Senate
20 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1545

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund, to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general Insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. 6 ) That the Insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Lead to nationalisation of the private insurance industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.
  2. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.
  4. Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen. (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.
  3. Have a serious affect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its intrumentalities.
  4. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.
  2. By the ‘National Interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.
  3. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  2. Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.
  3. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  4. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Eliminate private Insurance for Australians.
  3. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Destroy the Free Enterprise Insurance industry, and thereby
  2. Jeopardise the livelihood of not only those who work in the Industry itself but countless others from almost every trade and profession who depend upon the Industry or upon finance from the Industry for their living, and
  3. Lead to mass degradation of a large cross section of the Nation’s workforce.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise insurance.
  2. Accelerate the growth in ratio of Public Servants to others.
  3. Destroy private initiative and corporate enterprise.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase bureaucratic control over the Nation’s financial resources.
  3. Lead swiftly to total socialisation and complete subjugation of all the citizens to the State.

Your Petitions therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the insurance industry.
  2. Reduce the flow of funds to industry and commerce from the private sector and increase their dependency on Government finance.
  3. Endanger the economy by undermining confidence in industrial and commercial company shares and by thereby causing share prices to tumble.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. An AGIO will have an unfair advantage over private enterprise.
  2. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  3. Increase the bureaucracy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the insurance industry.
  2. Make for mass unemployment in the insurance industry.
  3. Greatly increase taxation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will nationalize the Insurance Industry:

  1. Causing widespread unemployment,
  2. Stifling freedom of choice and virile competition, and
  3. Making mendicants of former Industry employees and policy-holders alike.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and Agents of the Private Insurance Industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with Private Insurers.
  3. 3 ) Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. 6 ) That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82j of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already overcrowded and under-staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian Government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourage them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Melzer.

Petition received.

page 1549

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1549

QUESTION

ACTIVITIES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is addressed to Senator Wriedt in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to statements made by the Prime Minister and his colleague the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation with regard to the alleged improper activities of insurance companies in opposing the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Has the Leader of the Government noted that the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been asked to use all the processes of duress and intimidation of which the union movement is capable to aid the political activities of the Government? Does the Government intend to allow this threat to go unchallenged?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– I am not aware precisely of what the trade union movement has said. I have not seen a copy of any Press release. I understand that some statement has been issued which implies at least either that members of trade unions would be encouraged not to insure with the Australian Mutual Provident Society or, alternatively, that those who already have done so should remove that insurance from that company. I do not think it is a particularly realistic attitude to take. There is no doubt that the private companies have over-reacted to the Government’s legislation relating to the Government Insurance Corporation. I do not see any purpose being served in over-reaction by anyone at the other end of the spectrum.

I would think that the average individual, no matter who he is, will exercise judgment as to whether he keeps or places business with the AMP Society. The whole question has been well debated and will be debated in this chamber when the legislation comes before the Senate. I would not imagine that any calls for people to cancel insurance from any particular society on the basis of statements which may be made by anyone in the community will have much impact.

page 1550

QUESTION

SONG FESTIVALS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for the Media aware that song festivals of the type held in Europe and other parts of the world each year are regarded as very important events for the local musicians and the recording industry in those countries? Is he giving consideration to the establishment of regular Australian song festivals? If the Minister is considering this, will it be possible for Australian compositions to be entered at prestigious overseas festivals?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-From time to time the Professional Musicians Union of Australia has been in touch with me on matters of this nature, and I assume that it has also been in touch with my colleague, Senator Poyser. My Department has also received representations from the recording and publishing interests within the Australian musical industry. As I told the Senate some time ago, my Department is at present preparing a case for presentation to the Industries Assistance Commission in relation to ways and means by which the Australian musical recording industry might be able to be assisted. In that regard a feasibility study is being conducted into the possibility of co-ordinating and funding an Australian song festival. The purpose of the festival would be to foster the development of song composition within the music recording industry. Negotiations and discussions are taking place between representatives of the Australian Music Centre and Music Rostrum Australia to establish whether the Department can be of assistance to these bodies. In addition to the proposal to sponsor a festival in this country it would also be proposed that Australian composers and their works would be sponsored in international song festivals.

page 1550

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AT EMAIL FACTORY

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Manufacturing Industry whether it is a fact that there are substantial employment problems in the Email Ltd factory at Orange and whether he can inform the Senate and me whether he has any plans to assist in the problem at that factory where, I am told, about 300 people face the prospect of dismissal.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have received a deputation representing the management of the Email factory at Orange, which is in some difficulty and where there is a threat of a lay-off of some employees. I am considering proposals to relieve the situation there, but I have not yet reached any decided view as to whether any of the structural adjustment schemes or any other schemes of the Government, which schemes have come in for so much criticism from the Opposition, are apposite for the solution of this problem. If it is decided to give some assistance to Email Ltd to keep its employees in their jobs, I shall be very interested in the subsequent reaction of the Opposition.

page 1550

QUESTION

HOUSING INDICATIVE PLANNING COUNCIL

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it true that the Western Australian Government is the only State Government to refuse to join the Australian Government’s Housing Indicative Planning Council? Is the Minister aware that the Western Australian Minister for Housing has claimed, as a reason for that Government’s refusal to join, that the Council will not cater for the distribution of resources according to the requirements of the many regions of the State and for assessing the many competing demands in the building industry? Has the Council ‘s proposal been explained to the Western Australian Minister, and, if it has, what reasons can be put forward for the Minister’s misguided and mischievous opinions?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is not true that the Western Australian Government has refused to join the Council, although it is noted that the Premier of that State, in reply to an invitation from the Prime Minister, said that he was somewhat reluctant to agree to the State’s becoming involved in either the central planning body or the State planning body, as detailed in the annexure to the Prime Minister’s letter to the Premier of Western Australia. He also said that it would be preferred that the matter be the subject of consideration and recommendation by an appropriate meeting of State Housing Ministers before a firm decision was made. So, obviously he has expressed some reservations. The State Ministers will meet on 1 1 and 12 June. I presume that Mr O’Neil, the Minister for Housing in Western Australia and the person who raised this matter, will be present at that meeting to discuss Western Australia ‘s participation in the Council.

In answer to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, it is noticed that Mr O’Neil made a claim in the Legislative Council on 30 April that there was no co-operation in regard to the indicative plan. One wonders why that statement was made as it seems hard to reconcile with the Premier’s statement to the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister was concerned with Darwin reconstruction and its effect on labour, materials, prices, and so on in the Western Australian building industry, and he asked that Western Australia be represented on the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. Western Australia suffered in the 1973 housing boom and this shows that there is need throughout the States to have some co-ordinated approach to building activities, because the expansion of building in one State can have repercussions in another State. During a visit to Western Australia in March this year the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Johnson, discussed the scheme with Mr O’Neil. The matter has been referred to the meeting of the State Ministers which will take place on 1 1 and 12 June and I am inclined to think that we shall get a better response from Western Australia at that meeting because it is important that the Western Australian building industry be considered in the context of Australia-wide building activities.

page 1551

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the statement which appeared in the ‘Australian Women’s Weekly’ on legal aid which said that offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office are opening outside ordinary business hours at times that are most convenient for the local community. Is it a fact that some or all offices are opening outside ordinary hours? Are they staffed outside normal office hours by employees of the Attorney-General’s Department or by private practitioners? Are any Attorney-General’s employees on overtime if they are so employed? Are any private practitioners so employed remunerated for their work?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It has come as quite a surprise to me to find out how many readers the ‘Australian Women’s Weekly’ has in this place. Most Australian Legal Aid Offices are opening outside normal business hours, staffed by officers who are employed in the Attorney-General’s Department. Offices open between eight in the morning and six at night, and are staffed by staggering hours of attendance. That is considered necessary because the people for whom this service caters will quite frequently have to avail themselves of the service outside their normal hours of work. Some offices are opening later, usually on one night during the week, and overtime is paid to legal officers and administrative staff involved but not to senior legal officers and above. Approval is being sought to pay overtime to senior legal officers and above. Offices of the Legal Aid Office are not staffed by private practitioners after hours.

page 1551

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILMS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for the Media aware that a film produced by the South Australian Film Corporation called ‘Sunday Too Far Away’ has received high praise at the Cannes Film Festival? Can the Minister say whether this film has received Government support in its production and distribution?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As honourable senators will be aware, the Australian Government has assisted Australian film producers in putting on an exhibition of Australian feature and documentary films at the Cannes Film Festival this year. One of the films that has been featured is the one to which the honourable senator has referred, namely, ‘Sunday Too Far Away’. It was a product of the South Australian Film Corporation. The Australian Government, through the independent statutory body, the Australian Film Development Corporation, invested $1 15,000 in the film. I am told that ‘Sunday Too Far Away’ has achieved the distinction at Cannes of being chosen by a highly selective committee as one of the few films to be shown at the so-called directors ‘ fortnight which is designed to encourage talented new directors. It certainly is an honour for the South Australian Film Corporation, the Australian Film Development Corporation and indeed, the Australian film industry that the film has won that distinction. I can also tell the honourable senator that the producer of the film, Miss lillian Robb, has recently been appointed by this Government as a part time member of the Australian Film Commission. I understand that the leading trade journal at the festival has spoken highly of the Australian Government’s attitude in underwriting film initiatives in this country and for having sponsored the Australian exhibition at the film festival.

page 1552

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media. It follows the question I asked on Wednesday of last week when I asked the Minister for details of the cost of government advertising, including that on television, of the proposed Medibank scheme and the legal aid scheme and the cost of television advertising on inflation. I now ask the Minister whether he can provide that information. If he cannot, will he refer the questions, including that regarding the total cost of government advertising, and the detailed cost of each particular matter on which it has advertised, to the respective Ministers, including the Prime Minister, so that this Parliament and the taxpayers can be fully informed on the cost of indoctrination by this Government?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator will be aware that my Department, through the Australian Government Advertising Service, is the servicing department so far as government advertising is concerned and that it sponsors and places advertising on behalf of other Australian Government departments. I think the honourable senator has asked me about the cost of advertising on Medibank and on inflation, and also the cost of advertising relating to the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

Senator Young:

– And the Legal Aid Office.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-And the Australian Government Legal Aid Office. From recollection, the amount spent on Medibank to date is about $480,000, but I speak off the cuff and that will have to be confirmed by my colleague the Minister for Social Security. I am unaware of the amount that has been spent by the Attorney-General’s Department on advertising the Australian Government Legal Aid Office, but I shall obtain that information for the honourable senator. As I advised the honourable senator last week, to date no cost has been incurred by the Government on any advertising campaign on inflation. The Australian Government does not apologise for advertising the matters that are the subjects of these advertisements, because the Australian Government and I believe that the Australian Government Legal Aid Office and Medibank will be of considerable assistance to the underprivileged section of the Australian community.

Senator YOUNG:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I also asked the Minister whether he could give me the detailed cost of Government advertising in all areas in which it has advertised and whether he could give me the costs of particular advertising.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator will realise that it would take considerable time for my Department to provide that information. Therefore I ask him to place that question on the notice paper.

page 1552

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs give the Senate details regarding the Rumbalara Aboriginal housing settlement in Victoria? Is it correct that the Aboriginal people in the area desire to reside there once again, although the State Government has not agreed to hand ownership of the land to the Aboriginal community? Has the Minister any idea whether this hand-over will take place? If so, when is it to take place?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-No, I have not. There are no definite arrangements on it. Rumbalara is no longer a housing settlement. It is an area of some 10 acres which at one time was used for the purpose of housing Aborigines who were later moved into the town. Last year it was intended by the Victorian Government that the area be handed over to a sporting body for redevelopment. When the Aborigines protested and said that the area belonged to them and that they wanted the land back for their own development, I took the matter up in conference with the then Victorian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Dickie, who agreed with me and said that if the Aboriginal community produced a plan for development he would give serious consideration to handing the land over to the Aboriginal community.

We hired consultants and town planners to develop a plan to use the area for the housing of only 3 families, an artifacts factory for Aborigines and a central office for the Aboriginal cultural organisation which was operating in the area. The plan was presented to the Minister. Under the Aboriginal Affairs (Transfer of Functions) Bill the matter was transferred to the Victorian Minister for Housing, who is Mr Dickie. Last week I saw Mr Dickie as to the honouring of his promise in regard to transfer. He now says that he has no record of the promise which was with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs- the Department has now been disbanded and its operations handed over to my Department- but subject to my making representations to him he will reconsider the matter. Clause 5 of the Aboriginal Affairs (Transfer of Functions) Bill makes provision that Ministers are committed to obligations they undertook before the transfer came into effect. We are hopeful now of obtaining Rumbalara for the Aboriginal communities of the area.

page 1553

QUESTION

FERRY ‘LADY FERGUSON

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In view of the fact that the former Sydney ferry ‘Lady Ferguson’, one of 2 ferries for which the Australian Government is to pay all expenses of towing from Sydney to Hobart, the purchase price and all other incidental expenditure, has now been declared unfit to carry passengers across the River Derwent, will the Minister table the report of the officers of the Department of Transport who inspected the vessels in Sydney to ascertain that they were capable of making the voyage to Hobart? This report was referred to by the Minister when he answered my question on the matter last Wednesday, 1 4 May.

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I recall that Mr Jones advised me to inform Senator Marriott about the inspection. He said that the ferries had been inspected prior to their departure from Sydney by Department of Transport officials to ascertain whether they were capable of making the voyage. This action was taken at the request of the owner in line with section 207 of the Navigation Act, and I think that that would have been very responsibly done. I will have to ask Mr Jones whether he is prepared to table the report and also to give Senator Marriott any other information which might be helpful to him.

page 1553

QUESTION

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate what was the result of the Law of the Sea Conference which was recently concluded in Geneva?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The third session of the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva finished on 9 May. The stage reached was that a single text constituting a possible basis for negotiations leading towards a convention was produced. Of course we will put this text to study before the next meeting. Honourable senators will realise that the text covers a pretty broad base and includes such things as the establishment of an economic zone, the breadth of territorial sea, the right of passage through international straits, rights over the resources of the continental shelf, archipelagos, fisheries, marine pollution, scientific research of the marine environment, and the pressing question of the rights to the resources of the deep sea bed beyond the national jurisdiction.

Sometimes people think the process is tantalisingly slow, but when one considers the things at which the meetings must look it is fairly understandable. What impressed me at both Law of the Sea Conferences which I attended was that no nation whether it was big or small, landlocked or shelf-locked, and whatever its problems, wanted to see a breakdown of these negotiations. I did not discern in any of them that feeling. None of them envisaged that it would help their country to break down the whole basis of the Conference. There has been a tremendously honest attempt at solving the most tantalising problems that one could possibly get. A further session has been agreed on. It will be held in the early part of 1 976, 1 think in New York.

page 1553

QUESTION

COCOS ISLANDS QUARANTINE STATION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Agriculture. What is the present position in respect of the quarantine station proposed to be established on Cocos Islands to enable the importation into Australia of cattle of highly desirable genetic lines in Europe and Africa? Can some idea be given now about when the Australian cattle industry will be given access to such stock, which is being provided to our competitor cattle industries of Canada and the United States of America through the quarantine station facilities currently being provided for them at the Fleming Animal Import Centre at Florida?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-This matter has been under study by the Government now for, I dare say, 12 or 18 months. It involves other departments apart from mine, particularly Foreign Affairs. I cannot say precisely what the current position is. All I can say is that the problems which had arisen as a result of certain differences resulting from technical matters within the various departments have prevented a decision being taken. All I can do is undertake to check for Senator Laucke on the latest position and provide him with the information.

page 1554

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, relates to the matter of repatriation benefits. Can the Minister tell me whether there is any difference between the benefits enjoyed by men who served with any of the defence forces during the last war and those enjoyed by women who served in any of the women’s auxiliary services during that period?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-There is no distinction between persons who can be classified as veterans, whether they are male or female. This includes people who may have belonged to auxiliary services. There is one difference which I think I pointed out some time earlier this year in answer to a question by Senator Coleman about repatriation benefits, and that is that the widows of male veterans are entitled to war widow benefits whereas the widowers of deceased women veterans are not entitled to similar benefits. I think that this matter requires some examination. The origins of such a policy are obvious. They began at a time when it was quite uncommon for women to be earning incomes. I intend to look at that matter within the context of the framing of the next Budget, but I certainly cannot give any undertakings at this stage about any changes which could occur in that area. The only thing I can say is that if any person is a veteran, male or female, the benefits or otherwise are the same.

page 1554

QUESTION

REPORT OF SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I understand that the report of the Schools Commission is expected to be presented to the Minister this week. As the recommendations will cover funding for the next triennium, will the Minister make an opportunity for the report to be tabled and discussed in the Parliament prior to the Budget session?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know the arrangements which the Minister for Education will make when he has received the report of the Schools Commission. I dare say that he will wish to discuss it with officers of his Department and probably take up the matter with Cabinet. All I can do is undertake to refer the honourable senator’s question to my colleague and to ask him to give it consideration. I can tell the honourable senator that I will be presenting later a report of the Committee for the

Review of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. In conformity with the Government’s policy of open government, as far as I am aware, all other reports that have been received by the Minister for Education to date have been tabled in the Parliament.

page 1554

QUESTION

TRANS-CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE SYSTEM

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General and relates to the need for improved telephone communications between Western Australia and the eastern States. I ask: When will the Australian Post Office expand the capacity of the trunk system connecting the eastern States and Perth?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The Australian Post Office has been planning for the expansion of the capacity of the east-west trunk system between Adelaide and Perth. In 1970 approximately 600 telephone circuits were installed on the system and since then 600 have been added. The Post Office has recently contracted with the communications division of the General Electric Company of Australia Ltd to expand this 2400 kilometre east-west system and so bring the total circuit capacity up to 1800. It is planned that this will meet the anticipated needs of the future.

page 1554

QUESTION

LOGISTIC SUPPLY SHIP AND RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Is it a fact that the Minister for Defence and spokesman for his Department recently announced consideration of the construction or purchase of a logistic supply ship as if this were some new defence procurement initiative? What is the difference between the ship so announced and that announced in 1970 as a positive decision of the former LiberalCountry Party Government? What differences, if any, are there between the equipment which was offered in the Hawker-Siddeley Australia Pty Ltd tender for the Nimrod aircraft to be supplied to Australia and that included in the tender now accepted for the purchase of Orion aircraft?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator has asked a question with 2 important parts. In respect of the first part, I am not aware that the Minister for Defence has been saying, although I know that the Press has been saying, that there has been a selection of long range maritime patrol aircraft. I have not been advised that that decision has been made, but I will ask the Minister to advise me whether he has made a choice. In respect of the last part of the question, I think the best I can do is to make sure that the answer I give is correct and I will ask the Minister to supply it.

page 1555

QUESTION

DIRECTORS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the campaign being conducted by private insurance companies in an endeavour to mislead the Australian public as to the true purpose of the Government’s intention in legislating for an Australian Government insurance corporation, will the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation ascertain, and inform the Senate at the earliest opportunity, the number and names of members of Parliament, State and Federal, who at present occupy positions as directors of private insurance and assurance companies in every State and Territory of Australia? Will he also ascertain how many ex-members of State and Federal parliaments now occupy similar positions?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– If Senator McLaren is seeking that information, I will obtain it. The only present comment I could make is about one former member of Parliament, Sir Allen Fairhall, who was taking part in the ill-fated insurance company campaign which now seems to have collapsed. I notice in the course of the publicity that was given to Sir Allen that no reference was made to the fact that he is the Chairman of the board of the Commonwealth General Assurance Corporation Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Zurich Insurance Company which is based in the same city as the gnomes. Apparently he was so concerned to serve his foreign masters that he would do almost anything to prevent the Australian people participating in this very lucrative activity.

page 1555

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the announcement this morning that the Minister for Social Security proposes to prosecute people who are wrongfully receiving unemployment assistance. Is the Minister aware that Mr Hayden said that the Government has rejected a system of more checks and administrative procedures on the grounds that such a system would slow down assistance to others? Is the Minister further aware that information from the Commonwealth Employment Service, the Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Social Security show different interpretations of figures relating to unemployment in Australia? Mr Clyde Cameron, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, made reference to this matter yesterday. I ask the Minister: Why is the

Government rejecting a system of more checks and procedures when considerable amounts of taxpayers funds are involved and when careful administration would not deprive worthy applicants?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am aware of the matters that have been raised by ‘Senator Davidson although I am not directly responsible for them. It is a fact that it appears that a number of people who are not unemployed are receiving unemployment benefit. The figures which are available to the Minister for Labor and Immigration regarding unemployment and those which are available to the Minister for Social Security regarding the number of recipients of unemployment benefit do not tally. Obviously this is something which has to be remedied.

I think that one of the reasons the Minister for Social Security would not be anxious to impose unduly stringent requirements on those people who were making applications but would rather deal with the matter by way of a subsequent prosecution when a misstatement has been found, is that this could well have the effect of delaying the payment to bona fide applicants. I answer that question by giving merely my own interpretation of why I think this approach should be taken. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Social Security as the responsible Minister, obtain an appropriate answer from him and provide it to Senator Davidson as soon as possible.

page 1555

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS IN QUEENSLAND

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, follows a question I asked the Minister last Thursday about Aboriginal land rights in Queensland. At the time the Minister indicated that the Premier of Queensland might have relaxed his attitude to the land rights question because the Premier’s Party had endorsed the report of the Woodward Commission on Aboriginal Land Rights. I now ask the Minister: Has he taken any steps to ascertain whether the approach of the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government to the question of granting land rights to Aboriginals in Queensland has changed?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not know whether I have taken steps but it just so happens that I have some information on this matter for the honourable senator. I think it was said, possibly facetiously, last Thursday that the Queensland Premier, who last year would not permit me to speak to his appropriate Minister on the question of Aboriginal land rights, seems to be on speaking terms with someone who believes in the same policy as the one I was advocating insofar as this person still retains membership of the National Country Party of Australia which has adopted the same policy. Fortuitously last Friday, due to a delay in the departure of my aircraft for Adelaide, the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and I had a discussion for some 15 minutes at the Tullamarine airport. We exchanged greetings and had a very amicable discussion. I sympathised with him regarding the serious mission on which he was going to Western Australia that weekend. Although I could not wish him success in that mission, I hoped that he would wish me success in my attempt to see the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in Queensland.

The Queensland Premier gave me a free invitation to see Mr Wharton, the Queensland Minister. He said: ‘Go and talk to him’. I said: ‘But will you let us talk on the Woodward Commission report?’ He said: ‘Yes, you can talk on anything you want to’. He went on: ‘I have no objections to giving land to Aboriginals, only I do not want to set up settlements on which apartheid problems are raised by the exclusion of whites’. I assured him that the only legislation which was preventing whites going onto Aboriginal settlements was the Queensland Act relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. I also said that legislation now before the Senate sought to rectify that situation.

The other concern that the Queensland Premier expressed was that he did not want to see the islands occupied by Torres Strait Islanders given over to Papua New Guinea. Although it was not my concern, I said I did not think it would make any difference whether they were occupied or owned by Aborigines or whether they were under the strictures of the Queensland Act. He assured me that I had open sesame to go in and discuss the proposals with his Minister. He seemed to welcome the opportunity of discussing them and getting down to a more amicable relationship with the Federal Government on the question of Aborigines in Queensland.

page 1556

QUESTION

PALESTINE

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the present status of the proposed United Nations conference in Geneva having reference to the question of Palestine? Have both co-chairmen agreed to hold the conference? What date has been fixed and what is the agenda? Are the parties committed to that conference?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I have not got those details in my head but I will find out the information as quickly as possible and advise Senator Wright.

page 1556

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE UNION

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is he aware of a recent claim by the Western Australian Police Union that the Australian Government should pay the costs of police officers who require legal assistance to appear before the current royal commission into relationships between police and Aborigines? Is the Minister considering recommending that the Australian Government assist in the payment of these costs?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– This is not a recent request. It dates from the time when we began to discuss a royal commission in Western Australia. The present secretary of the Western Australian Police Union waited on me in Western Australia and stated that the Union was not opposed to a royal commission but was concerned about the cost to the Union of legal representation for its members appearing before the royal commission. Of course, the royal commission is into the action of the police in a particular incident at Laverton involving Aborigines. I told Mr Fraser on that occasion that his Union was by no means bankrupt and I thought it could no better use its funds contributed by its members than in defending those members if they were attacked before the royal commission. Therefore, I was not in favour of the Australian Government providing counsel for the Union before a royal commission examining the activities of police.

When the terms of the royal commission were agreed upon with the Premier of Western Australia this was one of the questions the Premier raised and the Australian Government notified him of its decision. We have reached agreement on the joint funding of the royal commission but we rejected the proposition that we should fund the representation of members of the Police Union. Therefore, the Australian Government will not be funding those costs of the Police Union in Western Australia. Whether the Western Australian Government gives assistance is for it to decide.

page 1557

QUESTION

SUGGESTED BAN ON INSURANCE COMPANY COMMUNICATIONS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. It relates to the question which was asked today of the Leader of the Government in the Senate by Senator Greenwood. I ask: Is the Minister aware of the threat, reported in last night’s Melbourne Herald’, by the federal executive of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union seeking the support of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a total ban on communications of private insurance companies because of their campaign against the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation? Does the Minister agree that the threatened ban arises, at least in part, from the continuous and prearranged campaign of denigration of the companies which he pursued in the Senate last week and is continuing today? Is he prepared to recognise the elementary right to free speech and communication which all citizens and organisations are entitled to enjoy in this democracy? Will he therefore make an immediate repudiation of the threatened ban?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I must confess that I find it most curious to be now accused of conducting a premeditated campaign against insurance companies. I had not said a word about any insurance companies. I merely put forward the proposal that an Australian Government Insurance Corporation be established. I have been subjected to slanders throughout the length and breadth of Australia by representatives of the insurance companies. Completely unprovoked slanders are being delivered against my head from these people. I was involved in a meeting in Hobart but was deliberately misled as to the nature of the meeting that was to take place. It was subsequently televised on ‘Monday Conference’ where I was again subjected to organised hooliganism by these so-called life underwriters.

Senator Missen:

– I hope you are going to answer the question.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I will answer the question; do not worry about that. It is now interesting to find that these insurance companies can hand it out but they cannot take it. They have been indulging in general abuse of me personally, the Prime Minister and the Labor Government in general. Now they realise that the people have woken up to them, their campaign has fizzled, and they have pulled off their television advertisements. They are now begging for mercy and saying: ‘Please do not say anything against us’. I am going to continue and I am not going to be frightened by them because they are not worth worrying about. They are the most mediocre crowd of people I have ever had any dealings with in my life.

To come back to the question that has been raised by Senator Missen, I have in no way encouraged members of the Australian Postal and Telecommunication Union to indulge in any boycott of anybody. I can understand their reaction. Like Senator Missen, I agree with free speech but I do not believe in purloining other people’s money. I do not believe that Sir Vincent Fairfax and his fellow members of the board of the Australian Mutual Provident Society are entitled to make a deduction from the premiums paid by policy holders in that Society in order to wage a campaign against the Australian Government which was elected on this policy. Mr Slater, the General Secretary of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union, has put a submission to the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. My own hope is that they will not take this industrial action. I do not believe it would be proper if they did it. In any event, I believe it would be counterproductive because already the Australian people have seen through the spurious campaign of the insurance companies. We will be able to deal with them politically without having to resort to any other measures.

page 1557

QUESTION

LEPROSY IN ABORIGINES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the statement by Professor de Burgh from the University of Sydney that there are 2000 people of Aboriginal descent in this country suffering from leprosy? Has he any evidence as to the accuracy or otherwise of this statement.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think the statement was first made by Mr Charles Perkins overseas. He said that there were 2000 Aboriginal lepers in Australia. Professor de Burgh said that there would be more than that because a number of Aborigines go bush and do not report the disease. Both may be correct to some extent. A number of Aborigines in Australia have had leprosy and have disjointed limbs, withering of the hands and so on as a result. They claim it is not active even if it is not cured. They are obviously counted with those who have leprosy. Some Aborigines who have leprosy desert to the bush rather than seek medical attention or rather than be confined in a leprosorium, leprosy being a contagious disease. It is only a question of time before those Aborigines who go to the bush are found and taken to a leprosorium. Therefore, they are on record at some time, but we do not have a great deal of information about them.

The number of admissions to hospital of people with leprosy is remarkably low, and they are not all Aborigines. Leprosy is a disease that was imported into Australia mostly by Chinese migrants and it spread throughout the Aboriginal community. In 1969 there were 61 cases of leprosy throughout Australia. This number includes both black and white people who were admitted to hospitals. In 1970 there were 67 cases; in 1971 there were 32 cases; in 1972 there were 39 cases, and in 1973 there were only 31 cases.

Senator Sim:

– Do you have the breakdown of the figures?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-For the year 1973 there were none in New South Wales. In Victoria the figure was seven, but there was no Aboriginal in Victoria with leprosy- so again the leprosy is among the migrant population. In Queensland there were 4 cases.

Senator Baume:

– Why the migrant population?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I notice that Judge Furnell has said that in Western Australia there were five last year mostly from the Perth area and the opinion of the royal commission was that the victims were mostly from the migrant population. Leprosy is an imported disease. In fact, as I said, it was brought in by the Chinese. It is the migrant population in the capital cities that is affected by it. In South Australia the figure was one; in Western Australia five and in the Northern Territory fourteen, making a total of thirtyone. As far as we can gather hospital admissions of leprosy cases last year totalled thirty-one, of which only a number were Aborigines. The Department of Health is pleased about what is being done about the disease. If the health authorities can get to the disease in the early stage they can cure it without any deformity occurring. Skin-grafting and muscle development procedures today are such that some deformities can be rectified by transplants or skin graft if the patients co-operate in the treatment of this disease.

page 1558

QUESTION

INDO-CHINA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to the end of the fighting in Indo-China. Has the Minister seen conflicting reports about how the member countries of the Association of South-East Asian

Nations view the prospects for the region in the future? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether he has received any reports about what attitudes the ASEAN countries have expressed about the prospects for peace in South-East Asia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I think the best reports come from the regular annual meetings of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers. They usually hold informal discussions on regional international developments. A recent meeting, held I think a couple of weeks ago, reviewed amongst other things developments in Indo-China and discussed the implications of these developments for South-East Asia. At the conclusion of their meeting the Foreign Ministers expressed the hope that the restoration of peace in Cambodia and in South Vietnam would open up prospects for real peace, progress and stability in SouthEast Asia. They said that their countries were ready to enter into friendly and harmonious relations with each nation in Indo-China. They also reiterated their willingness to co-operate with these countries in the common task of national development for the benefit of their respective peoples and for the greater good of the region. The Ministers recognised the existence of broadly different social systems in South-East Asia but agreed that such differences should not be an obstacle to the development of constructive and mutually beneficial relations. The Ministers reaffirmed the ASEAN commitment to the objective of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in South-East Asia and agreed that its relevance for the region was now more evident. The only other point is that they agreed to recommend the holding of an ASEAN summit meeting.

page 1558

QUESTION

INDO-CHINA

Senator SIM:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it the intention of the Minister to make a statement in the Senate on the Government’s assessment of the changed situation following the collapse in Indo-China? If so, when does he intend to make it?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-No. As I have said before, it was not entirely unexpected. Anybody reviewing what might happen in Indo-China over the last few years must have considered the possibility of Communist victories in South Vietnam and Cambodia. We have been accused at times of saying: ‘Well, nothing is any different’ and so on. The situation is going to be any different from what was forecast only if and when some of these countries in Indo-China or some other countries move in a certain manner and it is far too early to look at that situation yet. A different situation has been forecast but, as I say, it will depend on what those nations do in respect of other countries or what those other countries do in respect of those nations and how the position develops from then on. If there are any differences, of course we will be watching them all the time. That is what the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence is all about- watching situations not only from year to year but also from day to day.

page 1559

QUESTION

COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to you, Mr President. Was your approval requested, and given, as President of the Senate for the Federal Attorney-General to seek leave to intervene on behalf of the Australian Government to establish a case against Senator Webster in the High Court?

The PRESIDENT:

-Approval was sought by the Attorney-General to brief counsel to be present at the hearing in the Court of Disputed Returns yesterday. There is no case to be presented on behalf of the Attorney-General and no case to be presented on behalf of the Senate. There was a holding brief by counsel for the Attorney-General at the court yesterday. I am reminded that no approval was sought. We were given advance knowledge of the intention of the Attorney-General’s Department to brief counsel to be present. The Department did not actually seek our approval but informed us of its intention.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I have a supplementary question to you, Mr President. Whose approval was required and given for this intervention?

The PRESIDENT:

– It was my intention to make a statement to the Senate on this matter later but perhaps it would be appropriate if I did so now. On 1 3 May I tabled a copy of my letter to the Principal Registrar of the High Court referring certain questions for determination with respect to the qualifications of Senator Webster. I also tabled a copy of a letter of 14 May which I forwarded to the Principal Registrar with reference to the hearing held on 1 9 May. Copies of my letter have been circulated to honourable senators. The letter is from Parliament House, Canberra, and is dated 14 May 1975. It is addressed to the Principal Registrar, Court House of the High Court of Australia, Taylor Square, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, and states:

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 6 May 1 975 and note that His Honour the Chief Justice intends to sit as the Court of Disputed Returns on 19 May 1975 for the purpose of considering the questions referred by the Senate to the Court pursuant to section 204 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973 and referred to in my letter dated 24 April 1975.

Having transmitted to the Court a statement of the questions upon which the determination of the Court is desired. I consider that I have discharged the duty imposed on me by the resolution of the Senate and section 204 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I therefore consider it inappropriate that I should be represented before the Court when the questions come before it for consideration or that I should take any part in the proceedings. If, however, His Honour the Chief Justice should take a different view, I assume that you will inform me.

I should be glad if you would place this letter before His Honour the Chief Justice.

Yours faithfully,

JUSTIN O ‘BYRNE

President of the Senate

page 1559

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government in favour of wage indexation? If so, what measures has the Government in hand should there be a breakdown of indexation as a result of the metal workers’ case ending unsatisfactorily?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The Government has indicated its support for wage indexation. It also has indicated its support for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Commission’s responsibility to make these determinations. As Senator Wheeldon reminds me, the Government has briefed counsel to support indexation. It is a matter for the Commission to make the determination. It is impossible to hypothesise about what might happen in the event of there being any breakdown in the negotiations which obviously will ensue in the months ahead. Obviously, the Government is concerned and desirous that the system which has been agreed upon now will work. It will use whatever influence it can to ensure that it does work.

page 1559

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General, and refer him to the ND column’ of this morning’s Melbourne Age’, in which a comparison is drawn between Australian and Canadian telephone charges. Can the Minister say whether this article is a true reflection of the comparative situation, as suggested by the article?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The column makes the point that although local telephone calls are free in certain countries, including Canada, the service rental in Canada is the same as in Australia.

That is not correct. It is correct only in relation to non-business services, but for business services the price in Canada is more than double the Australian price. What the writer of the column ignores is the extent of the local call area and over what distances trunk rates apply throughout Australia. Local calls normally extend for distances up to 20 miles and more in Australia, yet in Canada long distance rates apply on some calls between places only 8 miles apart. To illustrate another point, I might mention that the rates for STD calls in Canada are on the whole more expensive than those in Austalia. That applies in most countries. Various countries have different tariff settings and it is misleading, I suggest, to pick out what suits the writer of an article.

page 1560

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY IN VIETNAM

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the withdrawal of the Australian Embassy from South Vietnam prior to the occupation of Saigon by the Provisional Revolutionary Government and at a time when Australia’s commitments to some hundreds or more of refugees had not been fulfilled. Is it a fact that the embassies of France, Japan, Belgium, Switzerland and the Holy See were never evacuated from Saigon and continued to function throughout the whole military occupation and afterwards? Is it also a fact that no employees of such embassies came to any harm? Does this not demonstrate that the Australian Government’s action was unnecessary, particularly as the Government constantly asserts its effective standing and status with Hanoi? Have any diplomatic links been reestablished with Saigon, and has the Government communicated with either Hanoi or Saigon since the Provisional Revolutionary Government’s victory? If so, what was the nature of such communications?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I will try to remember that litany of questions. The Australian mission in Saigon -

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the question should go on notice. It requires far too much detail in the answer.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I will accept your direction, Mr President.

page 1560

QUESTION

TASMANIAN WORKS

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. Have orders been given for the preparation of environmental impact statements for the following Tasmanian Government and local government works being carried out, or proposed to be carried out, with the assistance of the Australian Government money and, if so, what was the date in each case on which the necessary order was tabled in each House of the Australian Parliament, and what were the dates on which each notice was published in the Gazette as required by section 7 (1) of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposal) Act 1974: ( 1 ) Reconstruction, upgrading and resealing of the Bass Highway from the vicinity of Elizabeth Town to Latrobe, Tasmania; (2) cutting of walking tracks in the Dial Range in the Penguin Municipality in Tasmania; (3) construction of the Burnie Expressway, Tasmania; and (4) upgrading of and the northern section of the Murchison Highway, Tasmania?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am sure that Senator Bessell would be just as surprised as everybody else if I were to be able to answer that question. I am afraid that I do not know the answers and I ask that he put the question on the notice paper.

page 1560

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– (New South Wales- Minister for the Media)- Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the Melbourne ‘Age’ and the ‘Canberra Times’ on Friday last I was quoted as having said in this chamber that an additional 300 journalists had been employed since this Government came to office. The reports related to my answer to a question from Senator Poyser which is recorded on page 1466 of Hansard. Honourable senators will note the relevant paragraph in which I stated:

The simple fact of the matter is that an additional 300 journalists have not been employed by my Department.

Further, I stated:

I have never asked Cabinet to approve, and therefore naturally Cabinet has not agreed to, the appointment of 300 new journalists as some reports appear to have indicated.

Later in reply to a question from Senator Martin I said, as appears at pages 1467 and 1468 of Hansard:

No proposition has been put to me about extension of the staff to 300.

Both of these newspapers reported my reply inaccurately, and that has been pointed out to them. However, I am still waiting for a correction to appear in their columns. It is a very serious matter when the proceedings of this Parliament are misreported and when newspapers do not publish corrections, I am amazed that the ‘Canberra Times’ has not published such a correction, and I hope that by bringing this matter to the notice of the Parliament such action will now be taken. As far as the Melbourne ‘Age’ is concerned, for some time that newspaper has been waging a quite hysterical campaign against my Department, and I despair that it will ever admit to any of the many errors that it has published during this time.

page 1561

TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Committee for the Review of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, dated May 1975.

Senator Guilfoyle:

- Mr President, I seek leave to propose a motion that the Senate take note of the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I move:

It is a complex report in relation to which I wish to make some brief comments. We welcome the report which has been tabled and would like to have an opportunity to study it and to make comments about it at an appropriate time. However, I do note that the first recommendation in the report is that a major review of the scheme should be carried out in three to four years time and that planning for the review should commence 2 years ahead of the time at which the review results are required. I hope that the Government will take that recommendation into account and see to it that whatever review is recommended will be set in motion so that that recommendation may be fulfilled at the time at which the review should be commenced. I have noted another recommendation-

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Guilfoyle, I think you will have to seek leave to continue your remarks at a later stage.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It is a very brief noting. I think it is important at this time to say-

The PRESIDENT:

– Can I put this matter in order? You have moved: That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am speaking to that motion, Mr President, and I will be seeking leave to continue my remarks. But before doing so, I wish to point to the fact, because it is a matter of interest at the present time, that the second recommendation stresses that allowances should be sufficient to meet basic student needs over the full year. In speaking to that recommendation, I wish to say quite briefly at this time that we are concerned that the tertiary allowances for students have been so long delayed in many States of Australia and that undue hardship has been caused because of the inability of students to finance their living requirements and to continue their courses of study.

Paragraph 3.6 on page 16 of the report stresses that part time work and other matters were taken into account when assessing the amount of the allowances, but that has been shown to be inappropriate this year because it was impossible for many students to obtain part time work during the university vacation of 1974 and early 1975. The hardships which have been caused and the delay in the payment of student tertiary allowances are matters for concern on the part of the Government and the Opposition. I welcome the opportunity to examine the report which has been presented. I seek leave to continue my remarks on this subject at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1561

RAAF VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) Pursuant to section 10A (2) of the RAAF Veterans’ Residences Act 1953-1965 I present the annual report of the RAAF Veterans’ Residences Trust for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1561

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present 14 agreements in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia.

page 1561

QUESTION

REMEDIAL READING FACILITIES IN CANBERRA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have an answer to a question previously asked, without notice, by Senator Marriott. Recently Senator Marriott asked:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Education ask the Minister for Education to make inquiries and later inform the Senate whether, as alleged to me, there is a shortage of trained personnel and necessary teaching facilities in the Australian Capital Territory to help slow readers, particularly those in the 6 to 12 years age group? Can the Minister hold out any hope to the parents of these children? I understand that there is a cure for their handicap if specially trained teachers are made available.

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

Programs in remedial reading in Government schools in the Australian Capital Territory are generally the responsibility of individual schools. Needs are defined and appropriate action is taken by individual school staffs.

All primary schools have remedial reading teachers provided for 3 half days each week. These teachers conduct individualised programs for children whose needs are not being met by the school program. Assistance in educational and psychological assessment is given by school counsellors or by the educational clinic. Surveys of the success of these programs were carried out late last year and the results are currently being processed. When these are available existing policy will be reviewed.

For children who do not make adequate progress in the school program, a placement at one of the 2 intensive reading centres is arranged. These centres conduct full time 4, 5 or 6 week intensive programs using special techniques. About 150 students in the 6 to 12 years age groups have undertaken these intensive courses which have been very successful with improvement in reading age reaching 11.5 months in one instance.

There is a shortage of people with suitable training. To remedy this, the Interim A.C.T. Schools Authority has released a number of remedial teachers to undertake a course in special education at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, one unit of which is remedial reading. It seeks to recruit teachers with experience in the fundamentals of reading, especially those with an infants background. A short induction course is conducted and regular meetings of all remedial reading teachers are held. Courses in remedial reading techniques are also provided by the Teaching Resources Centre.

Facilities for remedial reading classes in non-government schools in the Australian Capital Territory vary among schools. Some schools operate on a withdrawal system whereby students experiencing reading difficulties are removed from their normal class groups 2 or 3 times a week to smaller groups for special reading instruction given by a specialist teacher. In some cases students attend a 4 to 6 weeks intensive reading program. Where no specialist teacher is employed in the school students are given special attention by individual class teachers where necessary.

page 1562

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I seek leave to table the report from the Australian delegation to the Sixty-first Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held at Tokyo last year.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator TOWNLEY:

-For the information of honourable senators, I lay upon the table the report of the Australian delegation to the Sixtyfirst Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, held at Tokyo from 2 October to 11 October 1974.

page 1562

DAYS AND TIMES OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows:

page 1562

DISCHARGE OF ORDER OF THE DAY

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) -by leave- agreed to:

That General Business, order of the day No. 27, concerning the proposed tabling of papers relating to the Hobart Trades Hall be discharged from the notice paper.

page 1562

PRIVY COUNCIL (APPEALS FROM THE HIGH COURT) ACT 1975

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from His Excellency the Administrator:

The Administrator informs the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that the proposed law intituled ‘Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975’, which was reserved for the Queen’s pleasure, has been laid before Her Majesty and that, on the thirtieth day of April in the year one thousand nine hundred and seventy five, the Queen was graciously pleased to assent to the said law.

page 1562

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Social Services Bill 1975.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1 975.

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill 1975.

Tasman Bridge Restoration Bill 1975.

CHILDREN’S COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I ask for leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

On 19 September 1974 I tabled in this House a statement in which I announced the Government’s decision to establish a Children’s Commission. A Budget allocation of some $75m has been set aside in 1974-75 for expenditure on childhood services. Shortly after, I announced the appointment of an interim committee which would work towards the planning, development and implementation of a comprehensive program and which would continue in office until the enabling legislation to establish the permanent Commission was introduced. The interim committee approached its task with enthusiasm and vigour and honourable senators will be aware of the significant grants I have announced since the committee’s first meeting on 3 1 October 1 974. 1 should like to express my appreciation of the work done by the interim committee.

The Government’s firm intention is to provide an imaginative and comprehensive range of services so that all children in Australia will have access to services that are designed to promote their well-being, to enhance the quality of life and to promote equality of opportunity for them and their parents. To do this I expect that the Children’s Commission will work in cooperation with appropriate government and community organisations and will call upon the expertise and involvement of all relevant sections of the Australian community.

In moving to establish the Children’s Commission the Australian Government has recognised that changing social patterns have put considerable pressures on families with infant and school-age children. These changes include a growing number of families where both parents work, and of single parent families, as well as a frequently increasing sense of isolation affecting women looking after children at home. Through the Children’s Commission the Australian Government will provide assistance to a variety of organisations, groups and individuals for programs including full day care, family day care, pre-school education, emergency care, occasional care, before and after school and vacation care, playgroups and any other child care activities in accordance with demand.

The first emphasis of our childhood services program will be in areas of particular need, with priority going to provide services for children of working, single, sick or other parents who are unable to care for their children during the day. Priority will also be given to families in economic or other distress, and to groups with particular needs such as Aborigines, migrants, handicapped children and isolated children. The program aims to provide services where the community sees a need for them, and to support nonprofit services already operating. Where a service is sponsored by a Government body, representatives of the community, and of the parents whose children use the service, should be actively encouraged to participate in planning, managing and conducting it. Special attention needs to be devoted to the extension and integration of existing forms of service. Many of the existing facilities are seriously under-utilised either in relation to occupancy or in the nature of the service they currently provide. There are many options available which would enable many more children to participate in services in those facilities.

The Government does not want to see a proliferation of white-elephant centres, which can be used for one purpose only. We must get away from the idea that bricks and mortar can provide the answer to caring for children. The answer in many cases, is a fuller use of existing facilitiesschools, halls, houses. And the answer is in people who know how to look after children. The Australian Government expects to see people integrating and extending existing services, and using existing buildings, so that the best possible use is made of our resources. Where no existing facilities are available, and a need exists, the Australian Government would like to see proposals put forward taking a multi-purpose approach. We must not be one-eyed when we consider the differing requirements for looking after children. This is a human need, and we must take a flexible human approach to it.

I turn now to the principal features of the Bill. It is a straightforward piece of machinery legislation. It is an expression of the Government’s intentions which have been outlined on a number of occasions by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and which I described in some detail in the statement I tabled on 1 9 September 1 974. It will permit those intentions to be translated even further into action and it will be yet another example, and a major one at that, of the recognition by this Government of the rights of women in Australian society. It is with conviction that we are taking steps to introduce this legislation during International Women’s Year.

The functions of the Commission set out in clause 5 of the Bill embody the philosophy of providing comprehensive, co-ordinated and integrated services for children and include the concept of providing priority to those in greatest need, special needs of particular groups and flexibility in the provision of services. They enable the Australian Government to fund directly appropriate organisations providing care. This, of course, is consistent with the provisions of the Child Care Act 1972 which was introduced by the McMahon Government just prior to the December 1972 elections. That Act, however, suffers from the severe limitations it imposes on the range of eligible services. The Bill will ensure that what we are already doing in the provision of services for children will be the subject of continuing parliamentary scrutiny. There is provision in the Bill for an annual report and it contains other provisions that will ensure proper control of public funds in this new area of growing Government expenditure.

Clause 31 enables consultative machinery to be set up within each State and Territory to advise the Commission. This will enable State and local government and community representatives to put forward their points of view in relation to services to be provided in the particular State or Territory, The establishment of similar consultative arrangements was a significant factor in obtaining the co-operation of State governments during the early days of the interim committee of the Commission.

I believe the community will benefit from what this Bill proposes. It has been carefully drafted to meet the needs of Australian children and their parents. I am sure honourable senators will wish to see the Children’s Commission established to continue the work started by the interim committee and develop programs which will make Australia a forerunner in the provision of an extensive network of integrated and meaningful services for our children. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1564

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 14 May.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Committee will recall that the debate on this Bill was adjourned on Wednesday last, on the following motion:

That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again on Tuesday 20 May to provide time for the Treasurer to provide answers to questions asked this day in connection with division 680- Advance to the Treasurer- $ 120m.

The Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) has provided a quite detailed statement as a result of the request of the Committee. It is a 14-page statement, copies of which have been circulated. I understand that all honourable senators have copies of it now. I seek leave to have the statement by the Treasurer incorporated in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:
TASMANIA

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

The Senate has asked for more information concerning the proposed appropriations in Supply Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) 1975-76 for Advances to the Treasurer.

I appreciate the concern of honourable senators in seeking explanations in respect of these proposed appropriations. But I reject the suggestion that the Government would use the funds capriciously or spend them on purposes for which it would not be prepared to seek specific parliamentary approval in advance of undertaking the expenditure, if time permitted of this.

In the early days of Federation, Parliament recognised the need for a government to be able to cope with emergent funding needs not covered by existing appropriations by inserting in the Audit Act a clause providing for expenditure in excess of specific appropriations or not specifically provided for to be met from an appropriation under the head ‘Advance to the Treasurer’. In practice, there have of course been 2 such appropriations in the annual Appropriation and Supply Acts- one in the No. 1 Acts and one in the No. 2 Acts. They are appropriations which all governments, down through the years, have found to be essential to the proper conduct of government business.

Honourable senators have said that the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations are for emergency funds. That is a reasonable short description. However, it is not correct to designate them as ‘petty cash’. To do so is to misinterpret their nature and purposes.

The kinds of uses that may be made of the Advances to the Treasurer appropriations are specified in the legislation in which these appropriations are included. The definitions of them in the present Supply Bills are exactly the same as in comparable legislation in previous years.

Treasury Directions issued to departments under the Audit Act also refer to the circumstances under which moneys may be issued from the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations. The relevant Directions state, consistently with the definitions employed in appropriation legislation, that the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations enable the Treasurer to make moneys available: Pending the passing of an Appropriation Act, to meet expenditure which was not covered by an appropriation, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament; pending the issue of a Governor-General’s Warrant for moneys already appropriated by the Parliament; and to make an advance which will be recovered within the financial year.

The Directions state in respect of the first three of the circumstances above, that approval ‘will be given only in urgent or special circumstances ‘.

Many expenditure requirements are not readily predictable. There is frequently considerable uncertainty both as to just when they will emerge and what amount of funds will be needed to meet them. Some arise quite unexpectedly, without any forewarning at all.

Appropriations, other than Advances to the Treasurer, in the annual Appropriation Acts and Supply Acts are not designed to provide for requirements which might arise during the periods for which they are available. They are prepared on a more restricted basis than that.

It has been, and still is, the practice of Treasury in seeking estimates of expenditure from departments for the purpose of preparation of Appropriation Bills to ask the departments to observe certain general principles in preparing their estimates. One of these is that estimates for supplies and services should be calculated at current or known prices. Other general principles, developed in conjunction with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, are aimed at ensuring that, inter alia, the estimates should not make provision for proposals which are of such an uncertain nature that it is not possible to form any real estimate of what payments, if any, will be made.

The Supply Bills being by nature temporary funding media, the estimates on which they are based are prepared on a more arbitrary basis. Estimates are not made in the same detail as for annual Appropriation Bills. Thus, in the case of administrative expenses, the advice to departments in respect of the preparation of estimates for the current Supply Bills stated that the estimates of administrative expenses should, in general, be on the basis of providing for ongoing services at the levels authorised by the 1974-75 Budget and that current cost levels should be used in calculating the requirements.

With appropriations being based on estimates of expenditure prepared on such basis, inevitably, even in the most stable of circumstances, supplementations of them will be required because of price and cost changes and other developments. In the case of appropriations for direct wage and salary payments, the need for such supplementation has been partly met in recent times by a special provision in the appropriation legislation. But that still leaves the need for supplementation in respect of a wide range of categories of expenditure because of price and cost increases. Price and cost changes are but one of many factors that can give rise to requirements for additional funds.

Additional funds requirements can arise from changes in the timing of availability of supplies or services from industry, including overseas supplies. Patterns of expenditure under approved programs may change because of changes in the numbers benefiting from them.

In the normal course of government business there is frequently the need to obtain supplies and services, essential to the Government’s operations, without there being prior provision for these in appropriations.

Not infrequently, funds are required for new programs approved by the Parliament after the Appropriation or Supply Bills have been prepared.

Quite unexpected and unavoidable new requirements, sometimes very large ones, can be just around the corner at any time. The succession of recent natural disasters has amply demonstrated this. These are some of the contingencies not provided for in the specific appropriations in Supply Acts which the Advances to the Treasurer appropriations may have to finance pending further appropriations which cover them.

Situations can also arise where the Parliament having appropriated moneys for specific purposes in legislation, there may be good reasons for making payments in advance of the formal assent to the Bill or the necessary Warrant from the Governor-General being obtained. Under these circumstances the Treasurer may provide funds temporarily from the Advance to the Treasurer appropriation, which is recouped when Governor-General’s Warrant under the relevant legislation has been obtained. As an example of an issue of funds pending the issue of a Governor-General’s Warrant, I mention that during the current year a temporary issue of $ 15.8m was made to enable prompt payment to be made under the Glebe Lands (Appropriation) Act 1974.

A further use of the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations is the making of advances which will be recovered during the financial year. We have issued this financial year amounts totalling $16m, including provision for the reimbursement of imprest accounts at Australian posts overseas pending the examination of accounts and the charging of them to departmental appropriations and for temporary increases of working capital advances to trust accounts.

While we do not acknowledge any automatic relationship between the level of government expenditure and the appropriate size of Treasurer’s Advance provisions, it is reasonable to expect that larger Advances will be required as the level of expenditure rises.

The level of expenditure is of course now substantially higher than it was last year, when the Parliament agreed to Supply Bills, each of which included an Advance to the Treasurer of $60m.

The total of Supply Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 of $ 1,082m with an Advance to the Treasurer appropriation of $120m compares with a total of $5 13m in Supply Act (No. 2) 1974-75 with an Advance of $60m. The increase proposed in the Advance to the Treasurer appropriation is thus a little less than a pro rata increase. The total of Supply Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 of $2,692m (with a $120m Advance) compares with a total of $ 1,804m in Supply Act (No. 1) 1974-75 (with a $60m Advance). In this case, the increase proposed in the Advance to the Treasurer is in fact considerably more than a pro rata one.

But the Government has not included Advances to the Treasurer of $ 120m in each of the Supply Bills just because government expenditure is presently at a higher level than last year. There are a number of other considerations which contributed importantly to its judgment that such amounts should be provided.

I referred earlier to the bases on which Supply estimates are prepared. In general, they are related to approved policies, current activity levels and current prices at the time they are prepared.

Even in the most stable of circumstances, there will be price changes and other developments requiring recourse to the Treasurer’s Advances during the Supply period.

At present, prices and costs are increasing rapidly. While we are anxious that these trends be moderated and greater stability of prices and costs achieved, the effects which the increases which are occurring could have on expenditure requirements during the coming Supply period had to be recognised.

Apart from domestic price and cost trends, trends abroad are also very relevant, particularly as regards funds requirements for payments under defence and other procurement programs.

There are, in present circumstances, also many uncertainties as regards delivery dates of supplies and rates of performances under works and other contracts.

In making its judgment as to what would be a prudent level for the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations the Government also had to take into account the fact that there are some important programs which have not been in operation for very long. With such programs, there is not the same basis of experience for estimating prospective funds requirements as there is with well established programs and some allowance needs to be made for the uncertainties necessarily involved. This is so in respect of some of the programs involving the States and for which the funds requirements during the forthcoming Supply period will depend on agreements with them or otherwise on their performance. The Hospitals Development Program is an example.

One big program which the Government will be introducing this year and which has the approval of the Parliament is the Health Insurance Program- Medibank. An appropriation of $335m is proposed in division 598, Supply Bill (No. 1). While efforts have been made to assess the likely requirements during the Supply period as accurately as possible, this is the first time an estimate has been made for these proposed expenditures and, as well, there is some uncertainty at present not only about the extent of State participation in the Medibank hospital cost sharing arrangements but also about the timing of State participation. Hence it is possible that the provision sought for hospital payments might be insufficient.

There is also a degree of uncertainty about the provision sought for medical benefits. For example, it was assumed that there would not be an increase in the level of benefit payments as from 1 July 1975 but the matter of whether there should be an increase from that date and if so, how much, has been referred to an independent inquiry.

There are a number of other programs in respect of which it is difficult to estimate expenditure during the Supply period because the incidence of applications for assistance under these programs is not predictable with any degree of accuracy- for example, Structural Adjustment Assistance, and the Regional Employment Development Scheme.

I might add that, with some of the kinds of programs to which I have been referring, there could be additional requirements during the Supply period which, in effect, reflect a spill-over into the new financial year of expenditure for which provision is made in the 1974-75 appropriations.

Subject to parliamentary approval of the proposed take-over of part of the South Australian railways and the Tasmanian railways, funds will be required during the forthcoming Supply period for the consequent financing requirements of the Australian National Railways Commission in particular.

It is also to be noted that some new statutory authorities have recently been created or are proposed in Bills before the Parliament. In so far as these are operating early-in the new financial year, some of the funds they require may have to be provided from the Treasurer’s Advance. The Australian Film Commission is an example.

We do, of course, have to recognise always the possibility of natural disasters.

Supply Bill (No. 2) includes an amount of $ 10m for payments to or for the States- Department of the Treasury (division 964). This is made up of $5m in respect of the Tasman Bridge disaster and $5m in respect of natural disaster relief. It cannot be predicted whether these amounts will prove to be sufficient. In particular, of course, a major new disaster in one of the States could result in calls beyond the amount provided for. Restoration and relief operations in Darwin and assistance measures for rural areas of the Northern Territory might require funds in excess of those envisaged at the time of preparation of the Supply Bills.

Nor could we overlook the fact that there are to be major discussions on State finances and related matters at the Premiers’ Conference in June. Whether there will arise out of that Conference a need to provide funds to the States in the early part of 1 975-76 which cannot be met under existing legislation cannot, of course, be predicted at this stage.

As a few examples of the many contingencies to which the Government has had to have regard in making its judgment as to the size of the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations it should seek, I mention: Overseas aid- shortfalls in achievement in 1974-75 under some aid programs may mean an overflow into 1975-76. Also, more funds for emergency relief and development might be required because of unpredictable events; Service Housing- a possible carry over into 1975-76 of building projects would mean that Supply funds would be inadequate; Defence Financial Assistance Papua New Guinea- because of unknown factors at the time of preparation of Supply Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, provision in the latter may be insufficient.

I have noted that in the Senate debate on 14 May references were made to the expenditure recorded in the Advance to the Treasurer Statement presented to the Parliament after the close of the financial year. That statement relates to the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations in the main Appropriation Acts passed in the Budget Session.

In the Supply period, most of the issues made from the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations are in anticipation of the passing of the Budget Appropriation Bills. Thus when the latter are passed, most of the issues from Supply Act Treasurer’s Advances are subsumed by specific purpose appropriations in the Appropriation Bills, only a few of them are carried over to the Advance appropriations in the Budget Bills and that is because they are new items- for example, a disaster payment or funds to support legislation passed meanwhile by Parliament- that have arisen since the Budget Appropriation Bills were prepared.

In relation to the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations in the main Appropriation Acts, it is the practice under this Government, as it was under previous governments, to include in the Additional Appropriation Bills charges made to the Advances up to the time of preparation of the Additional Appropriation Bills.

The amount recorded in the Advance to the Treasurer Statement prepared at the close of the financial year is therefore not a measure of the extent of the usage of either the Supply period Advances or the Advances in the main Appropriation Acts.

This leads me on to another matter which was discussed in the Senate debate on 14 May- that is accountability. It is axiomatic and Parliament did not intend otherwise, that issues made by the Treasury from the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations should not be authorised beforehand by the Parliament. The Parliament therefore delegated to the Treasurer the obligation carefully to ration out the funds voted to him in the Advance appropriations. But he has to be mindful, as Treasurers before him have been mindful, of reporting to Parliament the issues he has made and the purposes therefor. We have done this, in the tradition of the past, by including the issues up to the date of preparation of the Additional Appropriation Bills in those Appropriation Bills which are then subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. This scrutiny by the Parliament is carried out within the same financial year as the funds were issued. After the Additional Appropriation Bills are prepared, issues made up to 30 June are reported in the Advance to the Treasurer Statement to which I “have already referred.

The Parliament, through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, also exercises a check on residual issues from the Advances. This is a scrutiny in which, as the Committee points out in its reports, it seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advances has been confirmed to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original and additional estimates.

There is, of course, no exemption from audit of expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer. It is subject to the same degree of scrutiny by the Auditor-General as any other expenditure.

A judgment as to what the level of the Advance to the Treasurer appropriations should be is essentially a judgment about uncertainties.

The amounts sought in Supply Bills (Nos 1 and 2) as Advance to the Treasurer appropriations represent the Government’s best judgment, in the light of all the relevant circumstances and possibilities, of what would be proper and prudent provisions at this time. As I have pointed out, there are a variety of special factors in the present situation.

The inclusion of provisions of $ 120m in each Bill does not mean that the Government will be seeking to expend these amounts. Our aim will be to keep the use of the Advances to a minimum. But it would, in the Government’s view, be less than prudent not to have provisions of this size in the present circumstances.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I believe that the Treasurer has taken all reasonable steps to provide the information which the Committee sought. The document is a lengthy one. I could not reasonably expect the Opposition especially to digest the contents of it in the brief time that it has been circulated. Therefore I believe that it would be reasonable to allow the material to be digested fully by the senators interested in this subject, Consequently I would seek the opinion of the Opposition as to the procedure it would desire to take in the event that it is not prepared to debate this matter immediately.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

– That motion is out of order.

Senator COTTON:

-Then I shall respond to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt). I thank him for his courtesy in obtaining from the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) the information which the Treasurer purports to be an answer to our queries. I have not had the chance to read it in detail. I have had only a very cursory look at it. I would have some very grave reservations about how good it is as a proper answer to the queries. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to take the opportunity to defer until tomorrow examination and discussion of this material, if the Minister agrees that that would be an appropriate course of action. Accordingly I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Government does not oppose the motion, on the understanding that the matter will be debated tomorrow. We assume that the Bill will be passed tomorrow.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– That is an assumption which the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) must make in his own house, not mine.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 1568

POSTAL SERVICES BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I take it that it is the wish of the Government that the Postal Services Bill 1975, the Telecommunications Bill 1975 and the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1975 be debated cognately.

Senator Bishop:

– I would like to indicate that the Government would be prepared to have a cognate debate in respect of the 3 Bills.

Senator DURACK:

-These Bills are submitted to the Senate by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office. That Commission was set up in the early days of this Government and reported to it in April last year. Following the receipt of that report, which was very detailed, there has been a very lengthy opportunity for full consideration to be given to its recommendations. The Government made it clear from the receipt of the report that it would implement the report’s recommendations. I was rather surprised to find that those recommendations were readily accepted by the Government and that they were accepted before the report was really available for full consideration. However, at the time the Opposition indicated that it would not oppose the major recommendations of the report.

The basic recommendations are that postal and telecommunications services should be separated and that independent statutory commissions should be established to run each service. Those basic recommendations are only a part of a very great array of recommendations dealing in detail with the way in which the whole of the postal services should be organised. It is certainly not to be assumed, and should never be assumed, that the Opposition has given general support to the Vernon Commission report. All that Mr Snedden and the Opposition have said is that the Opposition would not oppose the broad recommendation that 2 statutory commissions be set up to operate the separated postal and telecommunications services. One other very important recommendation of the Vernon Commission was that there should be an incorporation of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in the new Australian Telecommunications Commission. At the time that Mr Snedden spoke on behalf of the Opposition he specifically excluded any adoption by the Opposition of the recommendation that the OTC should be merged into the new Australian Telecommunications Commission. He made it quite clear that the Opposition would wish to give this matter considerable study before the Opposition made any decision in relation to it.

As has already been publicly stated, the Opposition intends to oppose, for a reason with which I shall deal with later, the incorporation of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the new Australian Telecommunications Commission. However, before I deal with that matter I wish to speak in general terms about the nature of postal and telecommunication services and the purposes which the Opposition would desire to see ascribed to them. These purposes should be achieved whether these services are to be delivered in the traditional form by a department of State or in the proposed form by new statutory commissions. The Vernon Commission, in its report, recognised that postal and telecommunication services were public utilities. However, the Opposition is not satisfied that either the Vernon

Commission’s report or the Government in its approach to the provision of these services fully recognises and emphasises the fact that these services are a public utility. Although I do not say that they represent a social service, they have many aspects which are akin to those of a social service.

In our view it would be quite wrong to regard the provision of postal and communication services as a purely commercial operation. The Opposition has been disturbed by some of the statements made by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop), particularly last year in relation to the Bills which increased so extensively the basic charges for these services. The Government seems to be taking the view that these postal and telecommunications services should be operating on purely commercial lines and that there should be the one principle that the user of these services should have to pay fully for them. In our view, in a country of the size of Australia with vast areas over which communications are required and with people in the small communities scattered throughout the length and breadth of Australia, people are entitled to proper postal and telecommunication services. It is in the interests of the nation as a whole that they should be provided with them.

These types of services cannot be delivered merely on a commercial basis. If the proposed commissions were to operate in this way, in the Opposition’s view they would not be exercising the duty of providing the services for which we see them having a responsibility to provide. At this stage of the debate I wish to place on record the Opposition’s view that the provision of postal and telecommunication services ought not to be regarded as a purely commerical operation but that the operation must be run in such a way as to provide communications for all sections of the Australian community in all parts of Australia. These services should be provided to as many people in Australia as is possible, particularly to people in the outback areas of Australia, regardless of whether the provision of those services can be regarded as a commercial operation or not. Therefore, it would be quite fallacious for the proposed commissions or the Government to operate on the principle that the user of the services must always pay for the services. If that principle is to be applied, outrageous charges will be imposed on people not only in the very remote parts of Australia but also in rural areas.

Those members of this Parliament who have contact with people in the rural areas of Australia I suppose many Government supporters do not have such connections- would appreciate some of the outrageous charges that are being demanded from people in rural areas for the connection of a telephone service. Only recently there was drawn to my attention the case of some people who were living within only 1 5 kilometres of an exchange who were being required to pay $2,400 to have a telephone connected to that exchange. That is only one case that has come to my attention recently. I know that there are many other cases where much greater charges are being imposed on people who wish to have a telephone connected. We all know how absolutely vital it is for people in these areas to have the lifeline of a telephone. It is all very well to say that there are other modern forms of communication, that nowadays there are good roads, good cars and so on. Of course, that is not always the case. As floods, breakdowns and other problems are part and parcel of the life of people who live outside the cities of Australia, it is no answer to say that other modern forms of communication are available. The telephone is a vital means of communication.

Whether postal and telecommunication services are to be provided by a department of state or a commission, the administration of such services should be conducted in a commercial way and we expect that to be done with proper efficiency and economy. We do not believe that simply because the services have to be provided as a monopoly, because they are being provided by government or for that matter by an independent commission, the operation should be carried on in any lackadaisical fashion. Perhaps this would be an advantage in having the services administered by a commission. The actual administration or organisation of the delivery of these services should be run on commercial lines and should have particular regard to the principles of efficiency, productivity, economy and so on. Perhaps that is an area in which the proposed commissions will be able to be more adventurous and more innovative than has been the case with the services being administered by a department of state. Hopefully they will be more market oriented and will have closer regard to increasing productivity so that the services will be able to be delivered in a more efficient manner without the commissions looking simply to increasing charges as an answer to the problem.

In that regard I might also say how disappointed the Opposition was with the attitude of the Vernon Commission to this question of charges and I hope that when these commissions get under way they will not act upon the counsel of despair as did the Vernon Commission, which indicated that, in order to meet the financial objectives it was recommending, charges for postal services would have to be increased by 1 5 per cent per annum and charges for telecommunications services by 7 per cent per annum. That recommendation was made over 12 months ago when we had an inflation rate of 8 per cent or 9 per cent, although rising. Now, 12 months later, when we have an inflation rate of 1 7 per cent and rising towards 20 per cent I suppose those predicted increases would be very much higher. If the commissions are to be given the financial objectives contained in the Bills, and I will deal with them in a moment, it will probably be necessary for them to greatly raise tariffs and charges. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the approach of the commissions should not be along the lines of simply putting up charges to meet their financial problems but looking at all times to increasing their productivity and efficiency. They should endeavour to cover increased charges to the fullest extent by those methods rather than by simply putting up charges.

I am pleased to see that in the Bills there is reference to the fact that the commissions, if they seek to obtain any revenue forgone as a result of Government decisions made in relation to them, will not have as of right the reimbursement of such revenue to them but must look to whether they can rearrange their affairs or increase their efficiency in such a way as to minimise the effect upon them of Government policies. However, I must say on behalf of the Opposition that we are particularly concerned about the specific financial objectives which are being given to the commissions. In each case the commission is required to follow a financial policy which will, firstly, cover its running costs and, secondly, provide from internal financial resources 50 per cent of its capital requirements. In the postal area the capital requirements are not so great and probably that provision will not be so difficult to meet for the Postal Commission; but in the telecommunications area, we know what tremendous capital requirements there are and this provision will place a considerable burden on the Telecommunications Commission.

In the postal area the main concern is the difficulty of covering costs at all and, in order for the Postal Commission to meet its financial objective of covering running costs by securing sufficient revenue, I believe there will have to be very great increases in charges. The Post Office section of the Department, the area which will be run by the Postal Commission next year, will make a loss in this financial year of $60m. Senator Bishop has acknowledged that in public on a number of occasions, the last time in answer to a question asked by me last week. So there will be a loss of $60m this year and if this Commission is to meet its financial objectives it will have to so tailor its charges for the coming year as to ensure that it will not lose that $60m next year and will also be able to cover the additional expense arising from the increased inflation which, as a result of this Government’s actions and inaction, will be with us in the coming financial year. The Commission will have to fix its charges to cover also the increased cost due to inflation.

On my calculations, if the Commission were to cover the $60m loss, working on the basis of this financial year, the basic letter rate would have to go up by about 4c to 14c. So goodness knows what sort of increase in the basic letter rate will be required in the coming year to meet the specific financial objectives which the Bill contains. I appreciate that the Bill provides the power for the Minister to reject charges of that character and in the ultimate to reimburse the Postal Commission for any revenue it may forgo as a result of such rejection, but I think it is unrealistic for the Postal Commission to be given a financial objective of that character. It seems to me to be slavishly following the recommendation of the Vernon Commission which should have been given very much less regard than the Government seems to have given it.

There are other aspects of the Vernon Commission’s report adopted in this legislation which are not as clear as we would have liked. We all know that one of the major problems in the postal area has been industrial relations and there was really very little in the Vernon Commission ‘s report to indicate how these industrial relations problems could best be solved, particularly in respect of the Redfern Mail Exchange. I appreciate that the recommendation and the provision in the Bill are that the industrial relations of the Commission should be conducted by the Commission and not by the Public Service Board. Although I believe there could be merit in this, I believe too there could be room for more direct negotiations to take place between the Commission and its staff, rather than having to comply with the requirements of the Public Service Board. The Public Service Board has to take into account many other problems. It has to adopt an even-handed approach to the whole of the Public Service. Nevertheless, I would have liked to have seen more positive recommendations come forward from the Commission of Inquiry about the way in which these problems could be overcome particularly, as I said earlier, those at the Redfern Mail Exchange.

I hope that the Commissions will be able to evolve relations with their staffs in such a way that they will be able to minimise the problems which have occurred in the past. I hope we will see fewer industrial troubles in the Post Office than we have seen in the past. As I have said, I must record my disappointment that more attention was not given to this matter by the Commission of Inquiry and that more recommendations were not forthcoming. There seemed really only an expression of hope by that Commission that the establishment of independent bodies would somehow or other prevent the sorts of troubles that have plagued the Post Office in the past. Let us all hope that is the case. It is probably a useful experiment to take the Post Office out of the area of the Public Service Board and to leave it to the Commissions.

An enormous responsibility is being placed on the Commissions. I hope that they will be firm when dealing with these matters if they are put to the test, in order to ensure that no particular advantages are being given to employees of the Commissions which are not enjoyed by other public servants. If that were to occur, of course, there would be a rapid flow-on of the particular advantage enjoyed by the staff of the Commissions to other areas of government employment. I do not think there is any way in which the Government will be able to isolate such advantages so that they apply only to those employed in the Commissions. Undoubtedly, if advantages are given to employees of the Commissions, pressure will be applied for those advantages to be carried through to other areas of the public service. I hope that the Commissions will not believe that they can enter into sweetheart deals and so on with their staffs in the hope of buying industrial peace. They will have to achieve industrial peace by expertise in the field of industrial relations in dealings with their staffs. In the end, they will probably have to achieve industrial peace by adequate firmness.

I think there are other benefits which will arise from the establishment of a statutory commission as against a department of State. Special contracts can be entered into with users who provide a portion of the service themselves. I am referring to matters which are purely of a commercial nature. I hope that full use will be made of such opportunities for innovation and also for market development which would be akin to the commercial operations of the Commissions.

However, the Opposition is still concerned about the ultimate service which will be provided by these Commissions. We are, I think, all familiar with the complaints which have been growing about the services provided by the Post Office. I am speaking in general terms but I am relating my remarks mainly to the mail services rather than the telecommunications services. It is probably a little naive to think that these services will be dramatically improved by the setting up of an independent Commission. As I said earlier, the Opposition sees the danger that by setting up these independent Commissions, by giving them in some cases unrealistic financial objectives, and by putting emphasis on their commercial operation and the ‘user pays’ principle- which the Government seems to have been doing- there may be in fact a diminution in services. There may be a cut-back of services on the grounds of economy, particularly those services in rural and remote areas of Australia.

I refer to a specific service which has been cut out during the lifetime of this Government. I am referring to the Saturday morning mail deliveries and the closure of post offices on Saturday mornings. Whatever did happen to the intentions of the Government in this regard? All honourable senators are aware that the postmen decided that they did not want to work on Saturday mornings and that they wanted to work a 5-day week. We are aware that the postmasters came to the same decision. The Government went along with their wishes. It was not the present PostmasterGeneral, but his predecessor the present Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) who indicated that the Government would try to provide alternative services or try to enter into special arrangements with the Post Office staff to provide some service on Saturday mornings. This problem arose more than 2 years ago but we have not seen any effort by the Government to provide any alternative service on Saturday mornings or to provide services after the usual hours or during weekends. I do not think this would have been an insuperable problem. I think the Government, if it really had any will in the matter, could have come to some arrangements with the postal unions about this matter. The Government has just let the situation drift along. I should like to know what prospects there are, by the setting up of these independent Commissions, of a more positive attitude being adopted in regard to a service of that kind, the restoration of that service or an improvement in the service by such very important community organisations, which these 2 Commissions will be. Will the Commissions try to overcome these problems instead of steadily retreating, as the Department has done during recent years or will they try to provide a wider service? Will they try to provide a service beyond the present hours or, in some other way, provide alternative services so that the needs of the community, of which there is a great variety, for these services may be met in a better way than has been the case in the past. I simply put those propositions because I believe that the Government should have made out a far better case for the establishment of these commissions. I think that we are entitled to expect far more from the commission of inquiry itself as to how the services to be undertaken by the commissions can be improved and also as to what improved benefits the community will receive as a result of their establishment.

In respect of the sorts of matters which I have been speaking the Opposition proposes to move some amendments to the Bills to ensure that the commissions will not be able to operate on purely commercial lines and also to provide that the government of the day will not only have the power but will also have an obligation to ensure that the commissions provide services to all sections of the Australian community and to all parts of Australia. So we propose to move an amendment that the charter of the commissions be widened much more than the Bills provide so that they will have a duty to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of Australia and also to provide throughout the whole of Australia such services as satisfy reasonable demands. We want specifically to emphasise that in discharging these duties the commissions will have particular regard to the special needs of the non-metropolitan areas of Australia.

Beyond that we think it is desirable that the Minister should have power to be able to give the commissions general policy directions. We appreciate that the Minister has power to approve most of the basic charges involved in providing postal and telecommunication services and that he will have other ways and means of influencing the commissions, particularly in respect of capital requirements, board appointments and so on. Nevertheless, we think it is important that he should have power to lay down general policy directions. This is not to say that the Minister should be able to say to a commission: ‘You are to give that particular person this service. You are to connect that particular person to a telephone service’. We think that is undesirable, but we think the Minister should be able to give to the commissions general policy directions. We also believe that such policy directions, if our proposal is accepted, should be laid on the tables of both Houses so that everyone in the political arena will be made aware of” them and they will be subject to all the constraints of debate inquiry and parliamentary procedure which are available to us.

We just cannot see how it is possible to establish independent commissions in such an important area as postal and telecommunications services without political obligations. We are concerned that this Government may be hoping to wash its hands of responsibility for these services by setting up these commissions and that it will be able to hide behind their decisions. We believe that not only is this undesirable but it is not possible because in the end the government of the day will have to take the full responsibility for the services which are provided by the commissions.

I turn to the question of the merger of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the new Australian Telecommunications Commission. As I said, the Opposition is not in favour of this proposal as outlined in the Telecommunications Bill. The OTC has had a most successful career since it was established in 1946. It is a relatively small body with about 2000 employees. The proposal is that it should be merged into this very large body, the new Telecommunications Commission, which will have about 90 000 employees. It is obvious that the expertise which has been developed in the OTC and the very high morale of its staff cannot possibly survive once it becomes part and parcel of such a huge organisation as the Telecommunications Commission. The arguments that have been put forward in favour of this proposal are basically that the services to be provided by this Commission are all the same whether they be internal or external; indeed, overseas telecommunications services cannot be provided without the use of the internal system and therefore they should come under the one body. This argument seems entirely to ignore the fact that for the last 29 years these 2 services have been running independently of each other. They have been able to reach satisfactory agreements with each other to overcome communication problems.

The OTC has been highly successful. It is noteworthy that in some countries the 2 services are combined but in many places they are provided by separate bodies. There are separate organisations in Japan, Canada and the United States just as there have been in Australia for 29 years. The Opposition views the OTC as a perfectly successful enterprise. Its operations have been conducted in a highly efficient manner. The morale of the staff is at a very high level. The OTC has been a most highly productive and market oriented body and in particular it has made very handsome profits. It has paid off its capital. It has also lowered some of its charges. Only a few months ago it lowered charges on telex and telegrams very considerably. There have also been reductions in overseas telephone charges.

When there is a merger proposal in respect of an organisation like that the first thing that occurs to us is: ‘Why on earth disturb such a highly successful body as that? Why do it simply on some theoretical basis that the 2 types of services are the same and therefore theoretically there might be advantages to be gained in combining them?’ It is most noteworthy that the Vernon Commission itself was divided on this issue. The Chairman of the Commission, Sir James Vernon, believed that the OTC should not be merged. He said that at the very least the question of a merger should not be considered until the Telecommunications Commission had settled down and had proved itself. His argument was very much the same as mine today on behalf of the Opposition. He said that overwhelming advantages would have to be seen before disturbing a highly successful operation such as the OTC. In addition to that, we have seen that the users of the service are fully satisfied with it. I am advised that 80 per cent of those people are totally opposed to the merger and 20 per cent believe that the decision should be postponed. There is no support amongst the users for the merger at the moment. A petition has been taken around members of the staff of OTC and 60 per cent of the staff have signed it in opposition to the merger.

I was rather surprised to find that the present Chairman of the OTC made a statement at the weekend saying that he was in favour of the merger. That statement got some publicity. I suppose a few people might have been impressed by the argument that the Chairman of the OTC was in favour of his organisation going out of existence and being merged with the proposed ATC. I was pleased to note that that is not the unanimous opinion of the board of the OTC, one member of which had the independence and fortitude to disagree publicly with his chairman’s statement. When one knows the real facts one could not attach any great significance to Mr Gibbs’ statement because he is the chairman of the Interim Commission of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I think I am right in saying that he was appointed chairman of the OTC after he had been given the job of interim chairman. It is well known that he is to become the chairman of the new Australian Telecommunications Commission. Therefore Mr Gibbs can be looking at this question only from 2 points of view. He has his responsibilities to the Australian Telecommunications Commission and to the OTC. I find it very difficult to believe that a man in his position could be clearly weighing up on behalf of the OTC the effect of the OTC going out of existence and being merged with the ATC. Therefore, despite the fact that I have a very high regard for Mr Gibbs and that I am sure he will do a very notable job as chairman of the new Australian Telecommunications Commission, I find it hard to believe that we in the Opposition should be persuaded by his views on this question in view of the conflict of interests which he obviously has.

For the reasons I have indicated the Opposition will be moving amendments designed to prevent the merger of the OTC and the new Australian Telecommunications Commission. We also are going to propose a number of other amendments and I think it would be preferable to deal with them in the Committee stage. In conclusion I simply would like to re-emphasise the Opposition’s concern that the establishment of these 2 separate commissions will not result in a purely commercial approach to the delivery of these services. We believe that with 2 separate commissions there could be dangers of duplication, both of premises and staff, which might add to the costs and thereby result in increased charges. The Postmaster-General has indicated already that the cost could be up to $9m in the first year. I think that figure may be somewhat conservative. I think the cost will increase in future. I am referring to the cost of providing 2 separate establishments and 2 separate services to run the postal services and the telecommunication services. We of the Opposition are concerned that the establishment of so-called independent commissions may lead to a position where the views of the public and the public demand for services will not be as sensitively met as they have been under the system that has applied in the past where ultimate responsibility is through the Minister to Parliament. We are most concerned to ensure that that ultimate political responsibility will remain where it is today, where it has been and where we believe it must continue to be. The responsibility for the adequate delivery of these services at reasonable charges to all sections of the Australian community in all parts of Australia must rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government of the day.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I shared the honour with former Senator Lawrie Wilkinson, on behalf of a group of Australian Labor Party senators and members, of having made a written submission to the Commission of Inquiry established in February 1973 to carry out a comprehensive investigation of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I also had the honour to give evidence to that Commission. Today I naturally am more than satisfied to see that a majority of the proposals and suggestions in our submission were the subject of major recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry and that those major recommendations have been accepted by the Government and are contained in the Bills currently being debated in the Senate.

I must say, however, that I have one disappointment and that is that the Commission of Inquiry recommended that the name ‘Australian Post Office ‘, something that has been part of our national heritage, something that has played a part in our daily lives and is a familiar billboard around the country, is going to disappear. If the Commission of Inquiry considered that the word Commission’ should be added to the name in order to identify or distinguish the new type of organisation that was to be established, it might have been more advisable if it had called it the Australian Post Office Commission instead of the Australian Postal Commission.

The Commission of Inquiry was set up in the wake of one of the most lengthy and confused debates that has ever taken place in the Senate on any single subject. I refer to the debate on the Post and Telegraph Rates Bills which commenced in this chamber in May 1967 and concluded on 28 May 1968 after being discussed in various forms. During that period the Senate saw the rejection on 2 occasions of Bills that sought an increase of 5 per cent in tariff for the Post Office. Also in that period we saw the unprecedented step of the Senate being recalled, on 20 June, during its recess to deliberate on certain matters. At that historic meeting the then Senator Murphy gave notice of motion in an endeavour to block the Government’s intention of bringing in the tariff increases by regulation. During this same period something of more importance took place, something that probably could be associated with the circumstances of today. I refer to the fact that the late Senator Cohen, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place, attempted on 8 May 1968 to have set up a joint committee to inquire into the Post Office and the establishment of a public corporation to conduct the business of the Post Office. Honourable senators who would like to blow the cobwebs off the Hansards of that time will find that the vote was tied 28-all, and it was therefore resolved in the negative. But I believe that the question which is now before us and which should be asked of the Opposition is whether these Bills will be passed, and passed in such a way that they will be recognisable and enable the intentions of the Commission to be carried out.

On many occasions in the past the Opposition has agreed in principle that something should be done about the Post Office, and that is very good indeed, but it has constantly resisted any attempt to do anything about improving these conditions. The Opposition has used every pretext and pretence to stall anything that could be done about it. It has a history of doing that, and I felt that I could sense in the attitude of the Opposition spokesman on postal matters, Senator Durack, something of the same attitude today. He is reluctantly agreeing to the recommendations of the Commission. On the other hand, Mr Whitlam, before becoming Prime Minister, promised that an inquiry would be held into the Post Office at the first possible moment. He instituted an inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir James Vernon, and surely the Opposition would not claim that Sir James is one of Mr Whitlam ‘s boys. On the contrary, he earned for himself a great reputation in public affairs because of the inquiries he conducted at the request of Prime Minister Menzies and a succession of Liberal Party governments. Well do we know the fate of the famous Vernon report on economic affairs that exposed many inadequacies of the government of the time. It was pigeon-holed, and nothing was done about it.

It is to the Prime Minister’s credit also that he said he would have an inquiry. He has had one, and it was headed by an independent, internationally renowned economist who, through his experience and through chairing inquiries into public matters, could possibly have earned for himself the title of the quintessence of authority on these matters. Again, it is to the Prime Minister’s credit that the Bills before us today are virtually the unchanged recommendations of the Commission. That is in sharp contrast with what happened to the last Vernon report that was requested by the Liberal-Country Party Government.

The Commission had a huge task to do. One of its major tasks was to identify the problems and then supply the solutions to them. Apart from Sir James Vernon, the other members of the Commission were Mr B. J. Callinan, an engineer who is also a Commissioner of the Victorian State Electricity Commission, and Mr J. J. Kennedy, a chartered accountant and successful company director. Possibly the Senate will pardon me for saying that Mr Kennedy had the best credentials, because he was a good Queenslander.

What does the Opposition want? Will it accept these Bills, which follow the recommendations of the Commission, without emasculating them in some way or another? Does it want another commission of inquiry? If it had another inquiry, would it pigeon-hole the report, as it did with the other Vernon report that it got? It might be pertinent at this juncture to examine what the Commissioners found in their inquiry. Among other things, they found that, if the Post Office continued to be run in the way in which it was being run, mounting up huge losses, and the people who used telephones having to subsidise the losses, there was no future for it. They also discovered that there had been no increase in tariffs in an election year until Labor came to office, despite the fact that increases were long overdue, justified and urgently required. I leave it to the imagination of honourable senators why the Liberal-Country Party governments never had an increase in tariffs in an election year. Instead, the present Opposition, which was in government for more than 23 years, created the circumstances in which the Post Office finds itself today. It made the Post Office a subsidised service, and it has to answer for it. It is a true case of nationalisation or socialisation at its best or its worst, whatever way one likes to look at it. It is a case of the taxpayers subsidising postal users through that policy. That is putting it in a nutshell, yet we hear honourable senators opposite becoming alarmed and indignant when this Government is proposing schemes to subsidise health services. They think it is all right to subsidise the Post Office but it is not all right to subsidise health services.

In this subsidy arrangement that they followed for more than 23 years perhaps the most despicable aspect of all is that, of the postal users in this country, 75 per cent are big businesses, which are getting a tax deduction in any case. But that was the policy of subsidy; it was directed at subsidising big business in this country. I have said before in debates on postal services appropriations and I say again that the simple solution to Post Office difficulties lies in the principle, which applies in any business, that those who require or use a service must be prepared to pay for it. For example, the chap who purchases and runs a luxury limousine knows that he has to pay for the extra petrol that he uses. The same principle applies to the chap who enjoys travelling long distances in a motor car. He knows that he has to foot the bill for the extra petrol used in travelling those long distances. I submit that the situation is no different with a government business; those who use the service should be called upon to pay for it.

In its inquiry the Commission also found that, under previous governments, telecommunication profits were used to cover up postal losses and that that was the method of accountancy that has been used under the guidance of the Opposition when it was in government. Millions of dollars were used as subsidies to prop up country interest. Graziers were paying lower rentals for their telephones than age pensioners in the cities were paying. How could anyone with a spark of humanitarianism or any concern for the public interest say that the instances I have cited were in the public interest? Talking about public interest brings us to the stage where we should reflect on just what were the terms of reference given to this commission of inquiry. The first term of reference of the Commission, which was established on 22 February 1973, was this:

In the public interest, what changes, if any, should be made in the organisation, administration and operations of postal and telecommunications services (including overseas services) provided in Australia, including . . . changes in relation to -

Then follow 8 detailed items which, with the permission of the Senate, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. They are part of the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The items read as follows)- the range of services to the public and their adequacy to meet present and future needs, including services as affected by proposals approved but not yet implemented; the financing of recurrent and capital costs; management staff relations, including the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board; responsibilities of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the division of functions between that Commission and the Postmaster-General ‘s Department; urban and regional development; procurement of supplies with the aim of developing Australian industries; the performance of work by contract; and other matters to which the attention of the Commission is particularly directed by the Postmaster-General in the course of the inquiry.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-So much for that. I would now like to direct my attention to matters that were discovered by the Commission in relation to staff, and management and staff relations. The way in which previous Liberal-Country Party governments have allowed the staff of the Post Office to be pulled down by the Press and the media has been nothing less than cruel and callous. They have allowed a fine service to be destroyed. No one could deny that the morale of the Post Office at the time was very low. As soon as anything went wrong in the Post Office or as soon as there were headlines in the newspapers about some disruption to postal services, honourable senators opposite would rise in their places and make vitriolic and vicious attacks on the employees of the Post Office. In sharp contrast to that, I can recall that at one time the postmaster in a provincial town would be included amongst those members of the community who were considered to have some status. There would be the magistrate, the school headmaster, the bank manager, the school teacher and the police sergeant, and the postmaster would be included with them. But due to neglect of the services in the Post Office and due to the fact that nothing has been done to improve the amenities or the incentives for the staff of the Post Office, we sadly have seen the status of the postmaster in these country towns downgraded.

I believe the Post Office staff to be efficient, courteous and capable of giving a fine service if given the initiatives. I have had personal experience with them. The Opposition, when in government, killed those initiatives and incentives by its failure to do anything about postal services. What chance did this band of loyal employees have? They had the Public Service breathing down one side of their neck and the Treasury breathing down the other side of their neck. The Commission has found that the skills required of a man to run a modern, competitive public enterprise such as the Post Office are entirely different from those required of him to be a public servant. The Commission also discovered that constraints were imposed on the Post Office by its being subject to the Public Service Board and its relativities. These were things that the Commission found in its examination. The Commission found that this has been the main reason and the main cause for public dissatisfaction with the Post Office. It was the system, not the employees, that beat the postal services. Yet Opposition senators would claim that it was the employees and not the system. Even as late as today Senator Durack has said that he wants to continue the old style of system but under another name- the Australian Postal Commission.

When it is established the Commission will change the system dramatically, and the changes that will be effected are outlined in its report. In this significant debate on the postal services I take this opportunity to congratulate the band of workers who have carried out their work in the Post Office under great difficulty. They have nothing to be ashamed of. The Vernon Commission said that they had done a good job. As I was saying before, there is a vast difference between administration and management, and those points were dramatically brought out in the Commission’s findings. The Public Service administrates. The Commission also found that for the Post Office to work efficiently it has to have unfettered management, free of politicians and free of political or other motives except to supply a superb postal service. It is very easy for the critics to pose as defenders of cheap Post Office services when they are not called upon to implement the management decisions that such policies require.

I now turn to the dilemma facing the services of the Post Office which was highlighted in the Commission’s report. The Post Office is often criticised unfairly for being inefficient. I have heard such attacks on the Post Office being made by honourable senators opposite who have said that the Post Office is inefficient and that all it needs to turn a loss into a profit is the introduction of business efficiency. One of the questions asked of the departmental officers by the chairman of the Commission of Inquiry, Sir James Vernon- this appears in the transcript of evidence- was this:

If the Post Office was able to be managed 100 per cent efficiently and was able to sack redundant staff and run it on business lines, how much would the Post Office save a year?

The experienced departmental officers replied:

Between $ 1 Om and $ 1 5 m a year.

So, if this 100 per cent efficiency which is so strongly advocated by Opposition senators was obtained, the saving to the Post Office would be between $10m and $15m a year. Expressed in another way, it would mean a reduction of half a cent in the cost of each item posted- certainly a big deal from the point of view of the Opposition. We on this side of the chamber realise that the Commission can never be regarded as being the saviour of the Post Office. All it will be able to do is what the Commission of Inquiry did, namely, identify the problems, separate them, and try to solve them. If the Post Office is to be successful, the hard, cold fact is that the Post Office has to stand on its own feet like any other successful business enterprise has to do. Attitudes have to be changed. A policy whereby the user pays for the service has to be introduced. Only in that way can it function in the public interest, and it was the intention of acting in the public interest that the Commission of Inquiry was set up. I claim that nothing has demoralised the Post Office more than the policy of subsidisation created by previous Liberal-Country Party governments. That method of running the Post Office is not desirable, has been unsuccessful, kills all incentive and demoralises. That has been found out not just by the Vernon Commission of Inquiry in Australia. In 1968 the President’s Commission on Postal Organisations in the United States of America expressed this opinion:

Experience indicates that the corporate form of organisation is peculiarly adapted to the administration of governmental programs which are predominantly of a commercial character- those which are revenue producing, are at least potentially self-sustaining, and involve a large number of business-type transactions with the public.

In their business operations such programs require greater flexibility than the customary type of appropriation budget ordinarily permits. As a rule the usefulness of a corporation lies in its ability to deal with the public in the manner employed by private business for similar work.

The description exactly fits the postal service. We have concluded that a Government corporation can be a vehicle permitting highly effective management for the Post Office. The purposes of the organisation should be spelled out in the Congressional charter and its day-to-day operations conducted by a professional management held responsible for results.

We recommend that a Postal Corporation owned entirely by the Federal Government be chartered by Congress to operate the postal service of the United States on a selfsupporting basis.

As if that was not enough, in 1967 a similar inquiry conducted in the United Kingdom by a House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industries reported as follows:

Your committee suggest three ways in which this policy of allowing the postal services to run into deficit may have harmed the Post Office. First, the accumulated deficit on the postal services amounted in August 1966 to nearly £30m. This increased the borrowing requirements for the postal service, and so interest charges and the need for further revenues. Secondly, there is always a danger that allowing a service to run at a loss may discourage enterprise and imagination on the part of the management. If a service is not required, or permitted, to pay its way, the stimulus to commercial efficiency may easily be weakened. In addition the fact that a service is regularly making a loss may have a depressing effect on management and staff alike. Lastly, despite the success of the telecommunications service in more than paying its way in these years, the heavy deficit on the postal service resulted in the Post Office as a whole failing to achieve their financial objective.

That is the position in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. Those countries have benefited from the experience and have corrected the idea that a subsidised Post Office cannot be successful. Of course, Mr Acting President, all of us realise the importance of the Post Office to the community. No other government instrumentality is unique, as the Post Office is. It has on the one hand, a monopoly to deliver mails throughout the country, yet on the other hand it has to compete in a wide variety of services. It has money orders to contend with. It is in competition with banks and in the transfer of money. It has a parcel and courier delivery service.

The trouble in the past has been that these services have been regarded as a right, not as a cost. Possibly this false idea originated with the introduction of the ‘penny postage’ complex, which was recognised internationally. The penny postage was a famous thing to talk about, but let us be honest and fair to ourselves. If this penny postage complex was allowed to continue, the charge that would be applicable today would be $ 1 . That would be the correct charge today if the penny postage complex, which senators opposite followed so religiously for 23 years, was put in its true perspective.

What Senator Durack said during his speech was true. The Post Office was regarded perhaps much more as a service before telephones and speedy transport came into existence. It was more essential then and it helped to develop this nation. I do not think any senator in this chamber has any argument with that contention, but that is not the position today. Senators are talking about the horse and buggy days, and that is the type of thinking they are trying to introduce into this Bill. They have not become modern and have not lifted themselves to present day conditions. Claims by senators opposite about things that applied in the days before rapid transport and telephone facilities may be correct, but they do not apply today.

There is no alternative but to conduct the Post Office on a commercial basis, and not necessarily on a profit-making basis. I should like those who criticise the Post Office to think of the comparison that I shall make. If a person wants to send a priority letter by Ansett from say, Brisbane to Melbourne, the charge is about $3, yet the Post Office, which still has to transport the letter from the post office or pillar box, put it on a plane, and then arrange delivery at the other end, is entitled to charge only 10c. Where is the fairness in this argument? Ansett can get $3 for a mail delivery, but the people’s delivery service, the Post Office, is entitled to charge only 10c.

If a person wanted to transfer his furniture from Canberra to Cooma, there would be a freight charge, a particular charge, for that removal. If he was going to transport his furniture from Canberra to Cairns, another charge would operate, yet senators opposite say: ‘Let the Post Office charge the same tariff throughout the length and breadth of this country, irrespective of what distances the undertaking for service covers’. We all know that there is a world recession and a resources problem at present. Prices are increasing and if they are not allowed to increase, service will be reduced. I have heard Opposition senators advocate this theory, so I am taking it on board today. The Post Office is a labour-intensive industry, so if inflation is going to run at 20 per cent and labour costs must increase, so must the prices of the commodities or services that the Post Office offers. No one acting decently can seek political capital by dodging his responsibility and making the service pay for itself.

Before I conclude my speech, I should like to deal with the question of interest charges. I know that this is a controversial issue as far as the Post Office is concerned, but I believe that money has a cost. If the Australian taxpayer is lending money to the postal services and interest is not paid, the Post Office is subsidising the users of the service, and surely we have pointed out clearly this afternoon in this debate that turning the Post Office into a subsidised service has been its undoing.

Senators opposite, when in Government, created the circumstances in which there was a subsidised service. That killed incentive and the will to act in a commercial way. To summarise, Mr Acting President, I say that the commission promised by the Prime Minister before he became Prime Minister has been held. The Commission comprised men of reputation in their particular areas, and as I have said, the chairman is an internationally renowned economist, Sir James Vernon. Members of the Commission have made major recommendations after enlisting the best consultative advice that the world could offer and after visiting other countries to see how the postal services operated there.

The Government has accepted the Vernon Commission’s recommendations, and those recommendations completely change the attitude of the Post Office. The winds of change are blowing. We have the benefit of the United Kingdom and the United States experience and I believe that if we are allowed to enter into the spirit of what is spelt out in the Vernon Commission’s report, hundreds of millions of dollars will accrue to the postal services and will transform it into a viable commercial proposition of which we in Australia will be proud.

The Postmaster-General, at the introduction of the debate, accepted the suggestion that the Bills would be debated cognately. I have only one or two very brief observations to make regarding the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the suggestion of the Opposition that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission should not be merged into the Telecommunications Commission. I heard Senator Durack ask the question: Why on earth should we disturb the OTC? He said that it is a nice compact little organisation employing only 2000 people and yet it produces a very healthy balance sheet. Why on earth should not the OTC produce a healthy balance sheet? Even if it was in the control of honourable senators opposite it would still produce a good balance sheet because it is in a very preferred position. Honourable senators know that the OTC looks after international communications. Yet the Australian Post Office, which supplies the telephones, the wiring, the switching gear, the cables and everything that makes an overseas call possible, gets a mere 33c from the OTC for each call. It is unbelievable. I nearly fell off my chair when I read that the only recompense which the Australian Post Office receives from OTC for initiating a call throughout Australia was 33c.

I am not a member of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, but I know the calibre of the men appointed to it. I know that they will be worth their salt. One of the first things that they will be doing will be to look at the charge that is levied on the OTC. Even if it were trebled I imagine it would still be a very light touch on the OTC.

Senator Durack:

– Will it remain independent?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Honourable senators opposite are opposing the OTC being included in the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I know it is very unhealthy to try to prophesy events but I make this prophecy: If the correct charges are made on the OTC for the services that are supplied at present by the Post Office in Australia for international telephone hook-ups, the people who will be showing a very healthy profit- honourable senators opposite will be congratulating them as an enterprising and successful operation- will be the Australian Telecommunications Commission, and the one whose balance sheet will take a downward trend will be the OTC. I am wondering, if honourable senators opposite are then still about, who they will blame for this change of financial position. I cannot see the merit in the advocacy of honourable senators opposite who want to isolate the OTC from the Australian Telecommunications Commission. They say this should be done because it is a viable proposition.

I ask honourable senators opposite to think over the claim I have made this afternoon that only 33c is being paid to the Post Office for the use of its services. Perhaps they feel that is reasonable. If they do not, and they see a reasonable service in 2 years time, will they still be telling us what a marvellous business enterprise the

OTC is? One of the things Senator Durack said during his speech was that he agreed with the Commission Chairman. He said that Sir James Vernon expressed the view that the OTC should be kept separate from the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Senator Durack said that he shared that view. He did not say anything about the views that the Chairman expressed on all these other matters. It is obvious that if Senator Durack had had his way and if by chance, the Chairman had brought in a minority report nothing probably would have been done about the Austraiian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Senator Durack also referred to Mr Gibbs, who was the Chairman of the OTC. Mr Gibbs said that it was a good thing that the OTC be merged into the Australian Telecommunications Commission. He made the point that it was not the view expressed by the other OTC members. Senator Durack expressed the opinion of Sir James Vernon on this matter but omitted to tell the Senate that the other 2 members of the Commission of Inquiry were in favour of the OTC being included in the Australian Telecommunications Commission. I ask the honourable senator to be fair when he is quoting. He was quoting a minority report, in the case of Mr Gibbs, to his advantage but he did not give the Senate the benefit of the facts that two out of the 3 Commissioners were in favour of the OTC being merged into the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Let me conclude by using a peroration in an extract from the journal of the ‘United Postal Union’, a body that works in close conjunction with the Postal Bureau and the United Nations in developing postal services in developing countries. The extract from the journal reads:

There could be no more fitting end to this account of one hundred years of international postal co-operation than the following quotation from the first edition of the memorandum referred to earlier

Few people in the world are unaware nowadays of the existence of the Post. However, it is only when its services suddenly become unavailable that its full significance is realised.

However efficiently it is run, however great and varied the needs it is called upon to meet, the Post is so deeply rooted in the habits of people that the action of sending or receiving mail is all but automatic. As an institution at the service of everyone the Post gradually comes to appear as a natural extension of each individual’s activity. As people are not constantly reminded of its presence, as they are reminded, for example, of roads and railways because those achievements are tangible, it is taken for granted.

As a result, the public is inclined to take little interest in- or at least to be unaware of- the problems involved in ensuring the flow of postal traffic. For most people, the circulation of mail is like the presence of oxygen in the air, and it is only when it stops that they realise how essential it is to life.

Without pursuing the analogy further, it is nevertheless clear that the post must be able to make its services available, without restrictions, to every individual and group so that all, each in his own way and according to his needs, may take part in the general flow of communications and exchanges which is one of the vital currents of our times and a tangible proof of the social, political, cultural and economic development of human societies. ‘

In that spirit I commend the Bills before the Senate and hope that they will have a speedy passage through the chamber and be carried enthusiastically.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating cognately the 3 postal services Bills. The first 2 Bills are to establish the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission. The third Bill, which is virtually a consequential Bill, will set up the machinery with which the Postmaster-General’s Department is to be abolished and the former 2 Commissions will be established. The Postal Services Bill 1975 sets about virtually to establish a commission to take over from the Postmaster-General’s Department all those operations, controls and charges and other like matters such as policy and development, which are the present province of the Australian Post Office. Half of the development capital of the Commission is to be financed from its own revenue raising capacity, and half from loans from the Treasury, at interest, or from other approved borrowing sources. I may in future refer once again to this circumstance: I think it is significant that the Bill provides for the Commission to be reimbursed for moneys which may be lost if the Minister refuses to accept its recommendation as to postal charges. In other words, the difference between the amount acceptable by the Minister and the amount promoted by the Commission is to be reimbursed. This could be an extremely expensive circumstance to the Australian public, and to the Australian public through the Treasury.

I wish to allay in some way the fears of Senator McAuliffe that the Opposition is in any way totally opposed to the concept of the establishment of these 2 commissions. He seemed to have the idea that there was total opposition. The position is quite the converse. I wish to assert that the Opposition parties accept and support, in the main, the concept of the establishment of these 2 commissions. We have several observations to make and we have a number of amendments to move. I would submit- I hope the Government will agree- that our proposed amendments are of a totally constructive character and will improve rather than diminish the effectiveness of the legislation which we are discussing.

I was interested to hear Senator McAuliffe ‘s views about the sort of service with which this great public utility concerns itself. In a country as vast as Australia I do not suppose there could be any area of greater importance than that which relates to communications. Senator McAuliffe seemed to suggest that such communications and such services should be paid for by the users. That is a meritorious and most attractive thought, on the surface. If it is carried to its logical conclusion, I would assume that only those people who have children at educational institutions should be paying for educational facilities. There are many other areas such as roads in which it seems to me a fairly hopeless proposition to assume that only the users of these facilities should be called upon to pay for them. The social and economic development of a nation goes far beyond a specific group of users of any facility.

Our amendments are of a nature that will, I trust, prove, in the Government’s view, to be a constructive addition to the legislation which we are discussing. We believe it is important that this legislation should provide the Government, through its Minister, with the capacity to have some sort of policy control in relation to postal and telecommunications facilities. It seems to me that if we establish commissions whose sole objective is to make some sort of laboratory type maximum profit then we will set up in our midst commissions and operatives which will pay perhaps scant regard to the total social and economic requirements of the Australian community. If the Commission were to concern itself purely with its economic viability or its profit making capacity, there is a very real possibility that significant numbers of professional staff, engineers, maintenance and technical men may be removed from their present areas of operation and concentrated in larger areas in which it may be considered they could operate more effectively, on the guideline of profit making alone.

I draw attention to that fact because I want to suggest to the Senate that it is in the area of communications that a very real contribution can be made by any government in this country to realistic decentralisation. I want to suggest that the decentralisation of the personnel and the facilities of the various communications establishments is of great significance in the total development of the social and economic capacity of this country. I have in mind the extent to which the personnel and the facilities are already decentralised. I believe it would be a sad day if we were to turn that tendency towards decentralisation to some form of centralised control or some form of centralised establishment, for in the areas in which these facilities and these personnel are found, those people of themselves are of significant social value to the areas in which they live and operate. I want to suggest that, more than that, the presence of those personnel in the provincial and country towns and other remote areas of Australia is a boost to those areas. The operators are close to the spot. The users of the communications facilities are close to them. In many cases they know the operators personally. Becouse of these things, the efficiency of the operation is quite definately improved. I do not believe that we should lose sight of the fact that the diffusion of the staff and the facilities throughout the country leads to an economic and social growth which we should be loathe to change. Surely in this country of enormous potential we should be looking at the possibilities and the realities of extending rather than restricting the facilities and the personnel of the postal and telecommunications operations as they spread across the continent.

I noted Senator McAuliffe’s reference to subsidy. There is a strong argument against subsidy in many fields. 1 suppose one would have to start with the tariff field. One could go through practically every field of human endeavour in Australia and find written into it some form or some measure of subsidy. I believe that in the postal circumstance and in the telecommunications circumstance there is good reason to look at the advisability of retaining a capacity to subsidisein other words, retaining a capacity for a government to indicate at least strongly to the commission involved policy guidelines. The cost burden of the telephonic and postal communications to those areas outside metropolitan Australia is significant. I do not have to tell the Senate the sort of costs that are involved in the establishment of telephone communications in many parts of the relatively remote Australian scene. I am advised that the costs of construction of a private section of telephone line range from $2,000 to $9,000 or $10,000. 1 believe that is an exorbitant sum which is quite outside the capacity of the individual to pay; nor do I think it is fair and proper that it should be within the responsibility of the individual to pay.

I asked a question in the Senate last week regarding the reconstruction of telephone communications in many of the badly burnt out areas of the Australian inland which in many cases have been without telephone communication for 4 or 5 months. I received the reply that presumably the money was not available to help these people, who cannot at this stage help themselves, to find sums of approximately $4,000 and $5,000. The question was referred to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) who used it to suggest that I should support the introduction of an Australian Government insurance office. Of course, I take his point, but in the absence of that office I believe it right that the Postmaster-General’s Department should consider taking the responsibility upon itself to help in some way in the restoration of communications in those areas which probably need communication much more desperately than metropolitan Australia.

It is my view that the Senate and the Government should consider the possibility of introducing a form of equalisation in postal and telecommunication costs. Naturally it would be an extraordinarily expensive venture and it could not reach real and total equalisation but I believe that there is real value in looking at the possibility of introducing a system of equalising costs to the users of the postal and telecommunications services in this country. I have in mind the equalisation legislation which was recently withdrawn regarding the price of petrol in Australia. Whilst that equalisation was in existence- admittedly it involved a subsidy of approximately $2 8 m- the price of petrol throughout Australia varied by only 4c a gallon. Since that equalisation has ceased to operate the variance is approximately 30c a gallon. Consequently, I believe there is real value in the Government’s looking at the possibility of bringing about some form of equalisation in postal and telecommunications costs if for no other reason than to increase the possibility of real decentralisation of industry in this great nation.

I have referred very briefly to reimbursements provided for in the legislation setting up these 2 commissions. I think they are significant because, whether they are right or wrong, quite clearly they must involve a significant increase in costs. If the commissions are to be involved in finding half their developmental capital from their own revenue, they will concentrate more and more, I suggest, on enterprises which are purely and totally profitable. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you once again: Is this the total objective of postal and telecommunications facilities in this country, or should they be more closely related to the overall balanced economic and social development of the Australian scene? I believe most definitely that the latter should be the objective. I believe also that the institution of these 2 commissions to take the place of the Australian Post Office may jeopardise industrial quiet. The more militant of the unions in the postal and telecommunications areas may cause more strife, in my view, if they are dealing with a semi-autonomous commission than they do when they deal directly with the Government.

I wish to refer briefly to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission which it is the purpose of this legislation to merge into the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission. The Opposition believes, as Sir James Vernon in a minority report also believed, that it is the wrong time to merge into the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission the extremely effective and efficient, if relatively small, organism which is the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. That body has been in operation since 1946. It has a remarkable performance in spite of the advantage which you, Mr Acting Deputy President, asserted that it has. Of course there is truth in your assertion. But if it has those advantages I do not believe that it is reasonable or logical that they should be submerged in another institution with virtually negligible results except perhaps in some real measure to destroy the initiative and the morale of the smaller efficient organisation.

The OTC has a growth rate at this stage of approximately 14.5 per cent. It is a constantly increasing operation. I believe that in April 1 970 its capital was assessed at $3 5 m. It has been paying interest of 7!6 per cent on that capital to the Government. A year later the figure was 8 lh per cent. In 1974 the capital increased to $50m and on that amount the OTC was able to pay interest at 10 per cent. In spite of all this it has been able to reduce its charges. It seemed to me, at least, that virtually no arguments were put forward for the merging of this extremely efficient organisation into a very much larger one- a 2 000- strong entity into a 90 000-strong entity. Because of these matters I feel that there can be no real purpose in submerging, at least at this time, the OTC within the larger Australian Telecommunications Commission.

For these reasons I believe that the amendments that we shall move to this legislation are basically constructive. They do not destroy the Bill; they do not destroy the concept of the proposed Commission. They merely tend to give to the Government and to the PostmasterGeneral what I believe they should rightly have in the case of a public utility. They should surely have some measure of control over policy guidelines. They should surely be able to relate the operations of these commissions to the economic and social development of Australia and not purely and totally to their capacity to make a specific profit. On these grounds I support the amendments and I hope that the Government sees fit to support them because of their constructive capacity.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– The 3 Bills that we are discussing were introduced by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) to implement the Government’s decision to establish Postal and Telecommunications Commissions. Mr Acting Deputy President, I believe that your contribution to the Senate this afternoon has more than answered all the criticism and opposition that have been levelled at these Bills. The 3 Bills are the final product of a decision taken by the Government in January 1973 to establish a Commission of Inquiry to conduct a comprehensive examination of the Postmaster-General’s Department. As has been mentioned by speakers who have preceded me in this debate, the Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office was chaired by an eminent Australian, Sir James Vernon. The Commission’s report was presented to His Excellency the Governor-General in April 1974. The Government accepted several major recommendations made by the Commission. These were that the postal and telecommunications services would be separated and would in the future be provided by 2 statutory authorities which would be independent of the Public Service Board on matters of organisation, staff, pay and conditions of service. The purpose of the Bills before the Senate is to implement those recommendations of the Commission.

For some considerable time the unions which have members employed by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department have asked for an inquiry into the workings of the Post Office, and for the Post Office to be formed into a commission. They have been most anxious that this should be done. Except for the one organisation which has members employed by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the other unions which have members employed by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department have supported the proposal to form the Post Office into a commission because the unions believe that is the only way in which their problems can be solved reasonably and within a reasonable time. Senator Durack said that he was opposed to the incorporation of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into one of the commissions to be established under these Bills. He criticised Mr A. G. Gibbs, the Chairman of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, for the Press statement that he made on this matter. I believe that Mr Gibbs’ statement should be read to the Senate. Mr Gibbs said:

There have been emotional statements, misleading statements and mis-statements about the position of OTC in respect to the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission. OTC will not be submerged. It will merge with the ATC- as an entity, reporting to ATC’s managing director.

Senator Durack said that one member of the board of OTC opposed the merger of OTC into the proposed Telecommunications Commission and also that 80 per cent of the people working in the OTC opposed the merger. Mr Gibbs went on to say:

A clear majority of members of the OTC board support the merger. Additionally all members of the Interim Australian Telecommunications Commission endorse the decision to retain the overseas unit as an entity within the new Commission subject to the normal corporate approach in consideration of such matters as personnel, finance and industrial relations.

Putting things in perspective it should be noted that only 0.S per cent of all telephone calls originated in Australia are overseas calls. This is one call in every 2000. They are all handled by Post Office telephonists.

In your speech, Mr Acting Deputy President, you mentioned 33c as the amount that the Post Office receives for the work that it does in helping to transmit these calls overseas. Mr Gibbs continued:

In the near future people will dial their overseas calls direct just as today they use STD throughout Australia.

What will happen to OTC when overseas calls can be dialled direct? Ten years ago we did not visualise that we would be able to make a telephone call from Canberra to Western Australia without going through the trunk line section of the Post Office. Today we can dial a number in Western Australia as quickly as we can dial a local number. I think it is worth while quoting the rest of Mr Gibbs’ Press statement. He continued:

The national and international networks will be one. Modern technology shows that this should be so- for example today’s international satellite systems are tomorrow’s national satellite systems. The international telecommunications traffic of today and the future depends on the national network to give the customer access.

There are no sound reasons why the national and international networks should not be planned together, operated together and presented to the customer as one system for his or her use.

Common planning, operating and financing is important if advantage is to be taken of modern technologies and economies secured. Australia should not lag behind other countries in doing this. Surely the objective must be to give Australians overall the best and cheapest telecommunications service whether they are using it for local or overseas messages. Integration not separation of the management of the national and international services is the only way to achieve this.

I believe that statement by Mr Gibbs certainly supports the proposal to merge the OTC into the Telecommunications Commission to be established under these Bills. Some fears have been raised as to whether the staffs of the Post Office and of the other authorities will be affected by this merger.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator DRURY:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I said that 10 years ago we did not visualise that at some future date we would be able to dial direct from Canberra to Western Australia almost as quickly as we could dial a local telephone number. This has been brought about by the advance in technology and the expertise within the Postmaster-General ‘s Department. There is a possibility that the same type of subscriber trunk dialling could be used to call overseas numbers. Let us examine this possibility. With so many different forms of communication today, such as satellite communication, it is within the realms of possibility that at some near time we will be able to direct dial to overseas countries. Whether it is called subscriber trunk dialling or international trunk dialling does not really matter. It is something that we have to contemplate. With the expertise we have in the Postmaster-General’s Department and with the knowledge that other countries have gained this is a very strong possibility.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Is it the expertise in the Postmaster-General ‘s Department or the ITT in the United States of America? Where is the expertise?

Senator DRURY:

– I believe we could gain from the knowledge of people not only in the United States of America but also in other countries. Of course, telephonic communication ( between countries is very expensive. Whilst Senator Wright and I were in New York, Senator Wright dialled Hobart on one occasion. The cost was about $17 for, I believe, 3 minutes. If international subscriber dialling came about and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission were not merged with the Australian Telecommunications Commission, there is a strong possibility that the OTC would be no longer required. I feel that the merging of the OTC with the ATC will help overcome the possibility of the OTC becoming redundant.

Senator Scott in his speech said that the Opposition was not totally opposed to the measures contained in the Bill but could not support the merger of the OTC because a sufficient case had not been made out for it by the Government. I repeat that with the advance in technology in the field of communications the OTC in any case eventually would have to merge with the ATC. It would be a pity if the OTC remained outside the ATC because we possibly could lose a lot of the expertise now within the OTC. Concern was also expressed by the Opposition senators with the problems sparsely populated areas and remote areas and the possibility of their not being able to communicate with the outside world. If those honourable senators had read the statement of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) on the proposed postal and telecommunications districts they would have seen that 96 per cent of the population resides within 80 kilometres of a district centre. So there would not be a great number of people in remote areas who would be great distances from a district centre. Again, with the advance in communications and the expertise in the Post Office, these people could be brought quickly into communication with the rest of the country.

We have heard a lot about the justification for the merging of the OTC with the ATC. It appears from the Vernon report that there was considered to be some conflict in respect of the division of functions. These overlapping responsibilities mean that problems over division of functions could arise not only in operational fields but also in planning, research and development, finance, marketing and in the customer relations field. Two of the Commissioners, Messrs Callaghan and Kennedy, considered that issues such as conflict over financial arrangements, relationships with customers and division of operational responsibilities are symptomatic of problems of divided control. For instance, the present arrangements for billing and customer relations introduced elements of confusion for customers. There have been conflicts over OTC advertisements to promote the use of a service at a time when the Commission has been unable to meet the resultant demand on the international network. The majority view of the Vernon Commission was that placing responsibility for both national and international telecommunications with one statutory body will overcome problems caused by divided control and conflicting objectives. Also, increasingly national and international telecommunications systems are merging through developing technology and I mention 2 examples here. The first is international subscriber dialling which means that Australian subscribers would be able to dial direct a number in another country. It would involve interaction of both national and international systems. The second example is that overseas telephone accounting would merge further into the domestic system as international subscriber dialling is introduced. At present, all billing for telephone services is carried out by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department.

I mentioned prior to the dinner adjournment that Senator McAuliffe had referred to the amount that the Post Office was receiving from OTC. International telephone channels are being used to transmit information in data form under the present system of separate responsibility for national and international systems. The question of whose responsibility this new service is becomes one of whether the service is by nature a telephone or telegram service. The incorporation of both the national and international systems into one telecommunications authority will enable the planning and development of all facilities to proceed to provide an integrated telecommunications service. The majority of the members of the Vernon Commission also considered that the merging of the 2 systems would ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of plant, equipment and other resources. They also suggested that a merger would enable tariffs for local, trunk and international calls to be considered at the same time to provide a balanced tariff structure. In relation to tariffs, the Commission thought it was unfair that taxes should be levied on international calls and not on local or trunk calls in that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission pays taxes while the Department is exempt from the payment of taxes.

I think Senator Durack was concerned about what would happen to the staffs when the merger took place. The majority of the members of the Vernon Commission considered that a single organisation will offer to the staff of both organisations better career prospects and better scope for advancement. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission at present employs only 2000 people whereas the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission will employ 90 000. 1 think this should prove to Senator Durack that there is a strong case for the merger of the 2 organisations without any effect upon the staff.

The majority of the Commission also noted the considerable number of overseas countries that operate their international and national telecommunications through one organisation. In both Britain and New Zealand one organisation only handles all telecommunications. In Canada there are separate authorities but the internal network is operated by private companies. I believe that the service to the public will be improved by the merging of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the Australian

Telecommunications Commission. The setting up of separate Commissions will certainly help to bring this about. Therefore I support the Bills.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– We are considering in this cognate debate 3 Bills which will have a considerable effect on postal services and telecommunications in Australia once the Parliament has passed them. We have heard Senator Durack and Senator Scott outline the attitude of the Opposition to these Bills. We have supported, in effect, the principle behind the measures. We believe we should establish 2 authorities to conduct these services from now on. Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner and before Senator McAuliffe retreated to the anonymity of the chair, he enunciated certain views which were quite interesting. He suggested- this is important coming from a socialist supporter of the Government in the Senate- that the principle of providing a service ought to be that the people who receive the service ought to pay for it. The Government, since it came to office, has seemed to place every impediment possible in the way of the private sector making a profit.

For Senator McAuliffe to enunciate this in great detail seemed to me to be quite significant. He raised the question of Medibank and compared it to the proposal in this legislation. When Medibank is established I think I shall be reminding Senator McAuliffe about his comments. Who will be paying for Medibank after it has been in existence for 12 months? I believe that at that time we will discover just who will be paying for that particular service. It will be the taxpayers of Australia. I was concerned initially, when examining the Vernon report, about the trade unions’ attitude to this proposal. It seems to me that, according to the report of the Vernon Commission, the unions representing 5 1 000 employees in these particular organisations about which we are talking were against the separation of the administration. Only 32 000 employees, represented by their unions, supported the separation. I hope that we can be reassured by what Senator Drury has said that the unions fully support this proposal.

Senator Drury also mentioned the importance that we ought to place on the experience of overseas countries. I found it fairly difficult to get adequate data to substantiate the experience of overseas countries. I have observed that in the United Kingdom the Post Office Corporation is now responsible for both the postal and telecommunications services. The Post Office Corporation was established in October 1969 to replace the General Post Office. Senator Drury and I think Senator McAuliffe said that this type of operation would remove the Commission from the influence of politicians. I should like to mention that the results of the establishment of this Corporation in the United Kingdom show that it sustained a loss of more than £30m in the first 6 months of its life compared with an estimated profit of more than £ 100m. This loss has continued to rise. In 1973-74 there was an overall deficit of f 128m, with losses on all the post office’s main services including £6 1.4m on telecommunications, £57. 5m on posts and £9. 7m on giro and remittance services. This gives an indication of what has happened overseas. I agree that it is difficult to compare because the Corporation is dealing with both telecommunications and postal services.

I should like to refer to Senator McAuliffe ‘s statement that the establishment of these Commissions will remove the influence of the politicians. I think that is what he said but he can check it in the Hansard record tomorrow. Again may I refer to what has happended in the United Kingdom. I would like to mention what Mr Tony Maiden said in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ about the establishment of the British Post Office Corporation. He said that decisionmaking by senior administrators of the British Post Office is subject to as much government influence as before and that there has been a corresponding reduction in the administration’s own political strength and influence because it lacked direct access to the responsible Minister. I am sure that our Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) will make sure that some recognition will be paid to the amendments which will be put forward by the Opposition to ensure that the proposed authorities will be subject to ministerial influence and subject to the scrutiny of this House.

In the United States of America there is a different system again. It is very hard to make a comparison with comparable countries which do not have a situation exactly the same as there is in Australia, but in the United States telecommunications services are run by private enterprise while postal services as from 12 August 1970 have been run by the United States Postal Service which is a corporation-style federal agency. I ask the Minister whether he has examined the method of financing postal and telecommunications services in the United States. He will undoubtedly know that financing of the United States Postal Service is by bond issue up to a limit of $ 10,000m with an annual ceiling of $2,000m of which $ 1,500m is for capital investment and $500m is to cover operating deficits. It may be that the Minister will derive some inspiration from that information because, as Senator Durack said, we in this country are concerned about the Vernon Commission report which has suggested that the increase in postal charges could be 1 5 per cent per annum and the increase in telecommunication charges could be 7 per cent. So at the moment I think we should be considering this matter on the basis of an increase in postal charges of about 20 per cent and in telecommunication charges probably in the order of 10 per cent or 12 per cent. We are naturally concerned about these increases in costs to the Australian taxpayers. I think it is quite proper that Senator Durack should have raised this in his speech. I, together with Senator Durack and other members of the Opposition, of course have some concern about the proposal to submerge the services of the OTC in a large organisation that will, I believe, to quite an extent destroy the efficiency of the OTC and the enthusiasm of the 2000 staff members who have demonstrated that they are opposed to this proposal.

I should like to correct some of the statements that were made by Senator McAuliffe about payments that are made by the OTC to the Australian Post Office. Payments made by the OTC to the Post Office for the use of the latter’s national network for international public communicating amounted to $9.5m in 1972-73. The Post Office has stated that at normal commercial rates this should have been $13m. The annual payment was increased by $4m for 1974-75, but still includes a contribution of only $500,000 to that part of the Post Office network which connects individual subscribers to their local exchange and which costs $ 1,000m to install. In 1972 the cost of a call to North America was $10.80 for 3 minutes.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are arguing in my favour. You are reading the wrong thing.

Senator JESSOP:

– Just a moment. I just want to give the Senate an idea of what is flowing to the Post Office at the moment from the OTC. I will get on to your problem in a moment, Senator. In 1 972 the cost of a call to North America was $10.80 for 3 minutes. The OTC paid 93.75c to the Post Office for the use of its facilities. Senator McAuliffe made an incorrect statement in his speech when he said that the amount of money paid by the OTC for the use of Post Office facilities was 30-odd cents a call. It is in fact in excess of 40c a minute and as overseas calls average more than 7 minutes Senator McAuliffe ‘s assessment is incorrect by about 1000 per cent, so that completely explodes anything that Senator McAuliffe has said in his speech.

Senator McAuliffe:

– What are you quoting from? Who is your authority?

Senator JESSOP:

– My authority comes right from the horse’s mouth and that is the OTC itself, so that when Senator McAuliffe gets on his feet in this place and makes extravagant statements about charges that are made in Australia he ought to be quite sure about his facts. It is very important for Governments to examine carefully the proposal to increase charges for postal services and telecommunication services. Any government in the world has a headache in this field of communications and this applies particularly in a country like Australia with its vast area, with its population distributed over the continent in very remote centres well away from the capital cities. People who are providing the impetus- or who were until this Government came to power- to the development of our mining industries in this country, the people in the northern parts of South Australia and in the Northern Territory who are increasing productivity in pastoral areas are entitled to some service from this Government. I do not think it is unfair to expect the people who live in metropolitan areas in Australia to offer some assistance to keep the costs of postal services at a minimum. Senator McAuliffe in his speech led me to believe that he could not care less about the people in the remote areas of Australia. He gave me the impression that he expected them to pay for the services and he knows very well that it costs a lot of money to deliver a letter to a person in Oodnadatta.

Senator Maunsell:

– Birdsville.

Senator JESSOP:

-Yes, Birdsville.

Senator Martin:

– Or Julia Creek.

Senator JESSOP:

-Yes, or to Julia Creek. The productivity in these areas is of great consequence and provides a lot of support for and contributes to the sustenance of people like Senator McAuliffe. As far as I am concerned, as a city dweller I am prepared to help the people in these country areas and these mining areas to get better and cheaper postal services. I believe this is the altruistic aim of every Australian citizen. We on this side are concerned. I would like the Minister to tell me in his reply a little more about the aims of these commissions, how they propose to increase profitability without imposing great penalties on the people in these remote areas of Australia. I want the Minister to tell me and the people of Australia what research the Government has done overseas in countries which have a comparable situation to that which exists in Australia. I want him to say quite categorically that the proposals under this legislation are going to be in the best interests of the taxpayers of Australia. I oppose the proposal to amalgamate the OTC services into a great conglomeration consisting of about 60 000 people. I believe this would react against the efficiency of OTC services and I support the Opposition’s attitude in this regard.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– in reply- Despite what Senator Jessop said, I understand that the Opposition is not going to oppose these Bills. The Opposition has put to me that a charter might be included to indicate that the 2 commissions, the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, have an obligation perhaps wider than what might be claimed to be their commercial activities and operations. I have told the Opposition that the Government accepts that proposition. There is only one part of the Opposition’s amendment which we will oppose when it is floated. I have amendments which have been drafted by the draftsman and which are similar to those which the Opposition will move. Although one might have thought that Senator Jessop was opposing the legislation I understand that he, like other honourable senators, will vote for it.

The management, staffs and unions involved in this sphere have had long experience, and examinations have been made since the Vernon Commission of Inquiry made its report. Honourable senators will know that since that time there have been continual consultations at all levels of the Post Office staff. There have been consultations with management and there have been consultations with groups of unions and the joint union group. These consultations included all the unions from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. No objections were raised by the official union representatives either to the pattern now in the Bills or to the merger. I want to make that very clear in the first place.

Generally we are not opposed to the general statement that the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission be responsive to what might be called social and rural aims. We accept that proposition. I want to say quite clearly that we are taking our plan, our responsibilities and our program from what was a very thorough investigation by the Vernon Commission. That investigation was followed by advice from consultants to the Government and to the Post Office about the way to set up the new organisations. The financial arrangements proposed in the Bills result from those examinations. They were not short term examinations; they were very deep studies which were properly considered.

The recommendations in the Bills, as most honourable senators will know, will allow the Government and the Minister to have a great deal of influence on what the Commissions might propose in the way of tariffs. For example, there will be control over basic traiffs and borrowings for capital. The Minister may require concessional rates to apply. The Minister will examine the forward estimates of earnings and expenditure, including capital expenditure. The Government could decide to subsidise the Commissions for forgoing revenue or on a special basis which could merit a special appropriation Bill. The Minister will be in a position to influence the Commissions because this the first time Commissions have been set up with a special ministerial representative. As honourable senators know, the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) has a representative on the Commissions, and that ministerial influence will bc carried into the daily workings of the Commissions.

The Commissions not only will consider the most profitable aspects; they will consider all the necessary services which have to be maintained. If honourable senators read what is in the Bills they will see where any proposition advanced by any part of the Government or any part of the Opposition will be considered. When the Commissions come into force we still will have to consider recommendations or proposals put forward by them in the budgetary context. Therefore we will have a very active role with the Commissions, more so than is the case with some commissions overseas.

Reference was made to the corporation in the United Kingdom. On a recent trip I looked at the United Kingdom Postal Corporation. Senior officials said that they would have liked to do what we have done and set up 2 commissions. It is true that the United Kingdom Corporation has lost money. It is vexed by the very great problems that that country has at this time. It is subject, of course, to the general financial plans of the British Government. For that reason it has to fit into a financial atmosphere and climate which presently inhibits what it might do. The reports of management and unions indicate to me that they did the right thing and the only improvement they might make is to set up 2 commissions. In Sweden there are 2 corporations and they pay their own way. In Germany the instrumentality is under the control of one authority, one Minister, but the German authorities are aiming to turn it into 2 commissions. That is the trend. The priority is to get the operations of the Post Office and the telecommunications activities into a more efficient position. Everybody knows now that the Post Office is too large and is becoming top heavy. This is the right time to separate the 2 activities. We know that not only from practical experience; we know also that the staff and management now want to get on with the job. I hope that the Senate not only will support these Bills in respect to the division of the 2 authorities but also will allow the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to be merged within the general administration.

I think Senator Durack mentioned industrial problems. He asked whether the unions in the Post Office group or in the telecommunications group will be more militant and whether they have greater strength than they had before. Honourable senators will notice that this legislation provides for the first time that Commissions will have upon them a person nominated from all the unions which represent the staff. At present we have Interim Commissions. On the Interim Postal Commission we have a staff representative unanimously supported for appointment to that position, and on the Interim Telecommunications Commission we have another staff member. The union movement has an identity of involvement at the top level of management. We also have a basis for their operations. For the first time, as I mentioned earlier, during the consultations which preceded the devising of the legislation we had regular meetings with union groups. In addition, by regulation, there will be a consultative process, the first in any government enterprise or commission, which will be set up to ensure that in respect of all matters concerning the Commissions the union members who do the work, the people who carry out the most tedious jobs as well as the specialist jobs, will be consulted. We have the experience and we can say that that system already is working. As I have mentioned before, those groups have met regularly and they have seen and approved what has been done and the legislation which is now before the Senate. In addition, to dispel the other arguments, the unions which represent the staff in the OTC have gone along with us. That is the main position regarding these Bills. As far as industrial relations are concerned, the position now is better than it was.

What of efficiency? Can we expect the new Commissions to do a better job than the Australian Post Office as constituted at present? I think they can. Senator Durack raised the question, perhaps rightly, of the dangers of further reduced services. Will the Saturday morning services be reinstituted? Those are the kinds of questions he raised. I have told honourable senators of the relationship with and participation by the staff not only in regard to daily operations but also in regard to management of the new Commissions. It seems to me that that involvement indicates a better working arrangement than there is at present. I think everybody has now learned of my activities, for example, to minimise industrial disturbances in the Post Office which were the subject of some discussion during the currency of the Vernon Commission. Those activities within the Post Office were not well applauded but in respect to other activities the Post Office got a pretty clean sheet. In respect of its industrial relations, however, the general view of the Commission was that there ought to be some improved method of settling these things.

Regarding my own activities in this connection, I have been able to arrange regular consultations between management and unions where required, by having members of my own ministerial staff doing extra jobs to see that there would be necessary short-circuits where head-on clashes might eventuate. That sort of activity will not be carried out in that way when the new commissions are in operation, but that must be the type of approach that will pay off. With that new organisational arrangement between the staff and management it ought to be possible for the interim commissioners and for the chairman and managing director to become more involved in staff activity and for the staff to become more involved in the successful operations of the Commission. In that way, that will be part of the means by which efficiencies will be achieved. Apart from that, the managers will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have more responsibilities.

The evidence that I obtained from looking at commissions overseas indicates that despite those problems in the United Kingdom corporation, as I have mentioned, all of the managers say that under the new system they are more able to exercise their responsibilities and initiatives. In fact, I think Senator Durack mentioned this as one of the advantages that might accrue, but he adopted the same sort of approach as Opposition members adopt repeatedly when they say that the Government is spending too much money.

However, this legislation has been introduced in an attempt to get greater efficiency and to move towards the concept that Senator McAuliffe talked about, which is that there ought to be the principle of the user paying for the service. Surely no organisation should run away from that approach.

The financial objectives are set out in the Bill and it will be a matter for the commissions and the Government to decide whether those objectives can be achieved, or whether this Government, or any government for that matter, might direct or request the commissions to take a different point of view about tariffs. Nobody is expecting, of course, that services in the outback will be reduced, although someone said he was afraid this would occur. It ought to be possible for the 2 commissions to become more efficient and in fact to reduce charges. That is why the reorganisation that has been recommended by the Vernon Commission has already been examined by Post Office managers, by the unions involved and by the consultants.

That is one of the areas that has not been touched on very much, but the papers which it was hoped to distribute yesterday have been distributed today, and the evidence is there in relation to the proposed reorganisation. The scope of those changes will be that on the postal side there will be, I think, some 20 and perhaps 30 changes in geographical areas, and on the telecommunications side there will be an extra 7 or 8 new situations in the country. However, when one looks at staff figures, one sees that few people will be involved. It is necessary to have a new concept of management and to have managers going out into the regions. Experience of the United Kingdom corporation shows that that has been greatly successful because it allows the managers to operate the business more successfully.

In relation to that matter, the commissioners and I have given an undertaking to any community group, senator or member of Parliament that no basic commitment will be made in respect of these matters until September. If anyone wants to make representations in respect of any geographical area, that can be done. I think Senator Scott mentioned professional engineers and asked whether their status or responsibilities might be affected because of the changeover. I and the commissioners have made it quite clear that we are ready to receive representations about that matter. The Post Office and the telecommunications administration have to get on with the job on the basis of what is now a very well tested plan. As Senator McAuliffe pointed out, he made submissions to the Commission. He has made a contribution not only in his speech this evening but also in the interest that he has shown in Post Office matters. We are ready to do what we should do.

The examples that have been given about other countries where private operators run the telecommunications are examples that anyone can pick up. We are pointing to most of the countries where telecommunications and activities such as those of OTC are all in the one group. It would seem to me to be quite wrong if any government, whether this Government or any other government, having decided to form commissions, or corporations, as some people call them, would not merge into them as far as possible all related activities, because the present activities of OTC, if examined correctly, will be seen to be a duplication of what the Post Office is doing. If they are a duplication, it must be a wasteful exercise. I have said that in the countries most concerned and most relevant in constitution the operations are covered by the one corporation. The OTC, after all, will be a competent body within the framework of telecommunications, and it would be wrong and against the principles of anything that any government might do to leave it where it is. So, we are taking the strong view on this and saying that it ought to be included.

I turn now to the Vernon Commission. When a majority report is made, people always tend to say that the chairman said certain things. The majority report of the Commission stated that OTC should be incorporated. It is true that the chairman did make certain observations which it could be said reflected what Senator Durack mentioned, that for the time being he came down on the side of doing certain things and, when the Australian Telecommunications Commission is fully established as a going concern, the relationships between that commission and OTC should be reviewed by the boards and managements of both commissions. But, as I have said, having decided to do what we are doing with the commissions, obviously it would be a mistake not to include OTC.

As I have mentioned we have been guided in our discussions with staff by the unions’ representatives, not by shop committees, a section of the work force which members of the Opposition are often complaining about anyway. Those unions have said in their agreements and consultations with their groups that they were in favour of the incorporation of OTC. Therefore, it is obvious that common planning, operating and financing are important. This ought to be one of the things that we do in conjunction with the

OTC group, not in contest with it, because in the past, whether members opposite like it or not, negotiations between the Post Office and the OTC organisation have not always run smoothly. If honourable senators want evidence of that or want to read more about it, they can read it in the reports of the commission.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about reading something about the British Steel Corporation and saying how it is getting on?

Senator BISHOP:

-I am not talking about the British Steel Corporation. It is not nationalisation. You know yourself, a man of your experience, that we are not talking about nationalisation. We are talking about improving the operations of the Post Office, an Australian organisation which is too big anyway, by forming 2 commissions. Those 2 commissions will allow their managers to run their business more efficiently. They will have a direct responsibility to their staff and the staff will have a direct responsibility to them because, as everybody knows, for the first time they will be free from the control of the Public Service Board. They will be the only commissions in Australia free from such control. The proposition that such commissions should be free from that control goes back to the debates of many years ago. One of the Directors-General of the Post Office of many years ago, Mr O ‘Grady, planted that proposition well in the front of public discussion when he retired. He said that that is the sort of operation which should take place because it would allow managers of the Post Office to run their own business.

Let me refer to some of the technical reasons for this legislation as it is related to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. All overseas calls must be carried through the Post Office network to the subscribers’ telephones, and complicated technical interconnection arrangements must be built into the Australian national network to enable successful high quality calls to be made. Without the provision of special transmission and switching gear in the national systems overseas calls would have to be restricted to subscribers living in close proximity to the international gateway. Soon, of course, we will be able to make subscriber trunk dialling calls overseas. This year Australian subscribers will be able to make STD calls to New Guinea. If they can make STD calls to New Guinea, why should they have to go through the OTC to make calls to other countries? Why is that necessary? Within 5 years we will have STD services to most countries of the world. Presently people in Germany can telephone by STD to Australia.

We are putting forward the proposition that there is a joint responsibility there. Certainly the OTC has the expertise; but so has the Post Office. If we are going to link them together, let us link them together now. Let us not wait for some months or some years to go by before we do so. With separate managements there will remain the complicated and formal financial arrangements in order appropriately to share the costs of overseas calls between the widespread national network of the Post Office and the international circuits owned by the OTC. It will be noted that both organisations contested before the Vernon Commission, the sorts of negotiations that should take place and the method by which these things should be costed, but no satisfactory solution was reached. The merging of the 2 organisations would facilitate agreements on cost sharing and avoid continuing and protracted negotiations between 2 separate managements, each endeavouring to optimise its own financial position. They would be in the same outfit; they would have the common purpose of ensuring that the best service is given to all subscribers in Australia.

So it would seem to me and to the Government that the issues are very clear. We are taking a step forward on the basis of the evaluations which arise from the Vernon Commission’s report and from the consultants’ advice on the way in which it should be done. It is intended, of course, that the Commission shall operate on a commercial basis, but in fact provision has been made -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– No hope.

Senator BISHOP:

-Senator Sir Magnus Cormack might know by now that clauses 1 6 and 17 of the Bill, I think, allow for adjustments to be made in what might be claimed to be the social context. We know that that situation will obtain for many years to come, but we believe that the systems which are now going to be put into effect and the experiences which all our commissioners and our managers received from the exercise which resulted from the Government’s decision to adopt the report of the Vernon Commission will be very fruitful in regard to the future operations of the Commissions. In my opinion, they will work better. In my opinion, the staff will be more satisfied and the lessons which have been learned in the administration of the Post Office might well be carried into effect more quickly than they could be under the present organisation. I hope that the Senate will wholeheartedly support what the legislation proposes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7.

  1. 1 ) The Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will, in the opinion of the Commission, best meet the reasonable needs of the Australian people for postal services.
  2. It is the duty of the Commission, in performing its functions to comply with the provisions of any convention to the extent that it imposes obligations on Australia in relation to matters within the functions of the Commission.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– As I indicated in my speech at the second reading stage, the Opposition proposes to delete clause 7 and to insert a new clause 7 and to insert an additional clause 7A. The object of these amendments is to widen, in a sense, the charter of the Australian Postal Commission to ensure that it takes into account a number of purposes which we do not think are adequately spelt out in clause 7(1) which is in very general terms indeed and to make it perfectly clear that the Commission has to provide services as reasonably required by all sections of the community and by all people in all parts of Australia. Our proposed new clause 7 reads:

  1. 1 ) It shall be the duty of the Commission (consistently with any directions given to it under the following provisions of this Part of the Act) so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of Australia and, in particular, to provide throughout Australia (save in so far as the provision thereof is, in us opinion, impracticable or not reasonably practicable) such services for the conveyance of postal articles as satisfy all reasonable demands for them.

  2. In discharging the duty imposed on it by the foregoing sub-section, the Commission shall have regard:

    1. to the desirability of improving and developing its operating systems,
    2. to developments in the field of communications,
    3. to efficiency and economy, and
    4. to the special needs of the non-metropolitan areas of Australia for postal services.

Then the clause goes on to outline some general qualifications in the case of emergencies.

Also we do not want to have these obligations imposed in such a way that the Commission can be sued in court by some disgruntled person who believes that he is not getting a particular service. We also believe, for reasons which I have already outlined, that the Bills do not provide for adequate ministerial direction in relation to the commission. Normally speaking, if Parliament believes that it is desirable to set up an independent statutory commission to run an organisation on commercial lines and possibly- and very likely- in competition with commercial operators, we would not seek to enlarge ministerial control over that commission, but for reasons which I have already outlined the Opposition does not see the Postal Commission as a purely commercial undertaking. It is certainly not in competition with any other operators. It has a monopoly in relation to mail services, but we believe that it has a very wide social responsibility. We are concerned that it may interpret its present charter as contained in the Bill, coupled with the financial objectives it is given, in such a way that it will cut down on services to many people in Australia. Where the services are not economic- and we think, in particular, of those in the country areas and in remote areas- we believe that there must be a power with the Minister to give general policy directions that the Commission is to provide services in these areas. We do not want to have a situation in which the Minister will give directions in particular cases, but we do not consider it proper that the Government should shelve its responsibilities to all people in Australia by setting up commissions behind which it can then hide and say: ‘It is not our responsibility any more; it is the Commission’s responsibility. ‘ If complaints are made, responsibility for them should be on the shoulders of the Government.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Would you apply that to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board?

Senator DURACK:

-No. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is in a different category altogether. It is by unanimous political consent that that Commission should not operate for political purposes. The Post Office is in a different category altogether. As I have stated, the Government has to accept the obligation to provide these services generally to the community. Therefore, we consider that the Minister should have power to give general directions in the way in which our amendment provides. We are also concerned that the Commission may well discriminate against certain people or give particular preference to some people against others, and we think that, in those circumstances, there should be the power in and responsibility on the Government to ensure that the Australian Postal Commission provides these services in an entirely even-handed way. For those reasons, I move:

  1. Leave out the clause, insert the following clause: 7. (1) It shall be the duty of the Commission (consistently with any directions given to it under the following provisions of this Part of the Act) so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of Australia and, in particular, to provide throughout Australia (save in so far as the provision thereof is, in its opinion, impracticable or not reasonably practicable) such services for the conveyance of postal articles as satisfy all reasonable demands for them.

    1. In discharging the duty imposed on it by the foregoing sub-section, the Commission shall have regard:
    1. to the desirability of improving and developing its operating systems,
    2. to developments in the field of communications,
    3. to efficiency and economy, and

    4. to the special needs of the non-metropolitan areas of Australia for postal services.

    5. Sub-section ( 1 ) above shall not be taken to preclude the Commission from interrupting, suspending or restricting, in case of emergency, any service provided by it.
    6. Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing upon the Commission, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court.
    7. It shall be the duty of the Commission, in performing its functions, to comply with the provisions of any Convention to the extent that it imposes obligation on Australia in relation to matters within the functions of the Commission. ‘.

  2. After clause 7, insert the following new clause: 7a. (1) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to it such directions of a general character as to the exercise by it of its powers as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the national interest.

    1. If it appears to the Minister that there is a defect in the general plans or arrangement of the Commission for exercising any of its powers, he may, after consultation with it, give it directions of a general character for remedying the defect.
    2. If it appears to the Minister that the Commission is showing undue preference to, or is exercising undue discrimination against, any person or persons of any ‘class or description in the charges or other terms or conditions applicable to services provided by it, he may, after consultation with the Commission, give it such directions as appear to him requisite to secure that it ceases so to do.
    3. The Commission shall comply with any direction given to it under any of the foregoing provisions of this section.
    4. Any directions given to the Commission by the Minister pursuant to this section shall be laid upon the table of both Houses of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of the date of the directions. ‘.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

-I have indicated to Senator Durack that, generally, we are not opposed to the aims of his amendment. However, we have it redrafted to tidy it up, and we suggest the following wording:

Leave out the clause, insert the following clauses:- 7. ( 1 ) The Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services and shall, so far as it is, in its opinion, reasonably practicable to do so, make its postal services available throughout Australia for all people who reasonably require those services.

In performing its functions in accordance with subsection ( 1 ), the Commission-

shall comply with any directions given to it under section 7a; and

shall have regard to-

the desirability of improving and extending its postal services in the light of developments in the field of communications;

the need to operate its services as efficiently and economically as practicable; and

the special needs for postal services of Australian people who reside or carry on business outside the cities.

Nothing in this section shall be taken-

to prevent the Commission from interrupting, suspending or restricting, in the case of emergency, a service provided by it; or

to impose on the Commission a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.

It is the duty of the Commission, in performing its functions, to comply with the provisions of any Convention to the extent that it imposes obligations on Australia in relation to matters within the functions of the Commission. 7a.(1) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission, in writing, such directions, with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, as appear to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest.

Where the Minister gives a direction to the Commission under sub-section (1), the Minister shall cause a copy of the direction to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 1 S sitting days after the direction is so given.

Sub-section (1) does not authorize the Minister to give a direction with respect to rates of postage of fees referred to in section 17.’.

The Government is opposed to Senator Durack ‘s amendment as he has moved it and I will move the amendment I have just read. If I could point out some of the main principles, I would explain that clause 7 ( 1 ) in my proposal reads:

The Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people . . .

The only change to which I draw attention is in my proposed new clause 7 (2) (b) (iii). It provides that, in performing its functions in accordance with suggested sub-section (1), the Commission shall have regard to:

  1. the special needs for postal services of Australian people who reside or carry on business outside the cities.

Senator Durack ‘s amendment, in proposed new clause 7 (2) (d), provides that the Commission shall have regard:

  1. to the special needs of the non-metropolitan areas of Australia for postal services.

The Government’s proposed new clause 7(1) is generally a draft that we suggest meets what Senator Durack has proposed. There is a difference in our proposed new clause 7A ( 1 ). Senator Durack ‘s amendment contains 5 subclauses and my suggestion contains 3 subclauses. We say that our new clause 7A ( 1 ) widens the provision to cover any direction. I would prefer that Senator Durack accepted our proposition; we think it is an improvement.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I am prepared to accept the reworded version proposed by the Government. In fact, it seems to me that the Government’s proposed new clause 7a goes much further than my amendment.

Senator Steele Hall:

– I am sure it would; they are both wrong.

Senator DURACK:

– That proposed new clause gives the Minister wider powers of direction to the Commission and I am rather surprised that the Government should propose an amendment in such wide terms, in view of its stated claims that it is seeking to set up this independent Commission. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that the matter should be the subject of any big argument. Senator Hall has said by interjection that both proposals are wrong, so I do not think we will get any further by dividing on the matter. I wonder what the result of such a division might be, but Senator Hall would not be satisfied with either of them. The Opposition is satisfied to accept the Government’s suggested amendment. We do consider that it would be preferable to limit the Minister’s directions to those of a general kind, as we have indicated, but, if the Government wants to have a wider power of direction, we will not oppose that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

- Senator Durack, I understand that you are seeking leave to withdraw your amendment to clause 7. Is that so?

Senator DURACK:

– I am happy to do it either way. In place of the amendment I have moved, I will move an amendment containing the wording proposed by the Government, if that is satisfactory to the Minister.

Senator Bishop:

– Yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Or do you seek leave to withdraw your amendment to let Senator Bishop move his amendment? Do you seek leave to withdraw your amendment?

Senator DURACK:

-I will be pleased to accept, in place of my amendment, the amendment proposed by the Minister. I am prepared to move that, but it is a technical matter.

Amendment (Senator Durack’s)- by leavewithdrawn.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment now before the Committee is that drafted by Senator Bishop and substituted for that originally proposed by Senator Durack.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I am regretful that there has been such agreement across the chamber on this amendment. I hope that for the last time Senator Durack has used the word ‘independent’ as he did in his explanation. I cannot see how independence applies now that this amendment has been accepted. With the sweeping powers that the Minister will have, obviously this Commission will be a political Commission. At the moment I am studying one of the reports of the Department of Housing and Construction. One of the notorious things about the Post Office is the charges made on it for work done by the Department of Housing and Construction. Almost invariably all repair works are charged at twice the normal tender rate that can be gained outside the Department of Housing and Construction.

Senator Georges:

– That is not true.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is absolutely true and will stand study on a wide application. I understand that under the powers that the Opposition is happy to give the Minister, the Minister could direct the Commission to use the services of the Department of Housing and Construction if he so desired and if he believed it was necessary in the public interest to so give that direction. Then, of course, the independence of the Commission to choose the most economical means of spending many millions of dollars a year would be immediately undermined. That is the sort of power which the Opposition is giving the Minister. Obviously at the beginning, the Government never intended to have that power. I think it is a great pity that, in this early bright new age when we had an independent commission before this amendment was accepted, we are allowing the independence of the Commission to go by the board and instituting political control of the Commission’s functions. I have given the Committee a very real instance. Any study of the full aspect of the work of the Department of Housing and Construction for the Post Office will reveal this as one of the glaring examples of inefficiency in Government work in Australia. I had hoped, and I still hope, that the new Commission will not continue to have work carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction. I hope the Commission will go outside the Department of Housing and Construction for its work. I understand, with this amendment, that that is probably very unlikely. Therefore it is with regret that I realise how slim my numbers are on this vote.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I shall illustrate the reasons the Government decided to propose this amendment. Proposed new clause 7 A, moved by Senator Durack, of which he was good enough to give me notice, reads:

  1. If it appears to the Minister that there is a defect in the general plans or arrangement of the Commission for exercising any of its powers, he may, after consultation with it, give it directions of a general character for remedying the defect.
  2. If it appears to the Minister that the Commission is showing undue preference to, or is exercising undue discrimination against, any person or persons of any class or description in the charges or other terms or conditions applicable to services provided by it, he may, after consultation with the Commission, give it such directions as appear to him requisite to secure that it ceases so to do.
  3. The Commission shall comply with any direction given to it under any of the foregoing provisions of this section.

We are mindful of what might be called the preamble to the Opposition’s proposal which has been endorsed by my Party. It is acceptable in those terms. The saving quality, as I have mentioned, is that for the first time we have put a representative of the Minister’s Department on the Commission as a Commissioner. The ministerial directions, related, of course, to the public interest, will all be tabled in the Parliament. Senator Hall referred to the contracts or the work which is carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction. I am not in a position to give the honourable senator an answer at this stage, but I will certainly follow up what he has said and if necessary give the new Commissions advice on the matter he has raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 7a agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 19- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20.

  1. 1 ) The Commission may, by notice in writing addressed to the Australian National Railways Commission, the person having, under the law of a State, control of the government railways of the State or the owner or manager of any other railways in a State and served as prescribed by the regulations, require that trains under the control of that person be made available as specified in the notice for the carriage of mail on behalf of the Commission as provided in the notice and that the usual facilities for the receipt, transmission and delivery of mail so carried be provided on those trains.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

In sub-clause ( 1 ) after ‘ require that ‘, insert ‘scheduled ‘.

The power given to the Commission to require State railways to carry mail is stated in such broad terms that it would seem to me that the

Commission could more or less require a State railway to actually provide it with a special train. I do not think that was intended. Clause 20 ( 1 ) reads:

The Commission may, by notice in writing addressed to the Australian National Railways Commission-

This applies also to State railways-

  1. . require that trains under the control of that person be made available as specified in the notice-

The clause, with my amendment, will read:

  1. . require that scheduled trains under the control of that person be made available-

To make it quite clear, the Commission will not have the power to actually insist on a special train being provided by a State railway. I think the amendment speaks for itself.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I indicate that the Government accepts the suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

It is a necessary alteration to include vehicles other than trains.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 40- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 41.

  1. 1 ) The Commission may appoint as officers such number of persons as it thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act.

  2. A person shall not be appointed as an officer unless-

    1. he is an Australian citizen;
  3. Paragraph (2) (a) does not prevent the appointment, with the approval of the Minister, as an officer of a person who is not an Australian citizen.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition proposes these amendments to clause 41 to eliminate the restriction contained in the clause which states that officers who are appointed to the Commission must be Australian citizens. The clause provides that a person shall not be appointed an officer of the Commission unless he is an Australian citizen, although it has a further provision that the Minister may approve the appointment of a person who is not an Australian citizen. However, we believe that provision is unnecessarily restrictive. The Postal Commission- the same applies with the Telecommunications Commission- will employ over 100 000 people. Many of them will be migrants who are very well qualified to carry out the work of postmen, telegraphists and many different positions. It is very difficult to see why there should be a restriction on the appointment of persons who are not Australian citizens to such positions. The situation is not the same as it is perhaps in the Public Service generally where it would be proper that people in very high advisory positions to the Government be Australian citizens and even take an oath of allegiance. We have previously insisted on that requirement in relation to the Public Service, although we are not now insisting on that requirement.

These commissions will be very large employers. We think it is very restrictive and very unfair to many migrants who have not become Australian citizens but who would make admirable employees of these commissions if we applied restrictions on the people to be employed as permanent officers in these very large commissions. We have particular regard to migrants from the British Isles who, under this Government’s legislation, must go through all sorts of rigmarole to become Australian citizens. Apparently the mere fact of their being British subjects is not adequate for this Government. Many of these migrants are not prepared to become Australian citizens and have not done so. That is a special case. It would be very unfair to them if they could not be employed as permanent officers of the commission because they have not become Australian citizens. We put the argument on the very broad basis that it is discriminatory against migrants who may be very well qualified and who would be performing work which, by no stretch of the imagination, could be said to be work in relation to which the Government should be relying only on special advice from people who have become Australian citizens.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

- Senator Durack, are you taking both your amendments to clause 4 1 together?

Senator DURACK:

– I think that would be a good suggestion. I move:

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– We cannot see great strength in these amendments because there have been debates in the Senate about insisting that the term ‘British citizen’ be applied. We have put it in the modern vernacular- an Australian citizen. It must be understood that this clause applies to all staff. We are prepared to accept the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 59- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 60

  1. Where the officer who held an inquiry into a charge is satisfied that the officer charged was guilty of the misconduct, he may counsel the officer or cause a supervisor of the officer to counsel him, or, if he is of the opinion that other action is necessary-

    1. admonish the officer;
    2. direct that a sum not exceeding $40 be deducted from the salary of the officer;
    3. if the officer occupies a position to which a range of salary is applicable and is in receipt of a salary other than the minimum salary of that range- direct that his salary be reduced to a lower salary within that range for a period not exceeding 12 months; or
    4. recommend to the Commission in writing-
    1. that the Commission transfer the officer to another position, whether at the same or a different locality, being a position for which he is qualified and which has the same classification as the position held by the officer, and the salary, within the salary range of the position, that should be paid to the officer;
    2. that the Commission transfer the officer to another position, whether in the same or a different locality, being a position for which he is qualified and which has a lower classification than the position held by the officer, and the salary, within the salary range of the position, that should be paid to the officer; or
    3. that the Commission dismiss the officer from the Service.
  2. Where an officer authorised for the purposes of subsection (5) of the Commission gives a direction that the salary of an officer be reduced, the officer is entitled, at the expiration of the period specified by the first-mentioned officer or the Commission in that direction, to be paid salary at the rate at which salary would have been payable to him if the reduction had not taken place.

  3. 14) A direction or decision under this section by the Commission or by an officer authorised for the purposes of subsection ( 5 ) does not take effect-

    1. a ) if the officer appeals against the direction- unless the appeal lapses or is withdrawn or a Disciplinary Appeal Board confirms, either with or without a variation, the direction or decision; or
    2. in any other case- until the expiration of the period within which the officer may appeal against the direction or decision to a Disciplinary Appeal Board.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This amendment seeks to make the sub-clause consistent with sub-clause ( 1 ). It is only a routine proposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The intention is to give officers the right to appeal against admonitions.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

It simply ensures consistency with other subclauses which refer to direction or decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 1 agreed to.

Clause 62. (4)Where-

  1. an officer has been suspended from duty under this section;
  2. b ) the amount of salary that would otherwise have been paid to the officer in respect of the period or a part of the period of the suspension was not paid to him; and
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

It is only a drafting requirement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 63 (Convictions by Courts).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Although I have not circulated an amendment in relation to this clause I think a question ought to be raised in the Senate as to the very wide effect that it has and, I would think, the very unfair effect it would have on certain officers of the Commission. I appreciate that the unions and other bodies have given very close attention to this matter. I have not proposed an amendment but I would like the attention of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) to be drawn to it and I would like his comment on it. Clause 63 states in part:

Where a court convicts an officer on a charge for an offence … or a court, without recording a conviction, finds that an officer has committed such an offence . . .

As far as I know, the general rule in courts throughout all the States of Australia is that if a court, having found that an offence has been committed, exercises a power not to record that conviction it does so for very special reasons. It does so in the interests of the person concerned under very special powers. It can be done because of the nature of the offence and the previous good record of the person concerned and on humanitarian grounds.

A court having decided to exercise those special powers not to record a conviction, it seems to me to be very harsh that that matter can then be taken into account in the disciplinary actions that will be taken by the person’s employer, the Commissioner. I have always assumed that one of the purposes of ameliorative or humanitarian legislation is that, a conviction not having been recorded, a person would not be visited with the sort of consequences which otherwise follow the recording of a conviction against a person and the fact that he has a record. It seems to me to be very strange particularly for this Government and its supporters to have introduced into this legislation a provision which seems to go contrary to humanitarian laws of the Australian States. I know from my own experience that this sort of person is always a first offender and is always anxious to avoid having a conviction recorded because of the consequences that it has. Yet here it would seem to have little consequences for the person because of the disciplinary action which still can be taken against him by his employer if he has the misfortune to be employed by the Australian Postal Commission.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I know of at least 2 cases of this kind. I remember one case in which a person was placed on a bond in connection with a theft and I remember another case in which a person was placed on a bond in connection with what could be claimed to be a sexual offence on a member of the public. Such proceedings are public proceedings. If a person breaks a bond, he will be penalised. This matter, as Senator Durack said, has been considered by the union groups. It seems to me that the clause is proper and that in such circumstances the Commission may counsel the officer or may decide to transfer the officer to another position at the same or a different locality. That particularly applies to a case involving, for example, a sexual offence. I can only say that, as in all such matters, it is the way in which they are carried out that is important. But it would be just if a person were placed on a bond that the employer ought to be able to say: ‘We will put him at some other location away from the public’. That is the reason for the proscription. Unless there are some developments from too harsh an application of the proscription, it would seem to me that it is proper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 64.

  1. 1 ) An officer may appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Board against a direction or decision made or given with respect to him by an officer or by the Commission under section 60 or against a decision made with respect to him by the Commission under sub-section 63 (1 ).

  2. Where an officer appeals under sub-section ( 1 ) against a direction or decision on the ground that the action taken in accordance with that direction or decision is excessively severe, evidence may be given on the hearing of an appeal-

    1. if the officer was, under section 61, suspended without salary prior to the giving of that direction or the making of that decision- of any loss of earnings arising from that suspension;
    2. if the officer is to be transferred to another positionof the expenses that will be incurred by the officer in connexion with that transfer; and
    3. of matters relating to the previous employment history and general character of the appellant.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

A right of appeal is specified against an admonition, and this is a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is only a drafting provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 65 and 66- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 67.

  1. ) Where an officer is absent from duty without permission, and has been so absent for a continuous period of not less than 4 weeks, the Commission may send to him by prepaid registered post addressed to him at the address of the officer last known to the Commission a notice informing him that unless within a period of 2 weeks from and including the date on which the notice was sent-

    1. a ) he returns to duty; or
    2. he explains his absence and seeks the permission of the Commission for any further period of absence that may be necessary having regard to that explanation, he will be deemed to have resigned upon the expiration of that last mentioned period.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended agreed to.

Clauses 68 to 84- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 85.

  1. 1) An envelope, lettercard, aerogramme or other article on which the Commission has caused to be impressed or printed a representation of, or a design resembling, a postage stamp and indicating an amount of postage is a postal article referred to in this sub-section.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended agreed to.

Clauses 86 to 95- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 96.

  1. 1 ) A person shall not put, or cause to be put, into an office of the Commission or a receptacle or box for the reception of postal articles, any fire, match or light, or any filthy, offensive, or noxious material or matter.
  2. A person shall not commit any nuisance in or against any office of the Commission or any receptacle or box for the reception of mail.

Penalty: $200.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is drafting clarification which makes the sub-clause consistent with the definitions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 97 to 100- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 101.

  1. Before furnishing financial statements to the Minister, the Commission shall submit them to the Auditor-General, who shall report to the Minister-

    1. whether the statements are based on proper accounts and records;
    2. whether the statements are in agreement with the accounts and records and show fairly the financial operations and the state of the affairs of the Commission;
    3. whether the receipt, expenditure and investment of moneys, and the acquisition and disposal of assets, by the Commission during the year have been in accordance with this Act; and
    4. as to such other matters arising out of the statements as the Auditor-General considers should be reported to the Minister.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This again is a standard drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 102 agreed to.

Clause 103.

  1. 1 ) Proceedings do not lie against the Commission, an officer or employee of the Commission, a person acting for or on behalf of the Commission under a contract with the Commission or an employee of such a person in respect of any loss or damage suffered by a person by reason of any default, delay, error, omission or loss in the receipt, transmission or delivery of postal articles or of money by post.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The intention is to extend to the courier service protection from actions.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– This amendment somewhat amuses me, if the Australian Postal Commission seriously intends to run a courier service in competition with private courier services. Clause 103 gives a very wide and general exemption to the Australian Postal Commission against claims for damages by people who say that they have suffered loss or damage by reason of default, delay, error, omission or loss in the transmission or delivery of a postal article. I must confess that I was very concerned, and the Opposition has been very concerned, about the very wide exemption that is contained in clause 103.

I have toyed with the question as to whether we ought not to oppose the exemption that is given under this clause, because it seems to me that if it is intended that the Postal Commission should operate in a commercial manner it should be prepared to accept responsibility for the negligence of its staff which results in losses suffered by default or delay in delivery. That would be the normal contractual obligation that a private carrier would accept it he were entering into a contract to deliver mail. If as a result of his negligence, or of the negligence of his staff, postal articles were delayed or mislaid and persons suffered loss he would have to pay for it. That is the ordinary commercial principle. It is a very salutory principle; it is one which certainly keeps people on their toes. I am inclined to think that in order to ensure efficiency on the part of these proposed commissions they ought to be kept on their toes and ought to be made liable under this ordinary commercial principle.

It is certainly true that these sorts of exemptions have been granted in the past. I should like the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) to say something about this, but I assume that there will be by-laws or regulations under which special obligations will be accepted by the Postal Commission. I assume that the Commission will accept special responsibilities under which it will guarantee to deliver articles and to accept some responsibility if they are not delivered. I appreciate that these sorts of things are usually contained in regulations rather than in Acts. Nevertheless, it is proposed that this exemption should be extended to what is clearly a commercial operation, namely, a courier service. I think that if the Commission’s courier service is to have any hope of competing with private courier services it has to accept the same commercial obligations that private courier services accept. To extend this exemption to the Commission’s courier service seems to me to be making a mockery of the exercise.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– Presently under sections 158 and 159 of the Post and Telegraph Act there are general exemptions which are similar to what is proposed under this clause. But the courier service will not be a courier service just outside the Austraian Postal Commission. Many- or perhaps most- of the articles will be carried by the courier service and also by post. Notice has to be taken of what is provided in the Acts at present. If any government were to decide to waive the exemptions that presently exist we would have to set up a new system of tariffs, for example, to cover people who send very valuable commodities through the post. I know of one or two cases where opals which have been sent through the post have been lost and the cost of recovery of the opals has been less than what the opals have cost. There would have to be a form of insurance.

The general section in this clause provides protection from legal action- as I have said consistent with what is in the Act at present- for the Commission and for all persons employed by or contracted to the Commission in respect of loss or damage attributed to the postal system or the money transfer system. Where money transmitted by post is paid to the person applying for payment the Commission is not liable to any person unless the officer or the employee making the payment is guilty of fraud or wilful misbehaviour in connection with the payment. The regulation making powers have not been drafted yet. I, together with the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), will consider whether there are any options in this matter.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-My attention has been directed to this clause by the debate that has taken place. I suggest that clause 103 is an obvious survival of a by-gone age. When railways were first established in Australia a limitation was put on their liability. In the case of any injury to a person, damages could not exceed £1,000 or $2,000 in today’s currency. Because of the way in which legislation in this country decays through lack of attention, most of those limitations have been repealed only since the end of the Second World War. This afternoon we heard Senator McAuliffe vaunting the view that the Australian Postal Commission will survive only as a commercial agency. It was insisted against some of the arguments that emanated from this side of the chamber that in no sense was the Commission to be a supplier of a public service to people in regions where special concessions might be desirable in the public interest. So it is set up as a commercial agency. However, not content with getting all the powers of a commercial agency and unlimited power to charge the public, with the approval of the Minister, without direct control by this Parliament, the Government now wishes to take an exemption which belonged only to the Bourbons or the royalty at the time before liability was imposed upon the Crown for wrongdoing, a time long since past- 80 or 90 years- in Australia. Here we have a monopoly commercial carrier seeking to renew this outdated exemption from liability and I am indebted to Senator Durack for drawing attention to the matter. I think that upon this matter the Senate ought to be given some actual explanation.

I am aware that, in other legislative fields dealing with transport, special conditions in relation to precious articles require notification of their special value and the payment of a special tariff; otherwise liability is limited to the value of an ordinary parcel. That sort of provision would be quite consonant with my outlook on commercial propriety and fairness. This exemption is a revival of a situation of a century ago when the Crown and its post office claimed a privilege that did not belong to ordinary people. The time has come when, without adequate explanation, the Senate ought not to make the people who rely upon the services of the Post Office subject to this absolute abrogation of ordinary commercial liability.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I will explain the position again. This afternoon the Opposition insisted upon amendments to the Bill which accepted in principle an obligation on the Commission to take into account various activities which are, in fact, subsidisations. I accept that any commission, acting as the Post Office does now, and the Minister, should have regard to these things in the same way as they should have regard to the financial objectives. Senator Wright now comes along and says that the postal authority, whether it be a postal commission or a post office, in future has to be liable in respect of any claims. An example which was pointed out to me is that of a person who sent a letter containing shares. A great number of vexatious activities might be involved and it would impose on the authority an obligation to make new and higher tariffs if this type of liability is to be accepted. I mention the case of persons sending valuable goods knowing that they might be lost and that they would not be compensated for the goods lost. If we were to provide for an unlimited action for damages there is no doubt that it would result in increased tariffs. It appears to me that all I can competently do is to have the observations made by honourable senators considered properly and I will do it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There is a carriage of goods limitation Act now.

Senator BISHOP:
Senator Wright:

– It does not apply to the Post Office in the face of this provision. Apply it to the Post Office and I am with you.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is all right to come along at this stage and say: ‘This is a situation we ought to review’. The most reasonable view that I can advance is that as the Act is undisturbed, although it has been before Parliament before, we are really reinstating a provision which it contains. In relation to the courier service which will start early in the new financial year, there will be a mixed carriage of articles. Some will go by post and some by courier service. I think I have answered the points raised but I will discuss them with my colleague, Mr Lionel Bowen, and have the matters analysed as best I can.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am grateful for what the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) has said but not at all satisfied. I thought for a moment that he was going to be impulsively impatient with my debating the matter. I wish him to be reminded that legislation of this bulk and comprehensive nature has had a fairly smooth passage and if one, whilst doing other work, has one’s attention drawn to an obvious antiquated deficiency one is bound to raise it. I put that matter forward in debate and rise now, having concentrated on sub-section ( 1 ), to direct attention to sub-section (2) which provides that the Commission is not liable in respect of moneys transmitted by post unless the officer/employee making payment of the moneys is guilty of fraud or wilful misbehaviour in connection with the payment of the moneys. But that is not the measure of responsibility of a bank. If a bank pays to the wrong person it pays again to the right person and, while negligence on the part of the customer may relieve it, negligence on the part of a bank carries liability, not merely for fraud or wilful misbehaviour but also for negligence. So I wonder why the Postal Commission should be in a special position in relation to the transmission of moneys when compared with banking corporations- commercial, savings and Commonwealth banking- and I invite the Minister to comment upon that.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The general answer is the one I have given. The Postal Commission will be in the same position as the Post Office is now. It will have a wide obligation to carry out the terms of the Act and in sections 158 and 159 of the Post and Telegraph Act, which are similar to provisions incorporated in this Bill to set up this Commission, there is a general protection given to the Post Office. As I pointed out, the Post Office has a wide obligation not to operate on a commercial basis but to provide a service to the public.

Senator Wright:

– Where is that in the Vernon report?

Senator BISHOP:

-Senator Wright has insisted on these aspects. Digressing to speak to the point just raised, clauses 17 and 18 of the Postal Services Bill provide for a financial arrangement in cases where the Commission thinks that some thing ought to be done and the

Minister says that it should not be done. There is a provision for Treasury to refund moneys so lost. Parliamentary Counsel has looked at this question and at the Act and has drafted a clause which appears to me to carry on what is in the existing Post Office legislation. If we want to change that provision, now is not the time to do it and if I appeared to be too quick in responding to Senator Wright it was not because I was not taking into account what he and Senator Durack are putting forward. As Senator Wright would agree, this is an extreme matter of principle that would have to be considered by any government and the relevant Ministers. I will draw his suggestions to their attention and will discuss them. The only other comment I can make is that the regulations have not yet been drawn but will be drawn.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I am not fully satisfied with the answer given by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) to this question. I notice that there is a power to make by-laws, not inconsistent with the Bill, in respect of a number of things, including the registration and insurance of postal articles. I would have assumed that regulations would have been contemplated- they would have to be- which would provide for registration of postal articles and would ensure that some obligation was assumed by the Postal Commission for such articles. Some obligation is assumed by the Post Office when people register letters. The very wide terms of clause 103 are worrying me. That clause seems to indicate that there will be no proceedings against the Commission in these matters. Senator Wright pointed out that clause 103 (2) provides that when money is transmitted by post the Commission is not liable to any person in respect of payment of that money unless the officer or employee making payment of the money is guilty of fraud or wilful misbehaviour. When we examine the by-law making power it seems that no obligation can be assumed because it would be inconsistent with this Act. Clause 103 (1) states quite plainly that no proceedings lie against the Commission. It would seem to me that clause 103 has been drafted too widely. I should like the Minister to closely examine this clause in the light of the points that Senator Wright and I have raised. I ask the Minister, in particular, to give the Senate some indication of the policy of the Commission in relation to registration of postal articles, and whether there will be a provision for the assumption by the Commission of some special responsibility in regard to articles which are registered in pursuance of by-laws.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If the Postmaster-General will permit me, I should like to add a word or two to Senator Durack ‘s comments and it might save the time of the Committee. I do not want the Postmaster-General to think that I am in any way badgering the situation. I submit that if this clause is objectionable wholly or in part- this being a comprehensive Bill establishing the 2 Commissions is only incidental to their trading- the Minister should take the Bill without this clause and when he has given consideration to this matter bring the legislation before the chamber in a form which might follow the suggestion of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh)- that is to say, in accordance with comparable legislation, limiting liability in certain cases- or it could be in accordance with the principles enunciated by Senator McAuliffe- that is to say, completely commercial principles.

What I am saying to the Minister is that this absolute immunity should not be insisted upon as part of new comprehensive legislation for the Commission. The Bill will not be prevented from operation by the deletion of this clause. This clause could well be brought forward subsequently as a specific matter.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I am sure that honourable senators will concede that they are trying to place me in a difficult position. I do not think it is possible for me to do what Senator Wright has suggested. The Parliamentary Counsel and the officers of my Department have recommended the inclusion of this clause. The unions involved and management have seen this Bill. It maintains the status quo of the Post Office. If we included a clause in the Bill which allowed a person who had sent unregistered mail to claim damages, we would have the usual complaints about delays in mail arriving and claims would arise because of such delays. We could have the situation, for example, of a sharebroker who writes to a client and recommends that- he sells shares. If the mail was delayed and that advice was not available to the client, action could be taken against the Post Office. I do not think it is reasonable, on the basis on which we have drafted this legislation, for us to take a new tack and have recourse to a number of new issues about which honourable senators from both sides of the chamber have been talking. It is not possible for me to delete this clause and reintroduce it later because that would interfere with the operations of the Post Office in its new form. However, it is possible for me to see to what extent the problems that I see might be overcome by, perhaps, an extra form of tariff to cover some new obligations. That is the bald reply to honourable senators opposite. I understand the points which have been raised by Senator Wright and Senator Durack but I can see the complications which will arise for the new Commission. Similar clauses to this have been included in other legislation covering organisations much more complex than the Post Office. I ask honourable senators to leave the matter with me and I will discuss it along the lines I have mentioned and perhaps in the manner in which Senator Durack has proposed. I am not clear to what extent any regulatory provision which would come to the Senate could affect the position. I undertake to discuss the matter and I hope the Senate will accept that.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I am prepared to accept the broad argument that the ordinary users of” the postal service are not going to assume that there is any special liability if a valuable article, whether it be a share certificate or an ordinary message, is conveyed without some special obligation being assumed. It seems to me that there ought not to be any closure of the door on the Post Office being able to assume responsibility and for people to be able to enter into special arrangements with the Post Office for the assumption of that special obligation which I expect to see in the by-laws. What bothers me about the clause is that it seems to be so embracing and so widely drawn that I do not think any by-laws even providing for the assumption of special obligations will be able to overcome the effect of clause 103. To some extent, this whole matter has arisen from the amendment of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) applying these principles to a courier service. It seems to me that the very nature of a courier service and the by-laws relating to it would certainly want to provide for special obligations. Otherwise, I do not think the courier service will get the business and its ability to compete with private courier services will be seriously affected. That does not really concern me very much one way or the other as long as private courier services are not interfered with by the Government. I think there is a real necessity to examine closely clause 103. I appeal to the Minister to examine that clause while the Bill is going through the Parliament. If the Minister takes my point and understands my concern, perhaps there will be opportunity of redrafting clause 103 whilst the Bill is going through the Parliament. I hope that might be done.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I should like to reply briefly to the comments of Senator Durack. I will raise the matter with the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen). I will see whether it is possible for such prescriptions to be drafted and introduced in another place. I have already asked the officers of my Department to examine the situation in relation to the existing courier services. The courier service proposed in this Bill will utilise the postal services and another 3 forms of transportation. I will certainly convey to the Special Minister of State tomorrow the comments that have been made this evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 104 to 107- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 108.

  1. A payment made to the judgment debtor in pursuance of this section shall, as between the Commission and the judgment debtor, be deemed to be a payment by the Commission to the judgment debtor.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109 agreed to.

Clause 1 10.

  1. In this section-

    1. a reference to entry by the Commission onto premises in connexion with the performance of its functions includes a reference to the entry onto premises-
    1. of an officer or employee in the course of performing his duties; and

    2. of a person engaged on behalf of the Commission in the conveyance of mail or postal articles for purposes connected with the conveyance of mails or postal articles;

    3. a reference to the use of premises by the Commission in connexion with the performance of its functions includes a reference for the use of premises by a person acting on behalf of the Commission in connexion with the performance of its functions; and
    4. a reference to the owner or occupier of premises, being a part of a road, is a reference to the person entitled to be paid a toll, fee or charge for entry onto that part of the road.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 1 1 1 to 1 14- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 115.

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters by which this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed by regulations, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed by the regulations for carrying out or giving effect to this Act and for making provision for and in relation to-

  1. the preservation of specified existing and accruing rights by a person appointed to the Office of Managing Director, Chief General Manager or full-time Chairman of a Promotions Appeal Board or by a person appointed or deemed to have been appointed as an officer under section 4 1 who was, immediately before he was so appointed, an officer of the Australian Public Service or a person to whom the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applied, including provisions modifying and adapting the Public Service Act 1 922- 1 974 for the purpose of enabling such a person to apply for promotion to an office in the Australian Public Service or appeal against a promotion to an office in that Service;
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1602

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It is the result of a compromise within the Government. We all know that prior -

Senator Bishop:

– The debate is concluded.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate has agreed that there would be a cognate debate on this legislation. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. When that question is resolved we will go into Committee. If the honourable senator wishes he may continue his remarks later on in the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I should like to make a suggestion in relation to the handling of a number of amendments which I propose to move at the Committee stage. As was indicated in earlier debate on the Postal Services Bill- indeed the whole of the Opposition ‘s case relates to this Bill- we propose to move amendments which seek to eliminate provisions in all those clauses in this Bill which relate to the incorporation of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the Australian Telecommunications Commission. In order to achieve that a great number of amendments are necessary. I have circulated 24 amendments which I propose to move in relation to this Bill. Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 2 1, 22, 23 and 24 all relate to this one question. I think the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) will agree that in the event that one amendment is passed it will be consequential that all the other amendments will be passed unless the Committee is quite perverse. In order to facilitate the disposal of the amendments I do not mind whether the Committee takes the major vote on my first amendment and then regards all the other amendments as consequential or whether the Committee deals with the amendments together.

My first amendment is really in itself a consequential amendment. There is really no amendment other than the one relating to the title of the Bill which will achieve our objective if it is agreed to. The normal procedure is that the title of the Bill is dealt with after all the other clauses have been disposed of. However, if the title of the Bill can be dealt with first it might make it easier to resolve this issue. In the circumstances I suggest that the Committee should either choose my first amendment as being the one on which a vote should be taken and all others will then be consequential, or we should deal with all those amendments I have enumerated and have one debate on them together.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The attitude of the Government, as I have already indicated, is that we are going to oppose what has been proposed by the Opposition, that is, to exclude from this Bill references to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. So we intend to divide on the first proposed amendment which I think is to clause 3. I suggest that will be the test, if Senator Durack is agreeable. I do not care whether the other amendments are dealt with together or taken separately, but as he pointed out they are all consequential amendments to the Bill which if they are carried will exclude from the Bill references to the OTC. I simply say that the Government will divide the Committee either in respect of the amendment to be moved to clause 3 or the other amendments which may be dealt with in globo, whichever suits the Temporary Chairman.

Clause 3.

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears- approved bank’ means a bank approved by the Treasurer for the purposes of the provision in which the expression occurs; prescribed external Territory’ means an external Territory other than Papua New Guinea;

  2. In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears-

    1. a reference to a place outside Australia includes a reference to a ship at sea and to an aircraft that is operating outside Australia;
    2. a reference to a place outside a prescribed external Territory includes a reference to a ship at sea and to an aircraft that is operating outside that external Territory;
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– I suggest that in relation to clause 3 we deal with the first amendment to be moved by Senator Durack and then take the others in turn. The amendment seeks to leave out the words ‘ “prescribed external Territory” means an external Territory other than Papua New Guinea; ‘

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– For the reasons I gave in my reply to honourable senators at the end of the second reading debate, the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. We believe that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission should be necessarily a part of the new Australian Telecommunications Commission and therefore we will divide on the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– This argument is a little like putting the cart before the horse. I have not yet formally moved the amendment. I thought we were discussing only the machinery matters. In order to put the record straight I move:

As I have said, this is rather an odd amendment in itself but it is all part and parcel of the exercise in which the Opposition is engaged. I do not want there to be any mistake on the part of the Committee as to the importance of this amendment. I am obliged that the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) has decided to take the Committee’s decision on this amendment as its decision in regard to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission question. Whichever way the decision goes either side will accept the decision as determining the other questions, that is, unless somebody else wishes to take a different view.

The Opposition’s case against the merger of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the Australian Telecommunications Commission already has been fully stated by me in the second reading debate. It has been further supported and amplified by Senator Scott and Senator Jessop in the speeches they made from this side of the Senate in that debate. I do not think there is anything further that I wish to add to that argument at this stage.

It may be that matters will arise in the course of the Committee consideration which will lead to further debate but I have said all that I think can be said for the Opposition’s case that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission should be left not only as a separate working entity but as a separate legal entity. Certainly no consideration should be given to a merger until such time as the new Australian Telecommunications Commission has settled down and we have seen how it operates. Although they may be arguments in favour of a common board, in fact the Government virtually has achieved a common board because it has appointed 3 members of the interim board- and presumably that will be the permanent board of the Australian Telecommunications Commission- to the board of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. I mentioned in my second reading speech that Mr Gibbs is wearing both hats at present and there is at the moment only one member of the OTC board who is completely independent of the Government or the Australian Telecommunications Commission. So any rationalisation, any integration in a broad way, can be achieved at board level. The Opposition is particularly concerned that the OTC should be kept not only as a separate working entity but as a separate legal entity and that the morale and efficiency of that organisation should not be jeopardised by the Government’s proposal to merge it completely into the new ATC.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

- Senator Durack has somewhat expanded his argument. As I said earlier, I want to make it clear, as briefly as possible, that I think this proposal is quite wrong. The Government decided to set up the new commissions and the Opposition agreed to them. That decision arose from a very exhaustive and searching inquiry by the Vernon Commission of Inquiry, which has been supplemented by other activities on the part of consultants, together with consultation with the staffs. They all agreed that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission should come into the general organisation but as a separate section. Everybody knows that the Government appointed Mr Gibbs as the Chairman. He is an outstanding Australian industrialist with great business and executive abilities. He argues, although he is Chairman of the OTC, that it should be incorporated in the Australian Telecommunications Commission. So also do three of his fellow commissioners. Out of the 5 members of the OTC board there are four who consider that it should be so incorporated, and in addition the Government believes so. I pointed out that in countries with administration similar to ours, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany, these activities are under the one administration. They should be so in Australia. I do not think it is good enough to say that it should be left to another day. Therefore we will divide on the proposition.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I am happy to support Senator Durack s amendment. I cannot see why a little bit of competition in respect of efficiency may not very well be a good thing. After all the Government is using that argument strongly in connection with another of its current proposals, that relating to the insurance industry. The addition of one more operator in that industry is supposed to be a good thing in promoting efficiency. Whilst there is no direct parallel there is some relationship.

Senator Poyser:

– There is no analogy.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-There is some analogy to an organisation which is operating more efficiently now than the general Post Office. No one will deny that argument. The Government is saying that the more efficient will merge with the less efficient. I am willing to go along with Senator Durack and to say: Let the more efficient hold the position it has earned. Its staff and direction has earned that position by skill and the application of energy and up-to-date techniques in the production of an extremely high morale in the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. Therefore I see no reason why we should hasten the move against the general wishes, as I see it, of the rank and file of that organisation despite what the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) said about his directors.

Let it be proven that the reorganisation of the Post Office which we have been considering is successful. That has yet to be proven. We already have made alterations to the legislation in its passage through this House which I think lowers the chances of the new organisation finally coming up to the standard which we had all hoped for at the beginning. Let us see if the hopes we have for the new commissions are fulfilled. If they are fulfilled and if there is a matching standard of performance perhaps it then will be a good thing to approve the merger then. At this stage I believe Senator Durack is right in his amendment and we should support those who have earned their independence by their better efficiency and their dedication to their work.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I want to say about 10 words. There is no competition between the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Post Office. We are talking about a division of functions. There are 2 separate functions, but they should be performed by the one administration. There is a majority of people on the board of OTC who want OTC to come under the general net. It is true that OTC has a very specialised group conducting its activities. It is true also that it is very good in marketing. Somebody in the organisation is very good at propaganda. The real essence of the subject has not yet been recognised although it has been discussed here tonight. I am sorry to see that Senator Hall will not take a plunge and see that these 2 bodies are engaged together in the one operation. They are efficient in their own area, and that efficiency would be a good addition to a group within the Postal Commission, where it ought to be.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-Although I do not want to prolong this debate, I cannot let the Minister’s argument about the opinion of the Board of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission go without further challenge. He has been riding this argument to death here today because Mr Gibbs, his own appointee to the Board, made a public statement over the weekend that he and the Board favour the merger. Let us look at the facts. Mr Gibbs does not even claim that the Board unanimously favours the merger. He is only saying that a majority of the Board favours it. Who are the majority? They are Mr Gibbs, appointed in November 1974 as the Chairman of the Commission, who was then the Government’s appointee as Chairman of the Interim Commission of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. He was already in that position when the Government made him Chairman of the OTC. He was already committed to the whole program of the creation of the ATC to take over, amongst other things, the OTC.

Senator Bishop:

– No, he was not.

Senator DURACK:

– That was his position; the Government had appointed him to it. In November 1974 the Government appointed him as Chairman of OTC. Also, in November 1 974 the Government appointed to the OTC Mr J. H. Curtis. And who is Mr Curtis? He is the designated Managing Director of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, and a senior officer, of course, of the Australian Post Office. Also, in November 1974 the present Minister appointed Mr Peter Lawler to the OTC. Who is Mr Lawler? He is none other than the head, I think, of the Department of the Special Minister of State.

Senator Poyser:

– So what?

Senator DURACK:

– These are three out of the 5 members of the Board. As I have said, I was surprised that Mr Gibbs made the statement. The 3 men I have mentioned constitute the majority of the whole of the Board of OTC, and they made public statements over the weekend saying they favoured the merger. How could anyone be asked seriously to take account of this argument. Yet in this debate the Minister has been constantly riding to death the argument that the OTC Board, or his own 3 appointees to it, are all in favour of the merger. I wonder why.

Senator Steele Hall:

– They do not speak for the rank and file.

Senator DURACK:

-No, as Senator Hall clearly indicates, they do not speak for the rank and file, because the rank and file have taken up a petition and have found out that there is a clear majority of the staff of the OTC who are opposed to it. I want to make it quite clear also that before the Vernon Commission the OTC took a very clear position. Its then Chairman, the late Sir Arthur Petfield, appeared before the Commission and presented evidence strongly in favour of the OTC remaining independent of the new Telecommunications Commission. As I have mentioned, it was not until the appointees of the present Minister came on to the Board that the Board took a different view of this matter. Reference has been made to the so-called lobbying and propaganda, and so on, but the fact of the matter is that very strong arguments against the merger are coming not only from the majority of the staff of the OTC but also from the users of the OTC.

Senator Bishop:

– That is not true.

Senator DURACK:

– The users have formed themselves strongly against the proposed merger. I have referred to the survey taken from 100 users, 80 of whom were against any form of merger and the other 20 of whom said: ‘Do not do it now; wait and see how the OTC gets on.’ Whatever may have been said over the weekend by the Minister’s recent appointees to the OTC Board, who happen to be the majority of it now, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming case at all times by the OTC itself, by its staff and by its users has been against the merger.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I am surprised at the argument that Senator Durack has put up in which he has alleged by inference that the Government has appointed to this Board certain persons who would be in favour of the Government’s policy. In fact, they are all gentlemen who are highly respected throughout the whole of the Public Service. If I, when in opposition, had got to my feet and said that all judges of the High Court were similarly in a position of being corrupted, I would have been told to resume my seat for daring to criticise members of the judiciary. Honourable senators opposite had it for 23 years. They did in fact stack certain organisations, including the High Court, with political appointees. We did not do that. We appointed highly respectable members of the Public Service to these positions, and honourable senators opposite are suggesting that these people are all corrupt and prepared to do exactly what the Government says. If that sort of argument is used, we could bring evidence before this Senate that would show that the stacking has never been done by the Labor Party when in office but that it was done by the Liberal Party when in office, even to the extent that every person who in any way challanged a former Prime Minister of this country, now Sir Robert Menzies, was booted upstairs into the High Court, a High Commission, into London -

Senator McLaren:

– And the GovernorGeneral.

Senator POYSER:

-Yes, or into the Governor-Generalship. We have not done this. These men are responsible, top public servants who have been appointed on their merits. The implication by Senator Durack that they were put there for ulterior purposes is something that I thought he would never introduce in this chamber.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I am rather surprised at the way in which Senator Durack talked about Mr Gibbs. Before Mr Gibbs came on the scene, I met the Board of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and told Sir Arthur Petfield, who unfortunately is now deceased, that I intended to nominate him as a member of the new Commission, and he was pleased to know about that. Why should not Mr Gibbs be the chairman of this group? I have explained its relationship to the telecommunications area. In future, when international subscriber trunk dialling comes, we will have a new responsibility to encourage people to get outside the gateway. In addition, why should we not appoint Mr Lawler? A few hours ago Senator Durack was putting up a great plea about having the Minister’s influence on the Commissions noted. Now he intends to move another amendment that will give the Minister another influence on the Telecommunications Commission. So, we have put a representative on those Interim Commissions, the Secretary of the Department of the Special Minister of State, Mr Lawler, in one case, and Mr Payne in the other. It allows them to work more closely with the Government. The other member of the Board who has not been mentioned is Mr Turnbull. He has been there for many years, and he is in favour of the proposition which the Government is putting.

I come now to the aspect of union activity. Generally when there is shop floor activity the Opposition becomes highly critical, but in the case of OTC all sorts of assistance and wide encouragement have been given by the management to give everybody who had a grievance against the change to publicise it and to make his views well known. The answer in respect of those organisations lies with the people in the trade union group. They are the people one has to talk to. As I have said, all the people working in that group, with the exception of the professional engineers, I think it was, who have made a more recent overture resisting the change, have supported the proposition.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator R. E. McAuliffe)

AYES: 27

NOES: 25

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

In sub-clause (3) leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).

That amendment, along with a large number of others, is consequential upon the one that has just been agreed to. Do you want to deal with them one by one, Mr Temporary Chairman?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

– We shall deal with the amendments one by one.

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral (10.48)- I just want to say that we do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment but we want our opposition to it recorded.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Extension of Act to Territories).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition opposes clause 4. This is another consequential amendment.

Clause negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6.

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Commission are-

    1. to plan, establish, maintain and operate telecommunications services within Australia and between Australia and places outside Australia;
    2. to operate such other services as the Commission is authorized by this Act to operate;
    3. to provide, at the request of the Australian Government, technical assistance outside Australia in relation to the planning, establishment, maintenance and operation of telecommunication services in countries outside Australia; and
    4. to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.
  2. The functions of the Commission do not extend to the planning, establishment, maintenance or operation of telecommunications services for the transmission of information between places within Norfolk Island, within the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands or within the Territory of Christmas Island.
  3. In this section, ‘Australia’ includes the prescribed external Territories.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:

In sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (a), leave out ‘and between Australia and places outside Australila’.

Again, this amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Leave out sub-clauses (2) and (3).

This amendment is again consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7.

  1. 1 ) The Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will, in the opinion of the Commission, best meet the reasonable needs of the Australian people for telecommunications services.
  2. It is the duty of the Commission, in performing its functions to comply with the provisions of any convention to the extent that it imposes obligations on Australia in relation to matters within the functions of the Commission.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– My proposed amendments to clause 7 are exactly the same as the amendments that the Opposition proposed to a similar clause- I think the clause bore the same number- in the Postal Services Bill. My amendments are designed to extend and amplify the Commission’s obligations and to give the Minister powers of direction. The Minister has proposed an amendment in somewhat different words, and again I am prepared to accept those words and to withdraw my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McAuliffe:

- Senator Durack, you have not moved your original amendment. Would you like to follow the same procedure as you did last time and move the amendments proposed by Senator Bishop as the new clause 7?

Senator DURACK:

-That is what I thought I did say, that I withdrew my amendments and adopted the wording of the amendments moved by the Minister. I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 7A agreed to.

Clause 8 to 10- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 1 1.

  1. 1 ) The Commission may, from time to time, make, with the approval of the Minister, determinations fixing or varying

    1. the rentals payable in respect of standard telephone services provided by the Commission;
    2. the charges for telephone calls made from a place within Australia or a prescribed external Territory by means of the telephone system controlled by the Commission, other than charges for special services provided by the Commission in connexion with those calls; and
    3. the charges for the transmission of telegrams that are lodged at telegraph offices otherwise than by means of a telecommunications service provided by the Commission.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Amendment No. 8 is consequent on the decision the Senate has taken already in relation to OTC. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Again, my amendment No. 9 is a consequential amendment for the insertion of words. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 15.

  1. Before entering upon land in pursuance of sub-section ( 1 ), the Commission shall take all reasonable steps to notify the owner and occupier of the land of its intention to do so.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:

This is a separate amendment. It has nothing to do with OTC, and it relates- indeed, a number of amendments proposed by the Opposition relate to this part of the Bill- to the powers of the Commission to enter on to land and to do work on land. This particular amendment seeks really to make the position of the owner and occupier of the land stronger than it is now. The present subclause in the Bill provides that before the Commission can enter upon any land- and it will be doing that for various purposes that are detailed later- it will take all reasonable steps to notify the owner and occupier of the land of its intention to do so. This is a commendable step forward and an improvement on the present provision in the Posts and Telegraph Act, whereby no notice is required at all.

The Opposition cannot understand why there should be different provisions in regard to notice. This particular provision does not require that the notice should be in writing and served on the owner and occupier of the land. It could be satisfied, presumably, by a telephone call before coming on to the land, and it is noticeable that in other clauses in this Part the Bill does provide that the Commission must give and serve notice in writing of its intention. For instance, in clause 17 it is provided in regard to the Commission’s powers to cut down trees, undergrowth, and so on, so we cannot see any reason why there should be any difference in this wording.

We consider that the proper provision is that the Commission shall serve notice in writing on the owner and occupier of the land. What that obligation amounts to in clause 98 is how service of any notice can be affected. It can be done quite reasonably, without any doubt, by the Commission. There seems to be no practical reason why the Commission should not actually have the obligation of serving the notice in writing on the owner before going on to his land, and the amendment amounts to that.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

-We think that the present prescription is all right, but we do not object to the suggested inclusion. We have also circulated an amendment in relation to subclause 2.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I will come to that.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (2), after ‘to notify ‘insert ‘in writing’.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I think this is quite unnecessary. The amendment that the Committee has just agreed to provides for notice in writing.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– As there is likely to be some debate on this matter, in accordance with sessional orders I now put the question:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

page 1610

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Home Renal Dialysis Treatment (Question No. 491)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the grant of $310,000 announced on 25 February by the Australian Government for home renal dialysis represent an amount sufficient to cover the needs of all those persons requiring this treatment.
  2. If it did not, what guide lines does the Government intend to lay down to ration the therapy and to decide which patients should and which patients should not get treatment.
  3. If there is such a programme of rationing, what reports will be made on its functioning and to whom will these be made.
  4. Will Parliament see or have access to such reports.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 472 (Senate Hansard of 2 1 April 1975 at page 1183).

International Energy Conference (Question No. 496)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is the Australian Government aware of a plan by Middle East oil producers, led by Algeria, to turn the forthcoming international energy summit meeting into a platform for the promotion of cartels of raw material producers to the detriment of consumers.
  2. Does this plan require the support of nations with a developed economy like Australia, Canada or South Africa for its success.
  3. Does the Australian Government propose to join in resources diplomacy at the expense of Great Britain and other western nations by falling in with this plan.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

A Preparatory Conference was held in Paris from 7-14 April 1975 to consider arrangements for an International Energy Conference later in 1975. It was not possible to reach agreement on an agenda at the Preparatory Conference. Australia did not participate.

In the event that a high level international energy meeting is arranged in the future the Australian Government will consider its attitude to that meeting at that time and in the light of the agenda proposed.

Great Barrier Reef Petroleum Drilling Royal Commission (Question No. 456)

Senator Wright:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. On what date was the Report of the Royal Commissions into exploratory and production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef issued.
  2. What was the cost of the Report.
  3. What fees were paid to each individual Commissioner.
  4. ) What was the cost of travelling expenses.
  5. What was the cost of witnesses’ expenses.
  6. What was the cost of printing.
  7. What was the amount of other costs incurred.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Report was released to the public on 19 December 1974. Copies were sent to all members and senators on the same date. The Report was tabled on 1 1 February 1975.
  2. to (7) The information in the precise form sought by the honourable senator is not readily available. However, the following table fully sets out the costs incurred by the Commission. Some accounts are still to come to hand and the final expenditure is expected to be in the order of $776,500.

Unemployment Relief (Question No. 478)

Senator Bessell:

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

Will the Minister provide to the Senate details on unemployment as at the end of February 1 975 in respect of (a ) the current monthly cost of the Regional Employment Development Scheme, (b) the current monthly costs of the National Employment and Training Scheme, (c) the current monthly costs of the Income Averaging plan, and (d) other current costs associated with unemployment relief.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

Under the Regional Employment Development Scheme projects to the value of $9 1.8m had been approved at the end of February 1975. Of this, $73.4m will be met by the Australian Government.

During February 1975 expenditure under the National Employment and Training System and the Structural Adjustment Assistance Income Maintenance Scheme and in respect of Unemployment Benefit was $2.215m, $6. 133m and $34. 1 m respectively.

Sunbury Rock Festival (Question No. SOO)

Senator Chaney:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Government receive any request to provide financial assistance to the promoters of the Sunbury Rock Festival which was held in January 1 975; and, if so, what decision has been made by the Government.
  2. Has the Government provided financial assistance for any similar festivals either directly or through any organisation funded by the Australian Government.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. An application from Odessa Productions Pty Ltd was made in August 1 974 to the Community Arts Program of the Australian Council for the Arts for support of the second stage area of the Sunbury Festival held in January 197S. A grant of $5,000 was given by the Council in November 1974 on condition that the Arts Council of Australia (Victorian Division) should be the administrator, and on the further condition that the grant should be towards the costs of Ballet Victoria, Alexander Theatre Company, The Craft Association of Victoria and The Australian Performing Group for their participation in the Festival.
  2. The Council through the Community Arts Program has given assistance to several multi-media festivals which contain a rock music component, namely the Orange Festival of the Arts, the Aquarius Festival at Nimbin and the Waratah Spring Festival.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750520_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant