to $3.5m in the first full year. As I have already indicated, these figures are somewhat speculative, but on this basis total expenditure on personal care subsidy is expected to be $5m in 1973-74, rising to $7.5m in 1974-75. In the context of the Government's comprehensive welfare proposals this Bill represents only a small holding measure, designed to maintain the value, in terms of purchasing power, of the assistance being given to aged persons' hostels. But to the organisations responsible for maintaining these establishments in the face of rising costs it will be important and timely. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1042 {:#debate-73} ### DELIVERED MEALS SUBSIDY BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-73-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-73-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -- I move: I ask leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-73-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- During the previous session of this Parliament, this Government introduced 3 major social welfare Bills. Honourable senators will recall that the first Bill increased the rate of age, invalid and widows pensions, retrospectively to last December, and also provided for substantial increases in unemployment and sickness benefits. The second Bill provided for the continued payment of age, invalid and widows pensions to Australian pensioners proceeding overseas, as promised in the Prime Minister's **(Mr Whitlam)** election speech. The third Bill introduced a completely new benefit known as the supporting mother's benefit, to assist unmarried mothers and married women who are no longer living with their husbands, to adequately care for their children. The Bill before you today is one of a series of further measures which the Government will be introducing during this session of Parliament to assist the provision of a comprehensive program of welfare services for the people of Australia. This particular Bill is concerned with the provision of meals-on-wheels services. No one could deny the value which is gained from meals-on-wheels services. In any scheme of caring for the aged, it is an established premise that they should continue to live as independently as possible in their own homes for as long as it is feasible for them to do so. In many cases, the meals-on-wheels organisations and allied home care services makes this possible where otherwise, elderly folk would be forced to move into some form of institutionalised accommodation. The greatest fear of the aged is that of being incapable of just doing things for themselves, and the loss of their cherished independence rapidly erodes the dignity of their life style; a dignity which should be fostered by the community and not destroyed. The vegetating effect of dependence engendered by institutional life increases the rate of both physical and mental deterioration. The major objective of meals-on-wheels service is to supply the person concerned with a nutritious meal on at least 5 days a week. But the value of the scheme cannot be measured only in terms of calories and proteins. The voluntary helper delivering the meal to our elderly citizens provides one regular social contact upon which they may depend. The regular visit ensures that frail or isolated people receive a daily check to see if they are in need of some further service. The nutritional aspect is, of course, particularly important. Elderly people often reduce the range and variety of the diet necessary for good health, either by reason of personal choice, physical ailments, inertia and failing judgment, or by just the sheer financial inability to purchase an adequate diversity of fresh foods with the vitamin content intact. Most meals-on-wheels services are believed to be successfully obviating this lack of nutrition, as most can call on the assistance of a hospital or similar dietetic adviser in planning their menus. A possible reservation is that the preparation of food in bulk and prolonged heating tends to destroy a large percentage of the vitamin C content. For this reason it is desirable for delivered meals to include a vitamin C supplement. This could be provided in tablet form but there is more to eating a meal than just absorbing nutrition. To all of us a meal is a social occasion. We like our meals to be enjoyable as well as nutritious. Fresh fruit or fruit juice is therefore a preferable source of vitamin C because it also adds other worthwhile values and diversity to the diet. Most of the Western nations support some form of delivered meals service to their elderly, invalid or needy citizens and Australia's services compare quite favourably when considered in the light of the period since they were first established, little more than 20 years ago. In metropolitan and country areas throughout Australia some 354 voluntary organisations are providing a meals-on-wheels service with financial assistance from the Australian Government. The Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, which was introduced in 1970, assists the establishment, expansion, improvement and maintenance of Meals-on- Wheels services by providing a subsidy on the basis of 15c for every meal delivered to aged or invalid people by an eligible organisation during the previous calendar year. Originally the subsidy was paid at the rate of 10c per meal but, in view of rising food costs, amending legislation was passed last October to increase the rate of subsidy to 15c per meal. The 1972 amending Act also introduced an additional subsidy of 5c per meal, making a total of 20c, for organisations which undertook to include with each meal appropriate types and quantitites of fresh fruit or fruit juice with a high vitamin C content. The legislation now before the Senate further increases the rates of subsidy from 20c to 25c for each meal with which an approved vitamin C supplement is provided and from 1 5c to 20c for all other eligible meals. The additional subsidy of 5c per meal will help to meet the increased costs of food and enable organisations to continue to maintain their charges to recipients at a reasonable level. The next annual payment of delivered meals subsidy will fall due in January 1974 and will cover meals served during the calendar year which ends on 31 December 1973. The Bill provides that payment at the increased rate will commence in January 1974 and apply to all eligible meals served since 1 January 1973. The Bill also provides that after the next annual payment, to which I have referred, all future payments of subsidy will be made on a quarterly basis. The quarterly payments system will assist meals-on-wheels organisations to maintain financial liquidity for most receipts by way of payments for meals are immediately required to meet the cost of purchasing food. After receiving their next annual grant in January 1974, based on the meals served during 1973, organisations will receive a further payment in April 1974 based on the meals served from 1 January to 31 March and payment every quarter thereafter. Mainly as the result of the 1972 Amendment, expenditure under the Further growth, to a total of $650,000 had been anticipated for 1973-74, but to this will have to be added $200,000 to cover the 5c per meal increase provided by this Bill. In addition , the changeover to quarterly payments will result in subsidy being paid during 1973-74 on the basis of meals served during a 15 -month period- from 1 January 1973 to 31 March 1974. This will incur further additional expenditure of $250,000. Expenditure for 1973-74 is therefore expected to total $l.lm. However, with the reversion to a 12-month period in 1974-75 expenditure for that year should fall back to about $850,000. It is worth noting that last year almost 4 million meals were served by the 354 approved delivered meals services throughout Australia, an increase of about 13 per cent over the number of meals served during the previous year. The vast majority of these meals have been delivered by voluntary workers- in many cases housewives not only giving their time but also using their own cars. I would like to take this opportunity of supporting the tribute paid by the Minister for Social Security **(Mr Hayden)** when introducing this Bill in the other place to these voluntary workers. I am confident that I speak for all honourable senators when I say thank you to them. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1044 {:#debate-74} ### STATES GRANTS (HOME CARE) BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Delivered Meals Subsidy Act rose from approximately $337,000 in 1971-72 to $586,000 in 1972-73. For the information of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard a table showing the growth of the subsidy payments in each State: Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-74-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-74-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works ( 10. 10 · ALP -- I move: I ask leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-74-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- This is another Bill in the series being introduced in this session to improve welfare services for elderly people, the purpose of which is to increase the assistance payable to the States under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. The principal Act was introduced in 1 969 on the basis of a recommendation made at the 1968 Health Minister's Conference. In broad terms it provides 3 forms of assistance: Firstly for home care service schemes which provide housekeeping the other domestic assistance for aged people in their own homes; secondly, for the building of senior citizens 'centres; and thirdly, for the employment of welfare officers employed by, or in association with, senior citizens' centres. The main object of this Bill is to provide extra funds for the present home care program by providing a more generous basis upon which finance is made available It is hoped that the terms of this subsidy will prove to be an incentive to an accentuated development of home care program services. This is in accordance with one of the recommendations made in the first annual report of the Social Welfare Commission which was tabled in the Parliament recently. The first of the 3 main provisions of the Bill relates to the financial assistance provided by the Australian Government for home care service scheme- in other words, housekeeper and other domestic assistance which helps to keep aged people in the environment of their own homes for as long as possible. Throughout Australia, there are many elderly people in nursing homes who do not require nursing attention, but who are in these homes because there is no other suitable place for them to go. This is a very disturbing situation. If an aged person can live independently in the home through the provision of domiciliary services then physically and mentally that person is much better off and so is the community in which that person lives. There are economic advantages too. The economic advantages are always important, but nowhere near as important as social and personal aspects. In this case, all of these aspects give a positive reading in support of the development of domiciliary programs, i.e. socially, personally and economically, individuals in the community gain from an adequate development of domiciliary care services. It is our purpose to observe the progress of this innovation in the home care program, to establish whether it is successful in encouraging an accentuated development of such services in the community. If it fails to achieve this then we will take prompt action to develop alternative ways of achieving this end. The Principal Act for State Government expenditure on such schemes to be shared by the Australian Government on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The Amending Bill enables this subsidy to be increased from one-half to two-thirds of State expenditure. To ensure that the additional subsidy is used to expand home care services, however, and not to reduce the State's contribution, it will be a condition of the increased subsidy that the State 's own expenditure must not be reduced below its level in respect of the financial year 1972-73. As an example, if a State's gross expenditure on home care services in 1972-73 was $500,000 the Australian Government would, under the existing Act, have paid the State $250,000. The State's net expenditure would then, of course, also have been $250,000. Under the proposed amendment if the State's gross expenditure for 1973-74 is between $500,000 and $750,000 the subsidy will be the amount of the State's gross expenditure less $250,000. The full two-thirds subsidy would not be payable because much payment would reduce the State's net expenditure below the 1972-73 level of $250,000. But if- and we hope that this is what will happenthe State raises its gross expenditure to $750,000 or above, the Australian Government will reimburse the State to the full extent of the two-thirds, permitted under the Bill, because the State's net expenditure, after receiving the subsidy, would not have fallen below its 1972-73 level of $250,000. But the Federal Government will, in effect, be bearing the full additional cost of expanding the services, until that stage is reached. The cost of this measure will therefore be governed by the extent of the State's response. However, an amount of $ 1.075m is being appropriated for this item for 1 973-74. The second provision of the Bill now before you concerns senior citizens' centres. The principal Act provides for the Australian Government to contribute up to one-third of the capital cost of such centres on a matching basis with State or local government expenditure. The Amending Bill doubles the Australian Government's contribution to $2 for every $1 contributed by the State Government or the local governing body. In other words, our contribution will in future amount to twice the State or local government contribution, or two-thirds of the approved capital cost, whichever is the less. The increased rate of subsidy will apply to all senior citizens' centre projects to which approval has been given under the Act since 22 August 1973, the day after the date of the Treasurer's **(Mr Crean)** announcement. This measure is expected to cost $1.2m in 1973-74. The third provision of the Bill concerns assistance towards the employment of welfare officers. Section 10 of the principal Act provides that where a person is employed as a welfare officer of a senior citizens' centre wholly or mainly in connection with the provision of approved welfare services by or in association with the centre, the Australian Government may pay an amount equal to one-half of the welfare officer's salary. In order to further encourage and assist the provision of the welfare services to which I have previously referred, the Amending Bill increases the Australian Government's subsidy from one-half to two-thirds of the salary paid to appropriate welfare officers. This measure will also take effect from the day after the date of the Treasurer's announcement, namely 22 August 1973. This Government views the proposals in this Bill as a bridging step between the present unsatisfactory system of fragmented welfare schemes and the Australian Assistance Plan as shown in a discussion paper recently tabled in the Parliament. Indeed, this present measure is a generously improved program to what has gone before but still only a stopgap measure pending the development of more comprehensive, integrated, and adequately planned measures to ensure that the aged and indeed every other section in the community have easy access to a comprehensive range of welfare services. I repeat, this is the purpose of the Australian Assistance Plan which is undeniably the most significant step taken in the field of social welfare in the history of this country. Pending the development of this Plan, the Bill now before the Senate is, as I said at the outset, being introduced to encourage and assist the continuing expansion of these most important services for our aged citizens in the interim period. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1046 {:#debate-75} ### REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS {: #debate-75-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -- by leave- I present for the information of honourable senators a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled 'A Review of Public Transport Investment Proposals for Australian Capital Cities 1973-74'. I move: Debate (on motion by **Senator Greenwood)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1046 {:#debate-76} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-76-0} #### The Senate- Foreign Affairs Motion ( by **Senator Cavanagh)** proposed: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-76-0-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- Because we have just one minute before we adjourn, I rise to take half of that minute to bring to your attention, **Mr President,** a matter which I think is a wasteful procedure. We have now developed a practice of incorporating questions on notice and answers to them in Hansard without having them read. That is all right; they are original documents in this place. But when second reading speeches are incorporated in Hansard with such frequency, I raise simply for your consideration the cost of reprinting in a separate document a speech which is usually word for word with what has been printed in the other Hansard, copies of which we have had for a week or so beforehand. I do not desire at this stage to develop a debate as to the desirability of eliminating the second printing but I wish to put into the mind of the Senate that it is a completely wasteful repetition of printing and that consideration ought to be given in a responsible sense to eliminating it. When a motion is moved in the terms of a second reading speech on behalf of a Minister in another place, instead of reprinting the second reading speech in the Senate Hansard consideration ought to be given to relying upon the speech in the House of Representatives Hansard as the initiation of our debate. {: #subdebate-76-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Wright,** I undertake to look at that suggestion and to inform the Senate of the result. {: #subdebate-76-0-s2 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I will not unduly delay the Senate, but I want to make an appeal to the Minister for Works, who is at the table, to expedite a reply to me from the Foreign Ministry with details of that role that the Australian Embassy in Santiago is playing and what the present position is there. Tonight we had broad unanimity in relation to the question of oppression in the Soviet Union. Various attitudes have been expressed by past governments. Some years ago we had a mercy mission to bring burghers to Western Australia. My colleague **Senator Wheeldon** played a very notable part in this exercise. We also had the Hungarian episode. I know that the Australian Ambassador to Chile is in Australia at the present time. But days have gone by and we have not heard anything from our embassy. We are now able to communicate with that Latin American republic but I cannot get specific details of the position of members of the trade union movement in Chile who, if not in custody, could be hounded and shot. I know that in a situation such as is occurring in Chile at the present time it is often hard to define who are worthy of punishment and who are not. During a previous recess of Parliament, at the behest of the Seamen's Union I sought information about an incident in Panama. I had to wait for at least 7 weeks before I received an answer to my inquiry. The only conclusion that I can draw is that somehow along the line this chamber and the Minister concerned are not always fed with information as readily as they might be. I know that my colleague **Senator Cavanagh** in his zealousness is aware of this. All I ask, in deference to the grave concern of the trade union movement of Australia and the concern expressed by a number of senators about the position in Chile, is that we should at least send some form of communication to the Deputy Ambassador in Santiago to find out if, as the Foreign Affairs Bulletin showed this week, that 500 people have sought clemency in a number of other foreign embassies. All I want to know is whether the Australian Embassy has offered any protection to anybody. Anybody who has read the current issue of the bulletin will know that people from Chile who came to Australia were hostile to the regime of the former departed President. It may be that because we have opened the door to some of them our embassy in Santiago might accept some of the persecuted trade unionists who may be on the run in that country. I am not egotistical enough to think that hundreds much less thousands of these people would want to come to Australia. But I think that the Minister will agree with me that in this age of the telex is it not good enough at a time when there is a state of emergency for members of the Government, or the Opposition, to have to wait for information. I will leave it to the usual energy of the Minister to discuss this matter with the appropriate people. {: #subdebate-76-0-s3 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP -Senator Mulvihill has asked me to speak to the Foreign Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** for the purpose of trying to expedite a reply to a question which he has on notice. This will be done this evening. It is true that although I try to get replies expeditiously from the Departments for which I am responsible in this chamber I am not always successful. If a reply to a question has not been received within 14 days an explanation has to be given for the delay. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Following up a very good practice for four or five years. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- I am basking in the glory of the efficiency of the former Minister. It is not always possible to get information within 14 days especially when statistics are involved. Unfortunately it is not always possible to get information quickly from all of the departments which I represent in this chamber. When this has happened I have protested. I can understand the difficulty that the Foreign Minister has in obtaining replies on matters of international affairs. I assure **Senator Mulvihill** that the matter he has raised will be taken up with the Foreign Minister tonight. **Senator Wright** referred to the costly expenditure of double panting and the possibility of doing away altogether with the reading of second reading speeches in this place. But his main concern was eliminating the second printing of second reading speeches. He requested that you, **Mr President,** inquire into the cost. I would ask that you also inquire into many of the other questions involved in the printing of material. I do not know whether the cost would be great because I imagine that the type that has been set up for publication of a speech in the other House will be kept so that the speech made in that House could be reprinted in our Hansard. I would not like the position to arise where the Senate would become an appendage of the other House. I would not like to see the abolition of our journal which records what transpires here from day to day. It is true that a government would be helped if the cost of printing could be reduced. But I would not sacrifice anything for the purpose of economy. I do not fancy the idea of having to search through another Hansard to find a copy of a speech that has been made in the Senate. All questions related to the dignity of this chamber need to be taken into consideration. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I would like to add a comment. I was cautious in my reply to **Senator Wright** for the simple reason that the printing of Hansard is now computerised. I do not understand the technology involved but I believe that once material is put on a tape there is no problem of typesetting as we have understood it. Therefore it would probably be only a question of the paper used. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.21 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1048 {:#debate-77} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-77-0} #### Land Tenure (Question No. 126) {: #subdebate-77-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Whitlam Government, under its proposed land development schemes, provide land to individual purchasers on a leasehold or freehold basis. 1. If the land provided is on a leasehold basis, what will be the essential conditions involved. 2. Is the Minister satisfied that the leasehold conditions prevailing in the Australian Capital Territory have resulted in cheaper home purchase, by comparison with other cities such as Goulburn, Albury, Wagga Wagga, Sydney or Melbourne. {: #subdebate-77-0-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Urban and Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It has been agreed by the State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria and the Australian Government, that in the Albury /Wodonga growth centre a leasehold system of land tenure will be used in all but exceptional circumstances. In other regional cities the Australian Government wants to have an appropriate leasehold tenure system employed. In fringe urban areas the tenure employed will depend upon the use to which the land is to be put- for instance, income-producing land should be made available only on a leasehold basis- and the other tenure systems employed in nearby areas. The recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenure will form the basis for negotiations between the Australian Government and the States on the tenure system or systems to be used. 1. The Australian Government has set up a Commission of Inquiry into Land Tenure whose responsibility it is to inquire into and report on the most appropriate methods of leasehold administration and management of land for urban purposes. A wide variety of ancillary matters relating to the mechanics of a leasehold system as it exists or may be established will be investigated. The details of the tenure system employed will depend on the report of the Commission and on the result of negotiations with the States. 2. Since the abolition of land rent in the A.C.T. the market has treated leasehold on a similar footing to freehold, thus a consideration of the A.C.T.'s method of land management in regard to land prices is not an accurate method of assessing the effect of lease conditions on home ownership costs. Any comparison drawn between Canberra and Goul bourn or for that matter Goulburn and Sydney is artificial and does not take into account the multitude of differences between these centres. {:#subdebate-77-1} #### Hobart: New Town Telephone Exchange (Question No. 423) {: #subdebate-77-1-s0 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >Is the New Town telephone exchange, Hobart, becoming seriously overloaded; if so when will action be taken to improve telephone services in that area. {: #subdebate-77-1-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The New Town telephone exchange, Hobart, did become overloaded during August this year when subscribers experienced difficulty in obtaining calls to Bathurst St Exchange which serves the main business centre of Hobart. Action to provide relief was already in progress during August and was completed by mid-September. Relief works upgraded all traffic routes to and from New Town including level 3 for Bathurst St Exchange. Spare capacity is available for the connection of new subscribers to New Town. {:#subdebate-77-2} #### Introduction of Push-Button Telephones (Question No. 425) {: #subdebate-77-2-s0 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: >Does the Postmaster-General's Department plan to introduce push-button telephones for use in Australia in the near future; if so when. {: #subdebate-77-2-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Post Office is considering the introduction of pushbutton telephones. Tenders for the supply of such telephones have been called and are currently being evaluated. Pending completion of this action and a decision to proceed, it is not practicable to indicate a likely date of introduction for the facility. {:#subdebate-77-3} #### Airmail Rates for Postcards (Question No. 430) {: #subdebate-77-3-s0 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Postmaster-General aware that Australia's overseas airmail rate for postcards is, by world standards, extremely high. 1. Is the Postmaster-General aware of just how important the sending of postcards from Australia can be in promoting tourism in this country, especially through the dissemination of photographs of Australia. 2. Will the Postmaster-General take immediate steps to examine the possibility of reducing airmail postcard rates to a level more in Vine with other countries and so that visitors to Australia will be more likely to send picture postcards overseas. {: #subdebate-77-3-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is true that some overseas countries offer relatively lower airmail rates of postage than apply from Australia. The main reason is that most of our outgoing airmail is over long haulage routes to Europe and North America whereas most of the airmail originating from these continents would be for relatively short haul routes. This enables countries in those regions to modify their rates for the small volume of costly long haul traffic by allowing part of the cost to be borne by the high volume shorter haul traffic. 1. Yes. 2. The Postmaster-General has introduced a Bill in the House of Representatives which will reduce the airmail rates Tor postcards to all overseas countries with effect from 1 October 1973. Although a reduction in weight will accompany the reduced postage, most customers will benefit because of the high percentage of postcards which weigh no more than 10 grams. North-South Railway {: #subdebate-77-3-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- On 30 August 1973, **Senator McLaren** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport the following question without notice: >In view of the reported refusal by the Victorian Government to accept the $9.6m offered to that State by the Federal Government for railway works, will the Minister confer with the Minister for Transport with a view to allocating the $9.6m to the Commonwealth Railways for use in the commencement of construction of the railway to link Darwin with the northern boundary of South Australia as laid down under the terms of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act of 1 9 1 0? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Victorian Government has not yet advised the Australian Government that it does not wish to accept our offer of $9.6m towards certain urban public transport projects in Melbourne. If the Victorian Government does take this position, then the question of the use of the money will be re-examined. > >The Northern Territory Acceptance Act and the 1949 Railway Agreement (S.A.) Act commit the Australian Government to the eventual construction of a standard gauge railway from Port Augusta to Darwin. > >Construction of a new standard gauge line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs is the first stage of the Government's plan for a north-south line. This line will replace the existing narrow gauge line between Marree and Alice Springs which is subject to disruption due to flooding. The Premier of South Australia has now indicated his willingness to enter into an agreement for the construction of this first stage and it is hoped that work will commence soon. Construction is expected to take about five years. > >The extension of this Une to Darwin would require a major commitment of the staff and resources of Commonwealth Railways. Before undertaking such a commitment, the Australian Government must first be assured of its feasibility and economic viability. > >The Loder Committee Report of 1965 concluded that, in the absence of a major mineral discovery, the construction of a rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin was not justified then or in the foreseeable future. > >Consideration will be given to commissioning the Bureau of Transport Economics to undertake a comprehensive study concerning the extension of the line north of Alice Springs before the proposed standard gauge line is completed.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 September 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19730927_senate_28_s57/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant